Developing the Curriculum [9 ed.] 0134800389, 9780134800387

Citation preview

The Pearson Educational Leadership Series

DEVELOPING THE CURRICULUM Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches NINTH EDITION

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

@ Pearson

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

CoverArt: Drafter] 23/Digital Vision 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 fromother source s 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. Allrights 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 anyform 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 ofsuch marks,or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., authors,licensees,or distributors.

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available onfile at the Library of Congress.

@ Pearson

nie 01340089 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-480038-7

In memoryofPeter F. Oliva, whose rich academic career contributed to the development of curriculum leaders across

the United States andglobally. For mywife, Patty; our children, Whitney and Trey; and my mother and father,

Marcelyn and William; and mysister, Pam; and my aunt, Mary. ‘William R. Gordon, IT

For my son, Jay,

and education leaders who have supported mycontinuouslearning. Rosemarye T. Taylor

ABOUT THE AUTHORS William R. Gordon II has served as a teacher, instructional leader, and district-level executive leaderin Florida. As both an elementary and

high school principal, he became known for his deep understanding of curriculum and instruction, thoughtleadership, and systems approachesin the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS)school sys-

tem. 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 per-

cent of high schools in the nation. While in OCPShe became an area

superintendent, where he wasresponsiblefor the curriculum, instruc-

tion and student and teacher performance in 29 diverse schools serving approximately 35,000 students. After serving in OCPS, he becamethechiefoperations officerat 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) divisionin the district. The AAA division established enterprise-wide data collection, data anal-

ysis, and predictive analyticsas 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, whichis funded by the Florida Education Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Florida

Departmentof Education. This programis established to build a corpus ofhighly effective edu-

cators 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 backgroundin teaching and leading in Georgia and Florida. She also served as national director of

professional developmentfor Scholastic, Inc. Since joiningthe fac-

ulty 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 addr ing 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 improveliteracy and learning across student pop-

ulations. Currently, she is professor of educational leadership working with master’s degree and doctoral students, while continuing to actively support schools and schooldistricts in their missionsto serve all students.

iv

PREFACE The ninth edition ofDeveloping the Curriculum: Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches continues to serve as a comprehensive analysis ofsystematic curriculum developmentto 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 ofstandards implementation and accountability for student learning outcomes. In providing a comprehensive view ofthefield of curriculum development, by illuminating various historical and twenty-first century approaches to this field, we present evidence based content relevantto today’s curriculum specialists and instructional leadersin school districts and schools.

NEW TO THIS EDITION

Althoughthe samebasic overall structure of previous editions remains in place; several changes have been made in updating this edition to makethe 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 leaderin the field of education, shares his

contemporary experience and knowledge of leading traditional and virtual education in this edition. With the passing ofthe original author, Peter F. Oliva, Dr. Gordon replaces

him as the lead author.

+ Rosemarye T. Taylor, professor ofeducational 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 per-

spective, topicslike ESSA, digital directions, English Learners, science oflearning, and

standards based curriculum systems (instruction and assessment) have been added or expanded upon. Academic language and literature throughoutthe 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 whichreflects trends and research in this dynamic area of educational

curriculum, instruction, delivery, assessment, and data analysis. The concepts ofinnovative practicesin 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 informcurricular and instructional practices presented. Furthermore, a new forum forfree digital content, Open Education Resources, as well as a section ondigital ethics, are featured. * Chapter 8 has been deleted and content has been infused throughout other chapters appropriate. * Chapter 15 has been deleted and future directionsin curriculum development, implementation, and a: mentare infused as appropriate throughoutthe text and in the last chapter. * References now appearat the end ofeach chapter and are in APA 6th edition formatto aid

the reader by more casily situating authors and the time oftheir work.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS William R. Gordon II has served as a teacher, instructional leader, and district-level executive leaderin Florida. As both an elementary and

high school principal, he became known for his deep understanding of curriculum and instruction, thoughtleadership, and systems approachesin the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS)school sys-

tem. 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 per-

cent of high schools in the nation. While in OCPShe became an area

superintendent, where he wasresponsiblefor the curriculum, instruc-

tion and student and teacher performance in 29 diverse schools serving approximately 35,000 students. After serving in OCPS, he becamethechiefoperations officerat 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) divisionin the district. The AAA division established enterprise-wide data collection, data anal-

ysis, and predictive analyticsas 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, whichis funded by the Florida Education Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Florida

Departmentof Education. This programis established to build a corpus ofhighly effective edu-

cators 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 backgroundin teaching and leading in Georgia and Florida. She also served as national director of

professional developmentfor Scholastic, Inc. Since joiningthe fac-

ulty 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 addr ing 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 improveliteracy and learning across student pop-

ulations. Currently, she is professor of educational leadership working with master’s degree and doctoral students, while continuing to actively support schools and schooldistricts in their missionsto serve all students.

iv

BRIEF CONTENTS Part |

Part Il

Part lll

Part IV

THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions 2

Chapter 1

Curriculum and Instruction Defined

Chapter 2

Principles of Curriculum Development

18

Chapter 3

Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process 48

Chapter4

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

71

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the Curriculum System Development Process 93 Chapter5

Models for Curriculum System Development

Chapter 6 Chapter 7

Philosophy and Aims of Education 108 Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

Chapter8

Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

⑬⑦

177

CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 10

94

160

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and

Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets

Part VI

47

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of Personnel

Chapter 9

Part V

1

178

197

Evidence Based Instruction

EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS

219

220

Chapter 11

Evaluation of Instruction

Chapter 12

Evaluation of the Curriculum

243

LOOKING FORWARD IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 261 Chapter 13

Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction

262

vii

CONTENTS Part!

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 Curriculum as a Discipline 11 Curriculum Specialists

8

⑭

Summary 15 + Application 16 + Reflection and Inquiry 16 +* Websites 16 +

References

16

Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Clarification of Terms

18

Sources of Curriculum Principles Typesof Principles Ten Axioms 21

⑲

20

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 Sectors of Development Sectors Beyond the State

50

60 61

Summary 67 * Application 68 ・ Reflection and Inquiry 68 + Websites ⑥⑧ ・ Suggested Readings 68 ® References 69

Chapter 4 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: THE HUMAN DIMENSION 71 The School and School District as a Unique Blend

В

viii

Role of Curriculum Team Members

72

71

18

Contents

The Curriculum Specialist and the Team Process The Change Process 79

79

Summary 90 + Application 90 + Reflection and Inquiry 91 + Suggested Readings 91 + References 91

Part Il! CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the Curriculum System Development Process 93 Chapter 5 MODELS FOR CURRICULUM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Selecting Models 94 Models of Curriculum Development

95

94

Summary 106 + Application 106 + Reflectionand Inquiry 107 + Websites 107 + References 107

Chapter 6 PHILOSOPHY AND AIMS OF EDUCATION Using the Proposed Models

108

Aims of Education: Mission or Purpose Philosophies of Education 117 Formulating a Philosophy

108

109

129

Examples of Educational Philosophies

131

Summary 133 e 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 Needsof Students: Levels

139 140

Needsof Students: Types 142 Needsof Society: Levels 144 Needsof Society: Types

148

Needs Derived From the Subject Matter 151 Stepsin 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 Hierarchy of Curriculum System Components Defining Curriculum Goals and Objectives

TS)

161

160

160

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

PartIV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

177

Chapter 9 INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS 178 Planning forInstruction

⑰⑧

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives

or Learning Targets Defined

179

Historical Perspective 180 Guidelinesfor 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

Chapter 11 EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION AssessingInstruction

219 220

220

Collaborative Assessment Planning Assessment 221

220

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 e 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 e Reflection and Inquiry 257 + Websites 257 + Suggested Readings 258 ・ References 258

PART VI LOOKING FORWARDIN

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

261

Chapter 13 TRENDS IN DIGITAL CURRICULUM AND

INSTRUCTION

262

Educational Technology 262 Digital Learning (Online Learning) Personalized Learning Netiquette 274

266

269

Summary 276 e Application 276 + Reflection and Inquiry 276 Websites 276 + Suggested Reading 277 + References 277

Credits

279

Name Index 281 Subject Index 284

xi

This page intentionallyleft blank

The Curriculum Theoretical Dimensions

Chapter1

Curriculum and Instruction Defined

Chapter2

Principles of Curriculum Development

CHAPTER 1

Learning Outcomes

CONCEPTIONS OF CURRICULUM

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Define curriculum for

GaiusJulius Caesar and his cohorts of the first century BC had no

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.

idea that the oval track on which the Roman chariots raced would

bequeath a word used almostdaily by educators 21 centurieslater.

The track—the curriculum—is a majorfocusof today’s educational

leaders asthey seek to create and implementthe 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 implicationsof curriculum in serving the students” needs and in making progress with student learning as measuredofficially, 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 muse-

ums, 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 changesin brick and mortar schools, virtual schools, and in curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation (Wright, 2000). These and other contemporary curriculum

conceptsare addressed throughout chapters in this text.

Various definitions of curriculum have been generated since as long ago as 1976, when Dwayne Huebner(1976) ascribed ambi-

guity 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 cur-

riculum (p. xv). Indeed, curriculum seemsat timesanalogousto 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).

Contents

The Curriculum Specialist and the Team Process The Change Process 79

79

Summary 90 + Application 90 + Reflection and Inquiry 91 + Suggested Readings 91 + References 91

Part Il! CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the Curriculum System Development Process 93 Chapter 5 MODELS FOR CURRICULUM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Selecting Models 94 Models of Curriculum Development

95

94

Summary 106 + Application 106 + Reflectionand Inquiry 107 + Websites 107 + References 107

Chapter 6 PHILOSOPHY AND AIMS OF EDUCATION Using the Proposed Models

108

Aims of Education: Mission or Purpose Philosophies of Education 117 Formulating a Philosophy

108

109

129

Examples of Educational Philosophies

131

Summary 133 e 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 Needsof Students: Levels

139 140

Needsof Students: Types 142 Needsof Society: Levels 144 Needsof Society: Types

148

Needs Derived From the Subject Matter 151 Stepsin 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 Hierarchy of Curriculum System Components Defining Curriculum Goals and Objectives

TS)

161

160

160

ix

4

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

= + + + +

Curriculum is a program or course of study. Curriculum is a set of materials and resources. Curriculum is a sequence ofcourses. 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 ofschool and outside of school. + Curriculum is everythingthat is planned by school personnel. + Curriculum is a seriesof experiences undergone by learners in school. In theforegoing definitions, you can see that curriculum canbe conceived in a narrow way as theofficial curriculum of the standardsthatare to be taughtin specific grade levels and content areasorthe unofficial or hidden curriculum of the other experiencesthat 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. Theinstructional

leader who accepts the definition of curriculum as standardsto be learned, faces a much simpler task than the school leaders who take responsibility for experiences ofthe learner both inside the classroomsand beyond, maybe even to whatis learned outside of school.

Historical Conceptions of Curriculum

A variety of nuancesare perceived when professional educators define curriculum. Trace how a number ofwriters betweenthe carly twentieth and carly twenty-first centuries conceptualized curriculum.Franklin Bobbitt (1918), one of the earliest writers on curriculum, perceived curriculum as: that seriesof 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 butas “all the experienceschildren have underthe guidanceofteachers” (p. 66). Ralph W. Tyler's (1949) writings pointed the way to “educational objectives” that “represent the kinds of changes in behaviorthat an educationalinstitution seeks to bring aboutin its students” (p. 6).

Hilda Taba (1962), in a discussionofcriteria for providingsetsoflearning opportunities for curriculum development, said, “A curriculum is a plan forlearning” (p. 11). She defined curriculum

by listing its elements. Taba (1962, p. 10) explained that every curriculum globally contains commonelements, such as goals and objectives, and distinct content selections and organizational

approaches that inform stylesof learning and teaching, concluding with an

ogy to determine whether the objectives were met.

assessment methodol-

different approachto 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 ofstudents whenthey begin the study ofthe content. Mauritz

Johnson Jr (1967), agreed basically with Gagné (1967) whenhe defined curriculum as

a “structured series ofintended 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 programand dividedit into

four basic elements:

“(1) the program ofstudies, (2) the program ofexperiences, (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 arereadily apparent. To these elements Oliver added the concept of a hidden curriculum,

which encompassesvalues promotedby theschool, differing emphases givenby different teachers within the samesubject areas, the degree of enthusiasm of teachers, and the physical and social climate ofthe school. J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and ArthurJ. Lewis (1981) offered this definition:

“We define curriculumas a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for personsto be

educated,” (p. 8-9).

Asthe years progress you will notice a broadening of some conceptionsof 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 includetheentire culture ofthe school—not just subject matter content” (pp. 61-62). Expressingthe view that the word “curriculum” has cometo meanonlya course of study,”

D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly (1992) held curriculum to be noless than “a course oflife” led by teachersas curriculum makers (p. 393). Ronald C. Doll (1996) defined the curriculum of a schoolas: “the formal and informal con-

tent and process by which learnersgain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, andalter

attitudes, appreciations, and values underthe auspices of that school” (p. 15). Departing from a definition of curriculum as “school materials,” William F. Pina

M. Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter M. Taubman (1996) described curriculum representation,” (p. 16). These authorssaid:

Curriculum understood as symbolic representation refers to those institutional and discursive practices, structures, images. and experiencesthat can be identified and analyzed in various ways, i.e., politically,racially, autobiographically. phenomenological. 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 a planfor action or written documentthat includes strategies for achieving desired goals or ends,”(p. 10).

Emphasizingthe role of curriculum in the continuing growth oflearning andlearners, Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner (2007) proposedthe followingdefinition: “The authors regard curriculum asthat reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow in exercising intelligent control ofsubsequent knowledge and experience” (p. 99). Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi (2007) also saw “the curriculum as a desired goal or set ofvalues that can be activated through a developmentprocess culminating in experiencesforstudents” (p. 5). James McKiernan (2008) saw curriculum “concerned with whatis planned, implemented, learned, evaluated, and researched in schoolsat all levels ofeducation” (p. 4). Regarding the various interpretations of curriculum, Peter Hlebowitsh (2005) commented, “When we begin tothink about the curriculum as strictly professional and school-based term, a

number ofdifferent interpretive slants on what comprises

the curriculum comes

into play” (p. 1).

Definitions by Purposes, Contexts, and Strategies Differencesin substance ofdefinitions ofcurriculum, while they exi

re not as great or as com-

mon asdifferen n the components that the curriculum theorists include in their conceptions of the term. Sometheorists elaborate more while others combine elements of both curriculum and instruction, a problem that will be examinedlaterin this chapter. Othersfind a definition of

5

6

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

curriculum in (a) purposes or goals ofthe curriculum, (b) contexts within which the curriculum is found,(c) instructionalstrategies used,or(d) standardsto be learned. PURPOSES. The search for a definition of curriculum is clouded when the theoretician responds to the term, notin the context of what curriculum is, but in whatit does or should do—thatis, its

purpose. On the purposesof 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 partofthe learner,is not concrete. The same statement could bestated

morespecifically: The purposeof the curriculum is the developmentofreflective thinking on the part of the learner. A statement of what the curriculum is meant to achieve does little to help us

sharpena definition ofcurriculum andclarifying and specifying the purpose of the curriculum is a wise move for curriculum developers. CONTEXTS. Definitions ofcurriculum sometimesstatethe settings within which it takes shape. When theoreticians speak of an essentialist curriculum, a student-centered curriculum, ora 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 culturalheritage to studentsin the organizeddisciplines, and to prepare them for the future. This curriculum arisesfrom a special philosophicalcontext of the essentialist school of philosophy. A learner-centered curriculum clearly reveals its orientation: the learner, whois the primary focus ofthe progressive school of philosophy. The developmentofthe individual learner in all aspects of growth may be inferred, but the plans for that developmentvary considerably from school to school. The curriculum of a school following re-constructionist philosophical beliefs

aims to educatein such a waythatlearners will be capableof solving someof society's pressing problems and,therefore, change society forthe better. STRATEGIES. While purpose and context are sometimesoffered as definitions

of curriculum, an

additional complexity arises when the theoretician equates curriculum with instructionalstrategy. Some theoreticians isolate certain instructional variables, such as processes,strategies, ortech-

niques,and then proceed to equate themwith curriculum. The curriculum asa problem-solving process illustrates an attemptto define curriculum in termsof an instructional process—problemsolving techniques, the scientific method, orreflective thinking. The curriculum as personalized

learning, perhaps delivered digitally or onlineis a system by which learnersencounter curricular content through a mode ofinstruction. Neither purpose, nor context,norstrategy provides a clear basis for defining curriculum.

CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS Among prominent conceptions of curriculum is the classification of curriculum as curriculum objectivesor 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 oneor the other or both. Originally, the term used was performance or behavioral objective. Tyler's advocacyin ‘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 responsible,” (p. 48). In designingthe curriculum, planners would cast these learning outcomesor objectivesin 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 ofall instructional

objectives. You will encounter in this text an approachthat distinguishes curriculum goals (overarching ideas) and curriculumobjectives(standards) from instructional goals (essential questions,

big ideas) and objectives(learning targets). You will see laterthat standardsare derived from

overarchingideas and aimsofeducation (mission or purpose), and learning targets are derived from essential questions orbig ideas and from overarching ideas and standards. Both standards

andlearning targets can bestatedin 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 continueto 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

standardsorobjectives is quite different from the big concept ofthe curriculum as a plan, a pro-

gram, or a seguenceofcourses.

Inthistext,the official curriculumis perceived as a plan or programforall the experiences that the learner encounters undertheinstructional leadership ofthe schoolor schooldistrict. This official curriculum includes the curriculum objectives or standards that students are expected 10 master within a specific grade level or content area, andare often those for which educators are held accountable through various metrics. As curriculumis presented within the text, think

about the official curriculum and notall the extensionsor experiencesthat students mayhave

while moving throughtheir schooling or education. In practice, the official curriculum consists of a number ofplans, 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 schooldistricts entire programofstudies—and maybe encounteredinside or outside ofclass or school whenled bythe personnel ofthe school.

TABLE 1.1

Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language

Traditional Academic Language

Standards Based Academic Language

Aims

Mission or purpose

Curriculum goals Curriculum objectives Instructional goals

Overarching idea Standards

Instructional objectives

Learning targets(short-term measurable outcomes)

Measures

Successcriteria (evidence)

Assessments/tests

Formative assessments(informal or formal check on progress towards

Essential question (big idea)

standard, goal, orlearning targetto inform instruction)

Summative assessment (measure of progress toward proficiency on a standard, goal, orlearning target)

7

8

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION The searchto clarify the meaningof curriculum reveals uncertainty aboutthe 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 meansused to teach that whichis 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 moreindividuals intendingto learn” (p. 138). James B. Macdonald and Robert R. Leeper (1965) viewed curricularactivity as the

production of plans forfurther action, andinstruction as the putting of plansinto operation. Thus, according to MacDonald and Leeper, curriculum planning precedesinstruction, a premise with which this text is aligned (McDonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5-6). In the course ofplanning foreither 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 instructionare subsystemsof a largersystem of education. Models of the Curriculum-Instruction Relationship

Definitions of the twotermsare valuable but can obscure the interdependence of these two systems. Thatthe relationship between the what andthe howofeducation is noteasily determined can beseenin several different modelsofthis relationship. For lack ofbetter terminology, academic language for these models are: (a) dualistic model, (b) interlocking model, (c) concentric model, and (d) cyclical model. Each curriculum-instruction modelhasits 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. Betweenthe twoentitieslies a great abyss. What takes place in the classroom seemsto havelittle relationship to the master plan of curriculum or learning intentions. The curriculum developers or designers do not engage with the instructors. Di ons of curriculumare divorced from their practical classroom implementations. Under

this modelthe curriculumand the instruction may cach change without significantly affecting one another. FIGURE 1.1

The Dualistic Model

Curriculum

Instruction

Instruction |

Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined

o Curriculum

INTERLOCKING MODEL.

FIGURE 1.2 The Interlocking Model

B

Instruction

Instruction

Curriculum

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 samerelation-

ship is implied no matter which element appears on the left or the right. These models clearly

demonstrate an integratedrelationship between these two entities. The separation of one from the other would impacteffectiveness of both. Curriculum developers would findit difficult to regard instruction as paramountto curricu-

lum and to determineteaching methodsbefore program development. Nevertheless, someinstructors may proceedasif instruction is primary by dispensing with advanceplanningofinstruction based on the curriculum and byletting curriculum develop aslearning proceeds in theclassroom. ‘CONCENTRIC MODELS. The preceding models of the relationship between curriculum and

instruction reveal varying degreesof independence, from complete detachment to an interlock-

ing relationship. Mutual dependenceis the key feature of concentric models. Two conceptions of the curriculum-instruction relationship that show one as the subsystem ofthe other can be seen

in Figure 1.3. Variations A and B both convey theideathat one ofthe entities occupies a super-

ordinate position while the otheris subordinate. Concentric model A makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum, whichis itself a subsystem of the whole system of education. Concentric model B subsumes curriculum within the subsystem instruction. A clear hierarchicalrelationship is in both these models. Curriculum ranks aboveinstruction in model A and instructionis predominant in model B. In model A,instruction

A

B

9

FIGURE 1.3 The Concentric Model

This page intentionallyleft blank

Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined

of continuous improvementofboth curriculum and instruction informedbyfeedback (data and

evidence), this model may hold the most promise for practitioners in roles that include orrelate

to curriculum developmentand design.

CURRICULUM AS A DISCIPLINE

In spite ofits elusive character, curriculumis a discipline or a majorfield ofstudy 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, curriculumevaluation, secondary schoolcurriculum, elementary school curriculum, middle schoolcurriculum, community college curriculum, and—on fewer occasions—

university curriculum.

The Characteristics of a Discipline To arrive at a decision as to whetheran area ofstudyis a discipline, the question might be raised, “Whatarethe characteristics ofa discipline?”If the characteristics of a discipline can be spelled out, it can be determined whetheror not curriculum is a discipline. PRINCIPLES. Anydiscipline worthyof study has an organized set of theoretical constructs or

principles that governsit. Certainly, thefield of curriculum has developed significantset of principles,tried and untried, proven and unproven, many ofwhich 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 setofideas. Using the constructs ofbalance 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 and multiculturalism are examplesof constructs incorporated into one or more curriculum studies, principles.

A major characteristic of any theoretical principleis its capacity forbeing generalized and

applied in more than onesituation. Were curriculum theories but one-shot solutionsto specific

problems, it would bedifficult to defend the conceptofcurriculum asa discipline. The principles of curriculumtheory are often successful efforts to establish rules that can be repeated in similar situations and under similar conditions. Generally, the conceptofbalance should be incorporated

into every curriculum. However, controversy may arise overa principle that might be stated as,

The first step in curriculum planning is the specification ofbehavioralobjectives. 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. Anydiscipline encompassesa bodyof knowledge andskills perti-

nentto that discipline. Thefield 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 disciplinesofsociology, psychology, and specific core content like mathematics. Organization ofthe curriculum depends on knowledgefromorganizational theory and instructional leadership, whichare aspects ofschool

Discipline

| Page 11

⑪

⑫

Part] + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

FIGURE 1.5 Sources of the Curriculum Field

Technology

Communication

Psychology

Philosophy

=

Subject

Management

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 curriculumas a concept draws heavily on whatis known about learn-

ing, growth, and development (psychology and biology), on philosophy (particularly from one

school of philosophy, progressivism), and on sociology. The essentialist curriculumborrows from the areasof 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 otherdisciplines. Certainly, a good dealofthinking and researchis going on in the nameofcurriculum. New curricularideas are being generated continuously,such asthose emerging from social and political theories related to multi-culturalism and culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy (Wright, 2000). New ideas, whetherthey be character education, techni-

cal education, or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, borrow

heavily from other disciplines. Asthose who study educational leadership you will be familiar with an example from the field ofsocial psychology. Generally accepted is the notionthat a curriculum changes only when the people affected have changed. This principle, drawn from the field ofsocial psychology and

aD

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 telephonerelays were more productive whenthey were consulted and made to feel of value to the organization. Making the employeesfeel important resulted in greater productivity than manipulating the physical environment (e.g., lightingin the factory). Thefeeling of being important to the research studies also created its ownaura, 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 effectis one that researchers may discount,for it

can obscurethe hypothesized or realcausesfor change. However, the educational leader who is aware of the HawthorneEffect may take advantage ofit to motivate students to engagein learning andteachers to engage in collaboration to improveeffectiveness.

Aninstructional leaderis the person whoactsas a catalyst or agent for bringing about change in effectiveness ofteachers and improvement in student learning outcomes by focusing on the creation of an environment with the priority of learning (Hattie, 2009). How does the

instructionalleaderdo this? He or she makes use of knowledge andskills from a number offields:

communicationtheory, leadership theory,organizational theory,psychology of groups, research, and other areas. How doestheinstructional leader help teachersto carry out the change once they have subscribed to it? He or she applies principles and skills from leadership, professional learning, knowledge of thestructure of disciplines, and from otherareas.

Consequently, the field of curriculum requires the use of an amalgamation of knowledge andskills from manydisciplines. That curriculum theory andpracticeare derived from other disciplines does notin any way diminish the importance ofthe field. The observation ofits derived

nature simply characterizesits 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 curriculumin turn makesits own potent

impact onthe disciplines from which it is derived. Through curricular research, experimenta-

tion, and application, content areas are modified; learning theoriesare corroborated, revised, or rejected; leadership and supervisory techniquesare implemented or changed:and philosophical positions are examined. THEORETICIANS AND PRACTITIONERS. À discipline has its theoreticians and its practiti

Certainly, the field of curriculum has an array of people laboring in its name. Mention hasalready

been made of someofthe titlesthey 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 curriculumspecialist.

Curriculum specialists make a numberof distinctive contributionsto their field. Specialists

know the typesofcurricula that have workedin the past, under what conditions, and with whom

successresulted. Since continuousimprovementis expected,specialists must be well grounded in thehistorical developmentofthe 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 concept capacity specialists draw on the past and conceive new arrangements, adaptationsof existing approaches, or completely new approaches.Alternative formsofschools, for example, are newer

arrangements and approaches for the same general goal of education. While curriculum specialists are engaging in the process ofthinking beyond what

known, hoping to bring to light new theories; perhaps more curriculum specialists are morelikely Discipline | Pag

13

14

PartI + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

to be experts in application oftheory and research. These experts know the techniques of curriculum development that are mostlikely 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 innovationsthat give promise ofbringing about higher achievementin learners.

CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS

Curriculum specialists often make a unique contribution bycreatively transforming theory and knowledgeinto 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 ofthe discipline of curriculum, they also examine and

reexamine theory and knowledge fromtheir field and related fields. Awareness ofpast successes and failures elsewhere helps those who work in thefield 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 encouragestudy of curricular problems, comparisonsof plans and pro-

grams, results of new patterns of curriculum organization, and the histories of curriculum experiments, to indicate but a fewareas ofresearch. Specialists encourage the use ofresultsofresearch to continueefforts to improve the curriculum. While classroom teachers daily concern themselves with problems of curriculum and

instruction, the curriculum specialist is charged with thetask of providing leadership to administrators andteachers. Sincethere are manydifferenttypes of specialists in manydifferentlocations, you will find it difficult to generalize on their roles. Some curriculum specialists are generalists whose roles may belimited to leadership in curricular or programmatic planning or whose roles

may also encompass instructional planning and decision making.

Somecurriculum specialists confine themselves to certain grade levels or contentareas,

such as elementary, middle, or secondary school; community college; special education; reading, science; early childhood; and any contentarea that may be taught. What can be observed is that the rolesthe curriculum leader playsare 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 humanrelations expert,

* atheoretician, * adata analyst, subject matter expert, + an evaluator, * aresearcher, and + an instructor.

Curriculum Supervisors

Anadditionalclarification should be made atthis point thatis,the relationship betweenthe roles ofpersons 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 worksin three domains: instructional development; curriculum development: and teacherprofessional learning (Macdonald & Leeper, 1965). When the supervisor works in thefirst two domains, he orsheis an instructional/curriculum specialist oris often referred to as an “instructional supervisor or coordinator”

(Macdonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5-6). Thus,the curriculum specialist is a supervisor, one with morelimited 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, butthe curriculum specialist is not primarily con-

cerned with such activitiesas evaluatingteachers, which are more properly responsibilitiesofthe generalsupervisors. Role Variations

As with so many jobsin the field of education,difficulty arisesin attempting to draw firm lines that apply underall conditions and in all situations. To understand morefully the roles and functions ofeducational personnel, examine local practice. Teachers, curriculum specialists, and

supervisors all engage in activities to improve both curriculum and instruction. At times, their rolesare different and at othertimestheirrolesare similar. These personnel, all specialistsin their own right, frequently trade places to accomplish the task of improvementin learning outcomes.

Sometimesthey are one and the same person—theteacher who is his or her own curriculum spe-

cialist 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 ofcurricular offerings and how these offerings are implemented. Chapter 3 will describe roles ofpersonnel involved in curriculum development, including teachers,students, departmentchairs, lead teachers, team leaders, grade coordinators, administra-

tors, curriculum specialists, digital designers, supervisors, and stakeholders.

Summary Curriculum and instruction are viewed as separate

but dependent concepts. Curriculumis defined in a variety of ways by theoreticians. Thistext follows

the conceptof curriculum plan or program for the learning experiences thatthe learner encounters under

discussed. While all models havetheir strengths and

weaknesses, the cyclical model seemsto have particular merit forits emphasis on the reciprocity between curriculum and instruction.

Planning should begin with the programmatic,

thedirection of the school. Curriculum is guided by

thatis, with curriculum decisions, rather than with

schooldistrict, or educational organization.

with the broad aims of education and proceeds

theobjectives and standards adopted by the school, Instructionis perceived in these pages as the

means for making the curriculum operational, thatis. the techniquesthat teachers use to make the curriculum accessibleto the learners. In short, curriculum is program andinstruction is method. A number of models showing the relationship between curriculum and instruction have been

instructionaldecisions. Appropriate planning begins

through a continuum thatleads to the most detailed objectivesofinstruction. Curriculum is perceived as a discipline, albeit

a derived one that borrows conceptsand principles from manydisciplines. Many practitioners work in the field of curriculum, including specialists who make a career

4

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

= + + + +

Curriculum is a program or course of study. Curriculum is a set of materials and resources. Curriculum is a sequence ofcourses. 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 ofschool and outside of school. + Curriculum is everythingthat is planned by school personnel. + Curriculum is a seriesof experiences undergone by learners in school. In theforegoing definitions, you can see that curriculum canbe conceived in a narrow way as theofficial curriculum of the standardsthatare to be taughtin specific grade levels and content areasorthe unofficial or hidden curriculum of the other experiencesthat 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. Theinstructional

leader who accepts the definition of curriculum as standardsto be learned, faces a much simpler task than the school leaders who take responsibility for experiences ofthe learner both inside the classroomsand beyond, maybe even to whatis learned outside of school.

Historical Conceptions of Curriculum

A variety of nuancesare perceived when professional educators define curriculum. Trace how a number ofwriters betweenthe carly twentieth and carly twenty-first centuries conceptualized curriculum.Franklin Bobbitt (1918), one of the earliest writers on curriculum, perceived curriculum as: that seriesof 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 butas “all the experienceschildren have underthe guidanceofteachers” (p. 66). Ralph W. Tyler's (1949) writings pointed the way to “educational objectives” that “represent the kinds of changes in behaviorthat an educationalinstitution seeks to bring aboutin its students” (p. 6).

Hilda Taba (1962), in a discussionofcriteria for providingsetsoflearning opportunities for curriculum development, said, “A curriculum is a plan forlearning” (p. 11). She defined curriculum

by listing its elements. Taba (1962, p. 10) explained that every curriculum globally contains commonelements, such as goals and objectives, and distinct content selections and organizational

approaches that inform stylesof learning and teaching, concluding with an

ogy to determine whether the objectives were met.

assessment methodol-

different approachto 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 ofstudents whenthey begin the study ofthe content. Mauritz

Johnson Jr (1967), agreed basically with Gagné (1967) whenhe defined curriculum as

a “structured series ofintended 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 programand dividedit into

four basic elements:

“(1) the program ofstudies, (2) the program ofexperiences, (3) the program

Chapter 1 * Curriculum and Instruction Defined

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 ofCurriculumEvaluation. 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: Womenandteaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses Routledge.

relating 10 achievement. New York, NY:

Hicbowitsh, P. S. (2005). Designing the curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. CurriculumInquiry, 6(2), 156. Johnson, Jr. M. (1967 April). Definitions and modelsin 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 actionresearch. London, England: Routledge.

⑰

Oliver, A.L (1977). Curriculum improvement: À guide to problems,

principles, andprocess. New York. NY: Harper & Row. Ornstein, A. C.. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, andissues (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pinar, W. E. Reynolds, W. M.. Slattery. P., & Taubman. P.M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the studyof 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). Curriculumplanning forbetter teaching andlearning.

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). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NI: MerrilV/Prentice Hall. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. Wiles, J.. & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to practice. (Tth ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill/Prentice Hall. Wright, H. K. (2000, June-July). Nailing Jell-O to the wall: Pinpointing aspects ofstate-of-the-art curriculum theorizing. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 4-13.

CHAPTER 2

Learning Outcomes

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

The institution of education was created to serve the needs of soci-

ety and theinstitution responds or should respond to community

1. Describe the 10

and societalissues. A curriculum that is responsive to the needs of

axioms for curriculum developmentdiscussed in this chapter.

c

Tllustrate the waysthe curriculum is influenced by changesin society.

3. Describe limitations

affecting curriculum changesin a school

district andthe limitations within which a curriculum specialist functions.

4.

Applythe eight concepts of curriculum

construction.

the current environmentis sought by curriculum developersin their context. Somesituations that have influenced curricular changes are

poverty, employment needs, homelessness, environmental problems,

crime, drug addiction, healthissues, natural disasters, climate change, decreasing naturalresources, 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 numberof technological tools that are present in educational institutions. Because of societal

changes education leaders, including curriculum specialists, attend to expectationssuch as:

+ adequate mastery of standards, particularly language arts and mathematics,

+ emotional and physical health,

+ college or career ready,

* practicalarts of personalfinance, economics, and consumerism,

+ respect and tolerancefor diverse perspectives and cooperation with others whose perspectives vary from one’s own, + appreciation forthe arts through exposureto the various forms,

* preservation of the environment, and

* examination ofthe history to include causes, courses, and con-

sequencesfrom various perspectives.

If the curriculum is perceived as a planforthe learning experiences underthe direction ofthe school, its purposeis to be a vehicle thatincludes the depth, breadth, and orderof those experiences. This

process of providing the vehicle and keepingit 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 implementthroughtheir instruction with students; (b) curriculum 18

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development implementation, the translation ofplans into action orthe instruction provided by teachers; and (©) curriculum evaluation, those intermediate and final phases of development in which student learning outcomesare assessed and the viability ofthe curriculum’s implementationby the teacher

are analyzed. On occasion, curriculum revisionis used to referto the process for making changes in an existing curriculum orto the changes themselves,and is substituted for curriculum development or curriculumimprovement. You will return to thedistinctions among curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation when models ofcurriculum development are diagrammed and discussed in Chapter5.

Throughthe process of curriculum development, you can discover new waysfor providing moreeffective student learning experiences. Successful curriculum developers continuously strive to find research based approachesfor more efficient and effective meansto improvestudent

learning outcomes.

SOURCES OF CURRICULUM PRINCIPLES

Principlesserve as guidelinestodirect 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 ofscience and technology, theattitude often prevails that all principles mustbe scientifically derived from the results of research. Yet, even folklore and common sense can have their use. For example, the scientist has discovered that sometruths underlie ancient folk remedies for human maladies and that old wives’ tales are not alwaysthe ravings of demented witches. While

a garland of garlic hung aroundthe neck may or may notfend off vampires, and asafetida onthe

end of a fishing line may or may notlure fish ontothe hook, the aloe plant doesyield a soothing

ointmentfor burns, and the peppermint herb has reportedly relieved manya 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 decadesago, 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. Herejected “the pursuit of globalprinciples and comprehensivepatterns, the search for stable sequences and invariant elements, the construction oftaxonomiesofsupposedly fixed or recurrent kinds”

and recommendedinstead “three other modesofoperation . . . the practical,

the quasi-practical, and theeclectic” (Schwab, 1970, p. 2).

When curriculumplanning 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 imbuedare they witha scientific approachto 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

against toogreat a reliance on

warn

science forthe solution ofall educational problems. Whereassci

ence may help usfind solutionsto some problems, not all answers to educational problems of the day can be solved usinga scientific approach. Certainly, empirical data and other evidences are preferred over unsupported arguments. Butthere are times when, empirical data are absent or

19

20

Part] + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

empirical data do nottell 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.

Unlessa principle is established that is irrefutable due to objective data, some degree of judgment must be broughtinto play. Whenever judgment comesinto thepicture, the potential for controversy arises. Consequently, some of the principlesfor curriculum developmentprovoke controversy, while othersare generally acceptedasreasonable guidelines. Controversy occurs often dueto 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 attentionto the factthat the waysin which curriculum planning and selection are done,

how curricula are taught and evaluated, and who is and should be involved are notisolated phe-

nomena.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. Thoughall function as operating principles, they are distinguished by their known effectivenessor by degree ofrisk. It is importantto understand these differences before examining the major guiding prin-

ciples for curriculum development.

Whole Truths Whole truths areeither 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

knowledgeor skills. Fromthis principle comethe practices of preassessmentofentry 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 thatstudent achievement is higher when studentsare grouped homogeneously for instruction. While some learners mayachieve betterresults

when placed in groupsof like ability or achievement level, others maynot. The practice of homogeneous or ability grouping may be successful with somestudents for certain purposes but not with others. Homogeneous grouping may permit schoolsto achieve certain goals of education, such as such as enabling studentsto learn mastery ofcontent, but prevent them from achieving other goals, containtolive and work with personsofdiffering levels of ability. Partial truthsare not half-truths ing falsehoods, butthey are not applicable to every situation and do not provideall perspectives. Hypotheses Finally, someprinciplesare neither whole norpartial truths butare hypotheses ortentative 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 di

d optimum cl s

ize

and school size forthe best learning outcomes. Educators have advos 25 studentsin high schoolclasses and fewer in elementary classes.

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development as recommendationsfor class and schoolsize are but estimates based on best judements. School

planners have reasoned thatfor purposesof economy and efficiency, class and school sizes can

be too small. They also know from intuition or experience that class and schoolsizes can grow so large as to createsituationsthat reduceeducational productivity. However, the research delivers no magic numberthat will guarantee successin every course,classroom, and schoolsince each situation is a unique context. Whilepractice based on wholetruth is desirable, the use ofpartial truthsand the application

ofhypotheses contributeto the development ofthe field. Growth would be stymied if the field waited until all truths were discovered before any changes were made. Judgments, folklore, and

commonsense make the curriculum arena a venueforcreative and purposeful development and study to achieve the best learning plansfor 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 beenfully tested,think of axiomsor theorems.

Asstudents of mathematics know well, both axioms and theorems serve thefield well. They offer

guidelinesthat establish a frameofreference for those seeking ways of operating and resolving problems. Several generally accepted axioms that applyto 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 lifeforms grow and develop. Human institutions, like human beings themselves, grow and develop in proportion to their ability to respondto 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, equalrights, crime and violence, lack ofpurpose 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 internationalhealth needs, and

+ global warming andecologicald

Thepublic school, one ofsociety’s fundamentalinstitutions,

faces a plethora ofcontempo-

rary challenges, some ofwhich threaten its traditional existence. By citing only the inadequate

21

8

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION The searchto clarify the meaningof curriculum reveals uncertainty aboutthe 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 meansused to teach that whichis 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 moreindividuals intendingto learn” (p. 138). James B. Macdonald and Robert R. Leeper (1965) viewed curricularactivity as the

production of plans forfurther action, andinstruction as the putting of plansinto operation. Thus, according to MacDonald and Leeper, curriculum planning precedesinstruction, a premise with which this text is aligned (McDonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5-6). In the course ofplanning foreither 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 instructionare subsystemsof a largersystem of education. Models of the Curriculum-Instruction Relationship

Definitions of the twotermsare valuable but can obscure the interdependence of these two systems. Thatthe relationship between the what andthe howofeducation is noteasily determined can beseenin several different modelsofthis relationship. For lack ofbetter terminology, academic language for these models are: (a) dualistic model, (b) interlocking model, (c) concentric model, and (d) cyclical model. Each curriculum-instruction modelhasits 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. Betweenthe twoentitieslies a great abyss. What takes place in the classroom seemsto havelittle relationship to the master plan of curriculum or learning intentions. The curriculum developers or designers do not engage with the instructors. Di ons of curriculumare divorced from their practical classroom implementations. Under

this modelthe curriculumand the instruction may cach change without significantly affecting one another. FIGURE 1.1

The Dualistic Model

Curriculum

Instruction

Instruction |

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development

which ledto free public education? What would the progressive education movementofthe 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 programson the recommendations of JamesB. Conant, the formerpresidentof Harvard University? What impact has Maria Montessori had on elementary schoolprograms? Whatresponsesof the curriculum in the latter half of the twentieth century can be tracedto the teachings of Jean Piaget and of B.F. Skinner? Whatchanges will come about as a result of recommendations made by Mortimer J. Adler, Emest L. Boyer, John I. Goodlad, and Theodore R. Sizer? Table 2.1 illustrates the effectsof several forces during periodsof history on both the curriculum and instruction. In the barest skeletal form, American educational history hasfive periods: 1650-1750, 1750-1850, 1850-1950, 1950-2000, and 2000 to thepresent. Someof the curricular and instructional responsesto the philosophical, psychological, and sociological forcesoftheir

TABLE 2.1

Historical View of Forces Affecting Curriculum and Instruction

Period

Forces

1650-

Philosophy

1750

Essentialism

17501850

Psychology Faculty psychology—"mind as a muscle” Sociology Theocracy-Calvinist Male chauvinism Agrarian society Rich-poor dichotomy Philosophy Essentialism Utilitarianism Psychology Faculty psychology Sociology Industrial Revolution

Curricular Responses Latin GrammarSchoolfor boys The Bible The three R's Classical curriculum

Instructional Responses Strict discipline Rote learning Use of sectarian materials Mental discipline

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

Mentaldiscipline

Preparation tobea citizen

Recitation

Strict discipline

Some practical applications

Rotelearning

Westward movement

Rise of middle class Increased urbanization Local tax-supported schools Progressivism

1850 to Philosophy Essentialism 1950

Progressivism Psychology Behavioristic

Experimental

Gestalt

Perceptual

Centralized, then de-centralized control

Consolidation of schools

1850-1925:

High schools

Practical applications Problem-solving

1925-1950:

Attention to whole child

learner-centered curriculum Experimentalism

2

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

TABLE 2.1 (Continued) Period

Forces

Curricular Responses

Instructional Responses

Sociology Settling the West

Life adjustment

Individualized Instruction

1950-2000

Mechanized society Career education Open enrollment community/state colleges Open-space education

Urbanization Immigration

End of US draft, volunteer military

Civil rights, equal rights Big business

Basic skills

Alternative schooling Choice: magnetschools, charter schools, vouchers,

home schools

Instructional differentiation

for groups

Mediated instruction Education for self-discipline Achievement testing

Effective teaching models

Cooperative learning

Private education options

Whole language

Cold War and its end

Middle schools Vocational education

Environmental problems

2000-Present Standards based curriculum

Use of community

Big labor Changesin family structure

Diminishing resources Rapid growth of technology Spaceexploration Public demand for school accountability

Unemployment Drug andalcohol abuse Crime Homelessness

Racial tensions/ethnic conflicts

Civil rights

Digital schools (primary tool) Virtual schools

Bullying/charactereducation

Environmental education Multicultural education Global education Health education Community schools

Sexuality education Adult education

resources Onlinedistance instruction

Integrated andinterdisciplinary

Accountability assessments Personalized instruction

Single-gender classes and schools

Inquiry and thinking

Evidence supported writing

Aging population

Literacy education Bilingual education

and response Culturally responsive

English learner education

Economic crises

Consumereducation Cultural literacy (core knowledge)

Persons with disabilities

Religious differences World democratic movements

Global warming

Health needs Globalization International tensions, conflicts, and crises

Community service

InternationalBaccalaureate

Advanced placement Technologicaleducation

Terrorism

Public prekindergarten and

Distrust of government

College and career ready

Nontraditional philanthropists

Assessable research Meta-analysis research

kindergarten

pedagogy

Intervention and acceleration

Extended schoolday Influence byprivateentity funding

High effect size strategies

International comparisons Private funded development

time are shownin the table. Periods are notdistinctly separate and you will see thatthese forces

and responsesoften overlap from one period to the next. Table 2.1 can continually be refined by adding other elements, but this skeletal description

servesto illustrate that a curriculum is the productofits timeor,as James B. Macdonald (1971)

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development noted, “any reformsin institutional setting . . are intricately related to multiple social processes

andsetin the context ofa generalcultural ethos”(pp. 98-99). Carol A. Mullen (2007) observed, “Predictions based on whatstudents will need to know

and be able to do continue to form the basis ofcurriculum planning today” (p. 18). Consequently, the curriculum planner is wise to identify and strategize to address forcesthat impinge on the schoolsatthe local, state, national, and even internationallevels.

Concurrent Changes AXIOM 3. Curriculum changes made atanearlier period canexist concurrently with newer curriculum changes at a later period of time. Theclassical curriculum ofthe 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 knownas the English Classical School. It was not until

three years laterthat the English Classical School became the English High School.

Curriculum revision rarely starts and ends abruptly. Changes coexist and overlapfor long periods oftime. Ordinarily, curricular developments are phased in gradually and phased out the same way. Because competing forces and responses occurat different periods of time and continue to exist, curriculum development becomesa frustrating, yet challenging task. Differing philosophical positions on the nature of humankind,the destiny of the human

race, good and evil, and the purposes ofeducation have existed at every period ofhistory. The

powerful schools of essentialism and progressive thought continually strive to capture the alle-

giance ofthe profession and the public. The college preparatory curriculum, for example, vies withthe career andtechnical curriculum for primacy. Instructionalstrategiesthat aretargeted at the development of the intellect competewithstrategies for treating thechild in body, mind, and spirit. Eventhe discredited tenets offaculty psychology (mind as a muscle, mental discipline) lingerin school practices. The competing responses to changing conditions have almost mandated an eclecticism,

especially in the public schools. Curriculum developersselect the best responses from previous times or modify them forfuture times based on the best available research or external mandates. Except at the mosttrivial level, either/or choicesare almost impossible to make in complex social

areas such as education. Yet, some people continueto lookfor and arguefor cither/orsolutions.

To some, instruction will sufferif all teachers do not post daily learning expectations for student viewing and monitoring by administrators. To others, the growth of preadolescents will be stunted

unlesstheyare educated in a school with the middle school philosophy. Some elementary school administrators seek to provide a quality education with teaching teams.Othershold firmly to the

traditional self-contained classroom. Public sentimentin 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). Thehistory of curriculum developmentis filled not only with illustrations

ofrecurrent philosophical themes, such as the subject-matter cacophony, but also with recurrent and cyclical curricularresponses. Many ofour schools have changed from an essentialistic to a

progressive curriculum and backagain. 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 1 + 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 methodof teaching reading, changedto look/say methods, and whole language, and then back to phonics-based for primary grades understanding that students are measuredin vocabulary and comprehension, notin word calling. The late 1900s saw a rise in world language offerings. However, a survey conducted by the

Centerfor Applied Linguistics revealed a decline in number ofelementary and middle schools offering world languages betweenits last survey in 1997 and 2008. Signaling once again the

effect of social, political, and cultural needs onthe curriculum, Arabic grew in those schools offer-

ing foreign languages whereas French, German, and Russian declined, (Rhodes & Pufhal, n.d.) Onthe other hand, some schools, particularly the essentialistic, have remained unchanged and continue to offer Latin, while social transformations have swirled around them. As Spanish speak-

ing families have immigrated to the US, Spanishlanguage instruction has adjusted to have special

courses for native Spanish speakersas their needs often vary from the native English learnertak-

ing Spanishas a second or world language. The schools of theearly days in America stressed basic skills taughtin strict expectationsof discipline, even to the point that students may have beenrequiredto stand to addressthe teacher. The carly 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 forreading, 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 culturesof schools may have changed andare

more inclusive and valuing ofdifferences, respect for the adults and otherstudentsin the school is expected. In some school districts, there are even school board policies, which may be called

codes ofconduct that haveastheir purposes consistency in expectations ofresponsesto certain misbehaviors. As curricular themesare often recapitulated, someteachers and curriculum developers are disposed to maintain the status quo, concluding thattheir current mode ofoperation,

while it may be out of favor now, will be in style again sometimein the future. “Why change when weare probably going to eventually change back?” theyask. Whenthe status quo no longer serves the needsofthe learnersorof society, the maintenance of the status quois inexcusable, for it prohibits accomplishment of the ethical expectation ofservus and informed manner. Even if prior responses return later, ing the students in the mostef they should result from a re-examinationofthe forcesofthat time. Thus, the re-emergenceofprior

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 oflesson 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 Marzanoand his contemporaries, this lesson de model continues to be an expectation for many teachersin the US. In fact, it may even be part of teachers” formal annual evaluation system.

Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined

of continuous improvementofboth curriculum and instruction informedbyfeedback (data and

evidence), this model may hold the most promise for practitioners in roles that include orrelate

to curriculum developmentand design.

CURRICULUM AS A DISCIPLINE

In spite ofits elusive character, curriculumis a discipline or a majorfield ofstudy 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, curriculumevaluation, secondary schoolcurriculum, elementary school curriculum, middle schoolcurriculum, community college curriculum, and—on fewer occasions—

university curriculum.

The Characteristics of a Discipline To arrive at a decision as to whetheran area ofstudyis a discipline, the question might be raised, “Whatarethe characteristics ofa discipline?”If the characteristics of a discipline can be spelled out, it can be determined whetheror not curriculum is a discipline. PRINCIPLES. Anydiscipline worthyof study has an organized set of theoretical constructs or

principles that governsit. Certainly, thefield of curriculum has developed significantset of principles,tried and untried, proven and unproven, many ofwhich 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 setofideas. Using the constructs ofbalance 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 and multiculturalism are examplesof constructs incorporated into one or more curriculum studies, principles.

A major characteristic of any theoretical principleis its capacity forbeing generalized and

applied in more than onesituation. Were curriculum theories but one-shot solutionsto specific

problems, it would bedifficult to defend the conceptofcurriculum asa discipline. The principles of curriculumtheory are often successful efforts to establish rules that can be repeated in similar situations and under similar conditions. Generally, the conceptofbalance should be incorporated

into every curriculum. However, controversy may arise overa principle that might be stated as,

The first step in curriculum planning is the specification ofbehavioralobjectives. 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. Anydiscipline encompassesa bodyof knowledge andskills perti-

nentto that discipline. Thefield 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 disciplinesofsociology, psychology, and specific core content like mathematics. Organization ofthe curriculum depends on knowledgefromorganizational theory and instructional leadership, whichare aspects ofschool

Discipline

| Page 11

⑪

28

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Alan N. Rudnitsky (2006) affirmed that “Curriculum developmentis typically done by teamsof

people working together on a common project” (p. 13).

Several groups or constituenciesare involved in curriculum developmentin differing roles and with differing intensities. Students and otherstakeholdersoften, though perhaps notas 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 underthe direction of the school and schooldistrict administrators whosetask is to facilitate the

curriculum development efforts at all stagesof the process. Students enter the processof curriculumdevelopmentasdirect recipients ofbenefits that result from curriculum change,and parents are broughtin as the persons mostvitally concerned with the welfare oftheir ownstudents and the

community. It is commonforstudents and stakeholdersto beinvitedto participate in the process of curriculum planning. Some schooldistricts go beyondparentsofchildrenin 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 preparednessof studentsto be productive contributors to the economy. Broad community involvementin providing input related to school

offeringsis a positive approach for designing curriculum that will have support when implemented. Generally, anysignificant change in the curriculum should involveall the aforementioned

constituencies, as well as the school’s noncertificated personnel. The more peopleaffected bythe change, and the greaterits complexity and costs, the greater the numberof persons and groups that should be involved. The roles of various individuals and groupsin curriculum development

are examinedin Chapter 4.

Although somelimited gainscertainly 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 thanindividual 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 otherto change and to achieve commitment to change. Carl D. Glickman (1998) averred: “Any comprehensive

changes made without the understanding and support ofat least a core majority of educators and

parents will fail, not necessarily because of the changes themselves (Glickman, 1998, p. 39). But because ofthe 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, changeefforts for the long term will be for naught” (p. 39). Being cognizant ofthe attitudes ofvarying constituents that have a stake in curriculum

developmentis a fundamentalresponsibility ofthe curriculum developer (Taba, 1962). Change Leadership

Those who lead curriculum change and implementation may either have been directed to lead

specific changeor perhapsthey haveidentified that curriculum redevelopmentis needed from analysis student learning outcome data and progress towards meeting schooldistrict or school There are three categories ofplanned changethat are generally considered. All strategic goals. three may apply to curriculum development: empiricalrational strategies, power coercivestrategies, and normative reducative strategies (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985).

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development Empiricalrationalstrategies are based on usingresearch (empirical) to develop changes in practice and are useful when those who will implementthe changesee the changeas beneficial

or rational for their work. An example would be whena grant recipient developsa needed assessmentfor reading comprehension andthroughdissemination ofthe grant outcomes,the assessment is then shared with State Education Authority (SEAs) and Local Education Authorities (LEAs)

resultingin a fairly rapid adoption of the new reading assessment.

The second category ofstrategy is power coercive, and is reliant on the power, often politi-

cal or legislatedto drive the change. An example of powercoercive change wasthedirection from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) thatall students would be reading on grade level by 2013,

resulting in curricular changesacross the country. Readers can evaluate how effectivethis 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 notbe 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

implementationofthe curriculum change. Throughthe collaborative processcurriculum changes neededare created along with theprocessfor implementation. Each of thethree categories of change leadership may be applied overtime. As curriculum

leaders, part ofthe roleis determining the mostefficacious strategyforthe target change and your context. As you think about leading curricular change, considerthatit is also human capacity building and professionallearning forall who are involvedin the collaboration. Per Fullan (2010),

asthe capacity ofindividuals and the collaborating groupare 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 ofdecisions, including the examplesthat follow. 1. Disciplines. The absence or limited presence ofphilosophy, anthropology.driver education, and sometimesart, 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 importantfor studentsto learn. 2. Competing Viewpoints. Plannersareto use research andtheir context to determine which approaches are best for students. An examplethat has been controversial in some contexts

is to havebilingual education or to provide another education opportunity for English learn-

ers. Planners make decisions about how students with disabilities will be served and the

extent ofinclusion in schools. Other commondecisions relateto student grouping which

could be heterogeneous or homogenous, by achievement on accountability sments, or by studentchoice andinterest. 3. Emphases. With the expectation ofincreased graduation rate, along with students being

college and careerready, decisions about how to accelerate students who are not grade level proficientin reading and mathematics is determined as carly as kindergarten and through high school. Similar determinationsrelate to emphasis on providing rigorouslearning oppor-

tunities for all students orjust for select groups (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2015). Emphases

are to be developed before the curriculum development orre-developmentprocess begins. 4. Instructional Methods and Resources. Curriculum development frequently extends

to the instructional implementation and suggests methods or approaches forefficacious

29

30

Part 1 + 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 timeis expectedfor the elementary schoolreading block? If the reading block is expected to be more than one hour, how much time will then remain for mathematics, science, socialstudies, the arts, and physical education? Or, will science and socialstudies

concepts be learned byreading informational text and non-fiction during the reading block?

5. Organization. Organization of the school day and year impacts curriculum develop-

ment. If school communities adopt philosophiesof continuous progress based on mastering competencies, the curriculum would haveto have extremely well-coordinated vertical alignment. If classesare team taught with a social studieseducator and English language arts educator, then integrating the two disciplines forfacilitated instruction would be an

important componentofthe curriculum organization. With the expansion ofvirtual schools and virtual courses taken by studentsin brick and mortar schools, new organizational considerations have arisen to be considered.

Twonecessary characteristics of a curriculum planner are the ability to effect decisions after sufficient study ofa problem and the willingness to makedecisions (Glickman, 1998). Every decision involves calculatedrisk, for no one—despite what some experts may claim—hasall the

answers to all the problemsora single panacea forevery 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 atthe level expected. Althoughthe task of making curricular decisions may be difficult in

complex contexts, the opportunity to make choices from among manyalternativesis an advantage in schooldistrictsin the US.

Continuous Process

AXIOM 7. Curriculum development is a never-ending process. Curriculum plannersconstantly strive forthe ideal, yet the ideal eludes them. Perfection in the curriculum will neverbe achieved.

Thecurriculum can alwaysbe improved, and many timesbettersolutions 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 basedfeedback revealsthe need. Curriculum developmentis notfinished when a single curricular problem has been tem-

porarily solved, nor whena newer, revised program has beeninstituted. Continual evidence and data gathering to monitorfidelity of implementation is necessarytoassure thatthe program is on

track and that whenproblems 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 collaborativesite 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 proce revision has been a hit-or-miss procedur

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development lengthening, and troubleshooting. Hilda Taba (1962) made the same observation when shelikened

curriculum developmentto quilt making: the compilation of diverse individual contributions that

are interconnected only bythreads of similarity (p. 8). Curriculum planninghasoften beentoo fragmentary ratherthan comprehensive orholistic. Too many curriculum planners have focused on the trees and notseenthe forest. The popular expression thatthe whole is greaterthanthe sum ofits parts applies well to curriculum development. Although parts ofthe curriculum may be studied separately. planners areto frequently and periodically view the macrocurriculum—thatis, the curriculum as a whole,as distinguished from the sum ofits parts.

A comprehensive view encompasses an awarenessofthe impact of curriculum development not only on the students, teachers, and parentsdirectly concerned with a programmatic change, butalso on the innocent bystanders, those not directly involved in the curriculum planning but affected in some way by the resultsof planning. Human sexuality education, an example that is sensitive in many communities, mayaffect not only teachers, students, and parents ofstudents for whom the program is intended but also teachers, students, and parents of those who are not scheduledfortheinstruction. Some from the groupsinvolved may not wish to be included. Others

from the groups notin the program may wish to receivetheinstruction. There may be those from both groups who reject the subject asinappropriate for the school. The comprehensive approach to curriculum planning requires a generous investment of physical and human resources. Curriculum specialists engagein planning for curriculum development or in what might be referred to as developing the management plan. Some predetermination is made priorto initiating curriculum development as to whetherthe 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. arealso to be taken into consideration by the curriculum leaders. Perhaps one ofthe reasons that

curriculum development has historically been fragmented and piecemealis the level of demand that the comprehensive approach places on the school district's resources.

Systematic Development AXIOM 9. Systematiccurriculum developmentis moreeffective thantrial and error. Curriculum

developmentshould ideally be made comprehensive by examination of the whole and should be madesystematic by following an established set of procedures. Procedures, including normsof collaborationfor the participants, should be agreed upon and knownbyall those whoparticipate in the development of the curriculum. Curriculum planners are more likely tobe 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 normsofcollaboration that will be part of the process.

If the curriculum specialist subscribesto the foregoing axioms and consents to modeling

his or her behavior based on these axioms, will success be guaranteed? The answeris an obvious

“no,” forthere are manylimitations on curriculum specialists,

some ofwhich are beyond their

control. Among therestrictions on the curriculum plannerare the style and personal philosophy of the administrator, the resources of the schooldistrict, the community context, the expertise,

knowledge, and skillsof the participants in curriculum development, and the availability of professional materials and resource persons. One of the greatest limi

sometimes overlooked because it is

so obvious and

encompassing—isthe existing curriculum. Many treatises have been written by curriculum experts on the characteristics ofdifferent types of curriculum. The earmarks ofan activity

31

32

Part 1 + 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 thatthe 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 standardsbased 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 developerstars from where the current curriculumis, just as the teacher starts from the current achievement of each student. Curriculum change does not take place overnight. Few quantum leaps can be foundin thefield of curriculum, andthis condition may be positive value rather than a negative one, for slow but steady progress toward change

allowstimefordata gathering, data analysis, improvement, and revision. Because most curriculum planners begin with already existing curricula,their roleis essentially curriculumre-development. The investment of human capital, theirthinking, and school

district funds to support re-development generally does not result in eliminating previous cur-

riculum,but building upon it.

EIGHT CONCEPTS OF CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION

Although a modelfor curriculum development may show a process,

it does notrevealthe 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 betweenlevels.

The eight guiding concepts to be discussed are not only perennial problemsfor curriculum developersbut are also conceptsthat lead to the formulation of principlesofcurriculum development. The creation ofa well-functioningsequence, for example, is a continuing problem for the curriculum developer. At the same time, the curriculum planner mustunderstand the concept of sequencing, which is essential to an effective curriculum. Bringing together the two elements, curriculum and sequencing, the principle is formulated thatan effective curriculum is onethatis

properly sequenced. All eight conceptsare interrelated. First to be examined are four conceptsthatare closely related to each other: scope,relevance, balance, and integration. Thelastthree are dimensions of

scope; all four relate tothe 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 astopics, learning experiences, activities, organizing threads or elements, integrative threads, or organizing centers—constitutes the scope ofthe curriculum for that course or grade level (Tyler, 1949; Bloom, 1958; Goodlad, 1963). The summed content of the sev-

eral courses or grade levels makes upthe scope ofthe school curriculum.J. Galen Saylor and William M. Alexander (1954), in an earlier work,defined scopein the following way: “By scope is meantthe breadth, variety, and types of educational experiencesthat are to be provided pupils through the school program. Scope representsthelatitudinal axis for selecting as they progress

curriculum experiences”(p. 284).

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development Whenteachers select the contentthat will be learned during the year, they are making

decisions on scope. When curriculum plannersat the school districtor state level set the minimum

requirementsfor graduation from high school, they are responding to the question ofscope.

ORGANIZING CENTERS OR THREADS. JohnI. Goodlad (1963)defined the elementsof scope as “the actualfocal points for learning through which the school’s objectives are to be attained”

(p. 28). He wanted to convey the meaning ofthese elements as one term forthe 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 ofsuch 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 ofthe curriculum. (Goodlad, 1963,р. 28) In a similar vein, Tyler (1949) advised those who are organizing the curriculum to identify the organizing threadsor elements,thatis, the basic conceptsandskills to be taught (p. 86). Thus, curriculumplannerschoose the focal points, the basic concepts andskills, and the knowledgethat will be included in the curriculum. A central problem ofthis horizontal organization, called scope,

is the delimitation of the concepts, skills, knowledge, and attitudestobe included.

AIMS PROCEDURE. By working collaboratively with others, curriculum specialists select the concepts, skills, and knowledge to be incorporatedinto the curriculumfor areas not previously designated by standards or an education organization. Many years ago, Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell (1935) suggested a procedurefor determining the scopeofthe curriculum. Referring to the process as the “aims procedure,” they outlined the stepsas follows.

general all-inclusive aim ofeducation is stated. Second, this all-inclusive statement is broken upinto a small numberofhighly 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 ofeach division Firs

are further broken upbystating the objectives to be achieved byeach 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 madeofthe part ofthe subject objectivesto be achieved in cach grade. The specific objectives for all the subjects in cach 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 perceivedthe specific objectives—not learning experiences, focal points, topics, or organizing threads—as indicating the scope ofthe curriculum. NECESSARY DECISIONS. With time so precious and the content burden so great, every organiz ing center included in the curriculum must be demonstrably superiorto those notincluded. De sions asto the superiorityof the selected elements are reached by group consensus, by expertise, or by both. Curriculum planners answerquestions to which there are noeasy answers,like these: * What do students need to succeed in our society? * Whatare the needs of your locality,state, nation, and world?

33

14

PartI + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

to be experts in application oftheory and research. These experts know the techniques of curriculum development that are mostlikely 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 innovationsthat give promise ofbringing about higher achievementin learners.

CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS

Curriculum specialists often make a unique contribution bycreatively transforming theory and knowledgeinto 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 ofthe discipline of curriculum, they also examine and

reexamine theory and knowledge fromtheir field and related fields. Awareness ofpast successes and failures elsewhere helps those who work in thefield 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 encouragestudy of curricular problems, comparisonsof plans and pro-

grams, results of new patterns of curriculum organization, and the histories of curriculum experiments, to indicate but a fewareas ofresearch. Specialists encourage the use ofresultsofresearch to continueefforts to improve the curriculum. While classroom teachers daily concern themselves with problems of curriculum and

instruction, the curriculum specialist is charged with thetask of providing leadership to administrators andteachers. Sincethere are manydifferenttypes of specialists in manydifferentlocations, you will find it difficult to generalize on their roles. Some curriculum specialists are generalists whose roles may belimited to leadership in curricular or programmatic planning or whose roles

may also encompass instructional planning and decision making.

Somecurriculum specialists confine themselves to certain grade levels or contentareas,

such as elementary, middle, or secondary school; community college; special education; reading, science; early childhood; and any contentarea that may be taught. What can be observed is that the rolesthe curriculum leader playsare 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 humanrelations expert,

* atheoretician, * adata analyst, subject matter expert, + an evaluator, * aresearcher, and + an instructor.

Curriculum Supervisors

Anadditionalclarification should be made atthis point thatis,the relationship betweenthe roles ofpersons designated as curriculum specialists and those persons who are called curriculum supervisors. Depending upon the context the titles may be synonymous.

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development Relevance

Thechallengeofthe principle of relevance is, how is it determined and by whom? Relevancein one context may not be quite as relevant in another. VARYING INTERPRETATIONS. Thedifficulty of determining relevancelies in the multitude of

interpretations of the word. Whatis considered relevant education for suburbia may not be for

urban centers. Whatis considered relevant for the Anglo may not be for the Hispanic. Whatis

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

excludesvirtually nothing,for everything mentionable is relevant in some sense to everything else that is mentionable”(p. 179).

Think broadly of generally relevant. Whetherthe curriculum is relevant or not may be

beside the point. The consumersof curriculum,the constituents and patrons of the school, will

form attitudestoward relevance. Curriculum developersconsiderperceptionsofrelevance before they consider with the question ofrelevanceitself. William Glasser (1992) attributed students’

perceptionsof theirlessons as “boring” to the fact thatthey could not relate what they were study-

ing 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 neededin every curriculum and (b) open newvistas toward othercareers.

Disagreements over relevancearise fromdiffering conceptions of what exists in society and

whatshould exist in society. The question becomes: should curriculum planners educate students

for life as itis or asthey think it should be or will be? Should the curriculum developthe desire to read nonfiction, to subscribeto scholarly journals, to listen to classical music, and to frequent art

galleries? Should the curriculum encourage students to make money,to preferpopfiction, 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 ofcontent and experiences

Arguments arise overtherelative meritsofthe concrete versusthe abstract. Someprefer to concentrate on contentthat 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 teacheris constantly asked “Whyshould I learn that?” “Whatis the use of studying history?” “Whyshould I be required to take biology?" If theintent ofthese questions is to ask what use can one make ofthemin everydaya only general answers are possible. We can and dotalk about the relevance of subject matter tothe decisions and activities that pupils will have to make. We know, among other things, that they mus * choose and follow a vocation,

+ exercise the tasks ofcitizenship, + 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 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Smith (1969) admitted thatit is difficult to show the utility of abstract subject matter:

Unfortunately, the utility of this form of subject matter is much moredifficult to demonstrate...... Perhapsthechief reason utility of abstract knowledge cannot be demonstrated to the skeptic

is that a great deal ofit functions as a second-orderutility. 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 leaming that shapes behavior, but which is notitselfdirectly observable in behavior. (Smith, 1969. p. 131) USES OF KNOWLEDGE.

Smith (1969)classified the uses of knowledge that are notdirectly

observable as associative, interpretive, and applicative. By associative Smith meant the learner's abilityto relate knowledgefreely, sometimes bringing about solutions to problems. Abstract knowl-

edgehelpsindividualsto interpret their environment, which they cannot do without fundamental knowledge. Abstractsubject matterenableslearners to apply concepts to solve new problems.

Curriculum specialists in collaboration with others decide what is meant by relevance and

then proceed to makethe curriculum asrelevantaspossible. Balance

Balanceis an unusual curriculumconceptthat on the surface seems obvious but with some prob-

ing becomes somewhat cloudy. Nailing down a precise definition ofbalance is difficult. Many— perhaps most—educators think thatthe 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 kindsare slow in adapting to newneeds and demandsofthe culture except when social changeis rapid and urgent in its implications for theseinstitutions” (p. 7).

Thesearch for a definition ofbalance is complicated by differing interpretations as it applies

to the curriculum. Halverson (1961) spoke of balancing ends and means, as follows:

“A balanced

curriculum impliesstructure and orderin its scope and sequence (means) leading to the achievementof educationalobjectives (ends)”(p. 4).

Goodlad (1963) would bring the learner-centered curriculum andthe subject-centered cur-

riculum into balance, commenting:

Muchrecent and current controversy over the curriculum centers on the question of what kind and how muchattention to give learners and subject matter, respectively. The prospect of stressing one to the exclusion ofthe other appears scarcely worthyofconsideration. Nonetheless, the interested observerhaslittle 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 describedit as follows:

A balancedcurriculumfor a given learner at a given time would completely fit the leamer in termsof his or her particular educational needs at that time. It would contain just enough of each kind ofsubject matter toserve the individuals purposes and to speed his or her development. Perhaps the best that can be done in working toward balanceis to be clearer about what is val-

ued for the growth ofindividual learners and then to apply these valuesin 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) stressedthe need for balance betweenthe 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 ofbalancein several ways. Giventhetypical elementary school, middle school, and high school, curriculum planners seek balance among variables, a few noted in this text. You will note that some ofthesets of variablescall for proportions orsplits 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 presupposesa balance betweenthe 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 coursesthat could comprise a majority ofthe curriculum offerings. electives must be available for learners in specialized fields. Schooldistricts

in various parts ofthe

country offeralternativesto the general-specialized-education balance by providing magnet

programsin 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, orstate college, or by joiningforces with other public schools to operate an area career technical center. Online coursework is another approachthatallows school districts to meetthe needsoftheir students.

4. Breadth and depth. profound as

The curriculum can be so broad asto be superfi

ial or conversely so

to limit.

5. Thethree 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 thatdigital resources hold the

most promise for meeting each individuals 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 andifthe fidelity or the innovation are mostlinked to outcomes, either positive or negative.

8. Theneeds ofthe exceptional andthe nonexceptional student. ~All learners are expected 10 be successful so the varying needsofspecial needs learners, high achieving learners, English learners, and all ofthose in between are essential.

9. Within and acrossdisciplines. Disciplines may compete for time in the curriculum, just as there is competition forcontentlearning withina discipline. Integration

Curriculum specialists may choose to provide for integrating subject matter. Integration, in the context ofa curriculumconstruction concept, meansthe blending, fusion, or unification ofdisci-

plines. A fully integrated curriculum tears down barriers betweendisciplines and fusesdisciplines

under overarching themesor topics. Unlike the determination ofscope and sequence, which an optional and controversial undertaking. must be accomplished, the integration ofdisciplines Whether to integrate the curriculum is an issue that divides educators.

37

38

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Whether curriculum planners choose to integrate subject matter hinges upon their

philosophy of the nature of knowledge, the nature oflearners, and the purposes ofeducation.

Manyeducatorssupport the integration of subject matter based ontheir analyses ofstudies point-

ing to successes with interdisciplinary curricular plans. Tyler (1949) defined integration as “the horizontal relationship of curriculum experiences’ and wenton to say, “Theorganization of these experiences should be such that they help the student increasingly to get a unified view and to unify his behaviorin relationto the elements dealt with” (p. 85). Hilda Taba (1962) commented

that learning is more effective when connections among variousfields of study are made explicit,

especially whenoneis applying knowledge. Subject matter may be organized based on separate disciplines with their owntimeblocks.

Another approachis to integrate it either on a schoolwide basis (as with the core curriculum) or

on theclassroom level (as with certain types ofunit plans) without regard for disciplines. Notall educators, of course,

are advocates ofintegrating subject matter. Some believe that

the variousdisciplinesshould be taught separately. Thus, they reject the broad-fields approach to curriculum organization and recommend thatteachers and students concentrate on the separate

disciplines. Correlation of the curriculum is a typeof integration and is the relating of subjects to one another while still maintaining their separateness. Relationships among subjects taughtat a particular school level are shownto students,

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 ofthe latter, world history, taughtin 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. Thefirst view is the horizontal relationship ofsubjects. 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 individualsin this process of creating a unity of knowledge. This interpretation of integration throws the emphasis

from integrating subjects to locating theintegrative threads”(Taba, 1962, p. 299). Regardless of whetherthe subject matter is presented to the learner in an integrated fashion, the learner must integrate the knowledgeinto his or her own long-term memory. Ifnew informa-

tion is not integrated intoprior knowledge then it will not be retrievable accurately and quickly at

a laterdate,for example in the spring when accountability assessmentstake place. Taba (1962) remarked:

Unification of subjects has been athemein education ever since the Herbartians. By far the greatest number ofexperimental curriculum schemes have revolved around the problem ofunifying learning. At the same time we are far from achieving unification, partly because offear of loss of disciplined learning ifthe study ofspecialized subjects is discarded, and partly because as yet noeffective basis has been found for unifying school subjects. (Taba, 1962, pp. 298-299)

You haveseen and will see a number ofreferences to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary integrated curricula in this text. Although leadersand teachers may seek to employaninterdisciplinary approach to curriculum and instruction at more than one level, integration ofthe curricu-

lum was, in the days ofthe core curriculum, found more frequently in middle schools. Integrated curricula challenge the time-honored organization ofcurriculaintoseparate dis-

ciplines. Curriculum planners must decide whether they will make a conscious effort either to

Chapter 1 * Curriculum and Instruction Defined

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 ofCurriculumEvaluation. 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: Womenandteaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses Routledge.

relating 10 achievement. New York, NY:

Hicbowitsh, P. S. (2005). Designing the curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. CurriculumInquiry, 6(2), 156. Johnson, Jr. M. (1967 April). Definitions and modelsin 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 actionresearch. London, England: Routledge.

⑰

Oliver, A.L (1977). Curriculum improvement: À guide to problems,

principles, andprocess. New York. NY: Harper & Row. Ornstein, A. C.. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, andissues (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pinar, W. E. Reynolds, W. M.. Slattery. P., & Taubman. P.M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the studyof 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). Curriculumplanning forbetter teaching andlearning.

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). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NI: MerrilV/Prentice Hall. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. Wiles, J.. & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to practice. (Tth ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill/Prentice Hall. Wright, H. K. (2000, June-July). Nailing Jell-O to the wall: Pinpointing aspects ofstate-of-the-art curriculum theorizing. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 4-13.

40

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

division, and application of those conceptsto fractions. Generally, a student cannotsucceed in a second-year world language class withoutproficiency at the first-yearlevel.

CONCEPTIONS OF SEQUENCING. Donald E. Orlosky and B. Othanel Smith (1978) discussed three conceptions ofsequencing: (a) sequencing according to need, (b) macrosequencing, and (c) microsequencing. According to the first conception, the learner orders his ownlearning as he deals with a situation from moment to moment. He selects what he wants to knowas 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, р. 267) Macrosequencing follows principlesof 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 ofinstructionto coincide with the different stages of the individual's development. For a long time, teachers have arranged the

knowledgeofinstruction roughly in accordance with the development learner. Examining the

existing program ofstudies of almost any school shows thatit corresponds roughly to the learner's

development (Orlosky & Smith, 1978, p. 251). Microsequencing is the ordering of subject matter according to theprerequisite knowledge required of each unit ofcontent. “This assumes,” said Orlosky and Smith (1978),

“that for any

learningtask thereis a hierarchy extending from the very simple to the more abstract and complex elements which leadto the attainmentof a specified objective” (p. 267). Curriculum plannersare called on to make decisions on placement of content at the appro-

priate 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 experienceto his level of development while holding the instructional goals constant. . . . The second approach assumes curriculumexperiences to be located at a given grade level and provides learnings to adjust

thechild to these experiences—that is, to get himready forthe learning. (Smith, Stanley, &

Shores, 1957. p. 171)

WHERE TO BEGIN. Disagreementsover the processof sequencingcenter on whethercurriculum planners should start with learners or subject matter. The first demands choosing emphasesin 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 masterit. The latter approach to sequencing has been the historic approach. Smith, Stanley, and Shores (1957) advocated a blending ofthe two approaches, holding it

unrealistic to subscribe wholeheartedlyto either approach (p. 171). They counseled curriculum specialists to take into account the maturation, experiential background, mental age, and interests ofthe learners andthe usefulness and difficulty ofthe subject matter whendeveloping a sequence. The ordering ofthe organizing elements ofthe curriculum is one ofthe major tasks ofthe cur-

riculum developer.

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development Continuity Continuityis the plannedrepetition of contentat successivelevels, each time at an increasedlevel

of complexity. Tyler (1949)described continuity as follows.

Continuity refers to thevertical 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 samekinds of skills will be brought into continuing operation. In similar fashion, if an objective in science is to develop a meaningful concept ofenergy, it is importantthat 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. Theprinciple of continuity is represented in thespiral curriculum (Bruner, 1963). Concepts, skills, and knowledge are introduced and reintroduced—for example,

the repetition ofaddition, study of democracy, writing, personal health, and conservation, each

reintroduction enhancingtheearlierlearning over various school years. An example that is com-

mon is the spiraling within a schoolyear of standards in English Language Arts (ELA). A specific standard may be learned several times within a school year using different kindsof texts with the

expectation of the student work outcomesto increase in challenge each time.

EXPERTISE NEEDED. Planning a curriculum for continuity requires a high degree of expertise, which demands both knowledge ofthe subject field and knowledge of the learners. For

example, to plan a mathematicssequence 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 resourcesat each stage, followed by professional learning forteachers and instructional leaders. This concept was applied in the

developmentofthe Common Core State Standards which begin in kindergarten and progress with increasing challenge through high school. Whereaselementary school learners, for example, may learn that democracy means governmentof the people, by the people, and for the people, secondary students may wrestle with controversial and unresolved problemsof democracy in the global community.

Collaboration with those affected will reveal tocurriculum developers which standards and

units ofcontent are to be reintroduced and at what point. Preassessment or checking for back-

ground knowledge and readinessof thelearner,is essential before each neworganizing element is broached. Preassessment will uncover whether the learners are readyfor (a) newcontent based

on prior content and (b) prior content that will be repeated at a more complex level. Articulation

If continuity is viewedasthe spiraling of content upward throughthe grades then view articulation as the meshing oforganizing elements across school levels—that is, across elementary, middle, and high schools. Articulation from high school topost-secondary institutions is an elementof sequencing thatis increasing in importance and frequency with the expectation that graduates are college and career ready, and thatretention and graduation rates increase for undergraduate degree granting institutions.

41

42

Part! + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL. Oliver (1965) used the term “articulation” synonymously with “horizontalarticulation” or “correlation.” He equated the conceptof “continuity” with “vertical articulation” (p. 222). Sequence, continuity, and articulation are all interrelated. Vertical articu-

lation is gradeto grade and horizontalis within a grade. This meshing may or may notinvolve reintroduction ofunits of content that are progressively more difficult. Collaborativeefforts are necessary among curriculum developers if articulated sequences are to be planned fromkindergarten through twelfth grade and beyond. Within decentralized school districts, lack of articulation occursfrequently; however, curriculum is generally thought of as one of the components ofschool districts that should be centrally coordinated just as human

resource policiesare centralized. Articulation is particularly difficult in somestates where separate schooldistricts managing different levels of schoolingexist side byside underseparate administrators and separate school boards, such asin high schooldistricts or elementary schooldistricts. Even whenall levels of schooling are centralized under a single superintendent and school board,

articulation among schools and among grade levels and content areas remainsa challenge.

GAPS AND OVERLAPS BETWEEN LEVELS. If giventhe authority, teachers could select which content will be taught, leadingto gapsin the curriculum. Likewise, thereis legitimate concern that students could bereintroducedto the same content more than onceas they moveup the edu-

cational continuum. Gaps and overlaps can be avoided by providing opportunities for teachers to articulate between and among the grade levels. An example ofoverlap is when students read the sameselection offiction in the fifth grade and then again in the sixth grade, althoughtheselection

is appropriate across the two gradelevels. 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 concernsin this area.

PERSONAL ARTICULATION. Thereis not only a need for planned articulation ofsubject matter but also for students’ personal articulation. Schoolleaders look for waysto respondto students’ varied capabilities. Some middle school students, for example, are able to tackle high school

subjects, like algebra and geometry. Some high schoolstudentscan perform well in Advanced Placementcourses in the high school or can dually enroll at a local college dueto their educational

prowess and articulation agreements betweenthe college and school district.

Torecap what has been said about sequencing, continuity, and articulation—continuity and

articulation are dimensionsof sequencing. Sequencingis the logical or psychological arrange-

mentofunits of content within lessons, units, courses, and grades. Continuity is the planned introduction andreintroduction of the same units of content through the grades at ever-increasing

levels of scope and depth. Articulation is the planned sequencing ofunits of content acrossgrade levels—thatis, from one grade level to the next to ensurethat the nextgradelevel begins where the previous gradelevel left off.

Although this text presents sequencing and related principlesin a favorable light as useful concepts in planning, organizing, and evaluating the curriculum, views on many concepts and practices in education differ. The conceptsof sequencing and the spiral curriculum are no excep-

tion. Holding that “there is little interest todayin sequencing,” John D. McNeil (2006) wrote, “Current research casts doubt on rigid conceptions ofskill hierarchies and spiraled curriculum. Although there may be somevalid skill hierarchies such asteaching addition before multiplication,

little evidence supports hierarchies such those in Bloom's taxonomy” (p. 332). With McNeil's finding in mind,helping teachers and curriculum leadersto know howto use higherlevels of thinking and complexity effectively without always starting at declarative knowledge, can be

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development

helpful. Many students find declarative knowledgeto be boring:in contrast to the opportunity to apply and use knowledge which is intellectually engaging and motivational. Transferability

Whateveris taughtin school should in some way possess transfervalue; thatis, learningin school should haveapplicability in either a broad or narrow sense outside ofschool and after the school years. Education for educations sake—the mark ofthe learned person—is simplynotsufficient as a goal ofeducation when the expectationis that students will be college and career ready and educators are held accountable for student learning outcomes. Education should in some way enrich thelife ofthe 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 howtransfer

using digital and print resources can be increased when contentispresented 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 momentof its first introduction

into the classroom forretrievalin 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 conceptsare 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.

Teachersof psychomotor skills are particularly fortunate because studentshave no difficultyseeing the transfer value of these areas of study. Students can and will use whatthey learn in such

areas as music, art, physical education, engineering, set development, software and simulation development. Transferis paramount with most teachers ofperceptual motorskills. Transfer in the affective and cognitive areas is more difficult to discern. Transfer of cognitive learning is mostoften 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. Someof the essentialists

have held that educationis the storing ofdata—computerfashion—foruseat a later date when the occasion arises. Unfortunately, disuse setsin; forgetting, and when retrieval is needed, the sup-

posedly stored data have slipped away. On the other hand, if the curriculum develops the subject

to high levelsofthinking and complexity, or at leastto the application level, thentransfer and storage in long term memory forretrieval 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 thata 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 ofthinking about geography” as opposed to being dished out selected,

unconnected geographicalfacts (p. 26). Bruner encouraged teachers to use a discovery approach, justifying it on the grounds of“increasedintellectual potency,intrinsic rewards, useful learning techniques, and better memory processes”(p.27). Transferability is a principle ofboth instruction and the curriculum. Methodsofteaching for transferability refer totheinstructional process. When you analyze whatthe learner has trans-

ferred, 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] + 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 curriculumsystem that attendsto scope, relevance, balance, integration,sequence, continuity,articulation, and transferability.

Summary tem ofeducation respondsto changeas condi-

tions in its suprasystem (society) change. Curriculum change is a normal, expected consequence of changes

Both teachers and curriculum specialists have roles in curriculum development in collaboration with other school personnel. Teachers, curriculum

to seek continuous improvementin the curriculum.

specialists, supervisors, administrators, students, parents, and otherstakeholders can all play significant roles in effecting curriculum change and its success-

The task of the curriculum specialistis facilitated if

ful implementation to achieve intended outcomes.

in the environment.

It is the responsibility of curriculumspecialists

generally accepted principles and concepts for curriculum development are followed. Ten general principles or axiomsand eight conceptsare presented in this chapter as guidelines to curriculumdevelopment.

The principles and concepts stem not only from disci-

plines outside of professional education but also from

Curriculum developers start fromthe given and work within specific contextual parameters. Unless thereis an edict orpolitical need forrapid curriculum

change and implementation. Most successful change is developed and implemented by those who are the key stakeholders forthe target change.

the folklore of curriculum, observation, experimental data, and commonsense.

Application

2. Which curriculum innovations in your context or

3. Howhave available technology and digital tools impacted the practice of curriculum development and implementation? Provide examplesof influ-

nationally are based on halftruths, whole truths, or false premises? Use evidence to support the

riculumchange and resulting changesin teaching

1. In yourcontext, which curriculumprinciples and concepts guide practice?

learning outcomes and any resulting modifica-

ence ofthese developmentsofresources on cureffectiveness and student learning.

tionsto the curriculum.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Hypothesize the development and results of the movements ofchoice such as online learning,

charter schools, home schooling, and early-college entry programs.

2. Choose three social developments, events, pres-

sures, 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 changesandto what extent? funding priority to 3. Race to the Top had as establish challenging standards, develop and sustain systems,create data s professional evaluation for monitoring outcomes, and turning around lower

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development performing schools (US Department of Education, vii). The Every Student Succeeds Act 2015, p.

(ESSA) (www.ed.gov/ESSA)signed into law in 2015 provides someflexibility that manyeducators believe is importantfor 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 evidenceand data, formulate Axiom 11

to improve curriculumdevelopmentnationally.

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 plaming: A contemporaryapproach. (Sth ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Perelman, L. J. (1992). Schools out: Hyperlearning, the newtechnology, 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 oncurriculum 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: À guide to practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

References

Apple, M. W. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form, and the politics ofaccountability. In F. M. Connelly,

Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Makeit stick: The science ofsuccessful learn-

The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bellack, A. (1965, February). What knowledge is of most

Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

worth?TheHighSchool Journal. 48, 318-322. Bennis, W., Benne, K.. & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change (Ath ed.). New York, NY: Holt,Rinehart & Winston. Bloom, B. S. (1958). Ideas, problems,and methodsof inquiry. In (n.a.) The Integrationof educationalexperiences: The fifty-seventh yearbook ofthe National Societyfor the Study of Education: Part III. Chicago, IL: University ofChicagoPress. 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.

ing. Cambridge, MA: BelknapPress.

University Press. Bruner, J.$. (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. К. (Eds.). (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming: 1962 yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Combs, A. W. (1965). The professional educationofteachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

20

Part] + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

empirical data do nottell 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.

Unlessa principle is established that is irrefutable due to objective data, some degree of judgment must be broughtinto play. Whenever judgment comesinto thepicture, the potential for controversy arises. Consequently, some of the principlesfor curriculum developmentprovoke controversy, while othersare generally acceptedasreasonable guidelines. Controversy occurs often dueto 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 attentionto the factthat the waysin which curriculum planning and selection are done,

how curricula are taught and evaluated, and who is and should be involved are notisolated phe-

nomena.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. Thoughall function as operating principles, they are distinguished by their known effectivenessor by degree ofrisk. It is importantto understand these differences before examining the major guiding prin-

ciples for curriculum development.

Whole Truths Whole truths areeither 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

knowledgeor skills. Fromthis principle comethe practices of preassessmentofentry 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 thatstudent achievement is higher when studentsare grouped homogeneously for instruction. While some learners mayachieve betterresults

when placed in groupsof like ability or achievement level, others maynot. The practice of homogeneous or ability grouping may be successful with somestudents for certain purposes but not with others. Homogeneous grouping may permit schoolsto achieve certain goals of education, such as such as enabling studentsto learn mastery ofcontent, but prevent them from achieving other goals, containtolive and work with personsofdiffering levels of ability. Partial truthsare not half-truths ing falsehoods, butthey are not applicable to every situation and do not provideall perspectives. Hypotheses Finally, someprinciplesare neither whole norpartial truths butare hypotheses ortentative 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 di

d optimum cl s

ize

and school size forthe best learning outcomes. Educators have advos 25 studentsin high schoolclasses and fewer in elementary classes.

Curriculum Development Role of Personnel

Chapter3

Curriculum Development: A Multilevel,

Multisector Process Chapter4

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

47

CHAPTER 3

Learning Outcomes

CURRICULUM DECISIONS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Asinstructional leaders seek to improve learning outcomes for their

1.

Describe types of

students, curriculum decisions, such asthe following,are being made in some schooldistrictin the United States.

curriculum systems that are conducted atlevels and in sectors.

* A schoolsystem has revised a curricular plan based on WorldClass Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA)standards

Describe an

+ A schooldistrict establishes a committee to review potential

organizational pattern for curriculum development at the individual school level. Describe an organizational pattern for curriculum development at the schooldistrict level.

for English Learners (ELs).

supplementary digital resources to augmentits elementary schoolcore reading program. + A middle schoolhas decided to focus on English Language Arts (ELA)standardsfor which data indicate studentsareless proficientthan in otherstandards.

« A high school determines how to best prepare students to take state-mandated end of course exams (EOCs).

* The secondary schools of a schooldistrict create classes that will

increase female studentparticipationin physical education due

to the implications ofTitle IX. + A schooldistrict is implementing a One to One(1:1), one digital

device for each student and staff member,initiative forits high

school students. * A schooldistrict has adopted digital policies such as those for students bringing their own device (BYOD) forlearning

purposes.

Countless curricular decisions, such as thosein the preceding examples, are made on a continual basis. Somedecisionsare relatively simple—adding a coursehere, 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 onscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)orthe conversion ofa traditional 8-3-3 plan for school organization (eight years of elementary school (PreK-6), three ofjunior 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

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

[6-8], and four[9-12] in high school. These changesare complexandrequire both administrative and curricular decisions. Considering how school and schooldistrict leadersarrive at these decisions vary. More

progressive schooldistricts have continuous improvement modelsin place to address curriculum decision making and are constantly affecting changes in the curriculum as a result of these plans. Others approach curricular decisionsas a responseto an identified need that has presented itself dueto student performanceor otherpressures. Some make decisions haphazardly withoutresults,

while some school districts demonstrate lethargy and apathy toward curricular decision making and are, forall intents and purposes,stagnant.

Though why and how curriculum decisionsare made run the gamut, the importance of a school district following a systematic processto arrive at sound decisions regarding their curriculum system is paramount. When curriculumis viewedas a systemwith 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 schooldistrict in the form of waves starting in the individual teacher's classroom and terminating with the schooldistrict 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 higherlevels. If a curriculum team wishes to initiate a plan that affects other

levels,it must involve persons from thoselevels beginning at theearliest planning stages. If those in a level wish to initiate or endorse a plan that goes beyond the assignedresponsibility or that mightbe likely to create repercussions anywherein the system,it must seek approval at higherlevels. FIGURE 3.1 Sequence

of Decision

Making

District curriculum team

49

50

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

‘While the examples of curriculum decisions given at the beginning ofthis chapter are

typical and occur within individual schooldistricts, it is likely that similar curriculum developmentsin different schooldistricts may unfold at the same time. An example would be how differ-

ent external pressures may impactdecisions that are made. Public outcry and widespread parental dissatisfaction from low studentperformance on state examsat one particular school maylead to demandsfor changes to the curriculum and atthe same time parents at another school may use vouchersto transfer to nonpublic schools due to the same dissatisfaction. Each school district determines whetherto vary curriculum offerings at one school to appease stakeholders or to improve studentlearning outcomes, while maintaining the standard curriculum in others, which is a real and complex issue. While the media mayinfluence the dialogue and the educational

responsesto these challenges, professionals may contribute more to research based discourse and solutionfinding. Of the examples givenat the beginning of this chapteronly 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 federalor state governments.

In 1974 the United

States Supreme Court opened the doorsto require EL programswith its decision in the Lau v. Nichols case (1974). As a consequence ofthis 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 toassist 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 schoollevels (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Certainly, federal and statelegislation and court decisions have brought aboutcurricular change,

morefully later.

will be explored

LEVELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Atthe Vai

us Levels

Curriculum development occurs on manylevels and curriculumdevelopers, specialists, supervisors, teachers,leadership teams, school leaders, or stakeholders may be engagedinefforts on several levels at the same time. Each level performs distinct curricular efforts and hasits own

organizational processes for making curriculum decisions. For curriculumdecision making to take place, appropriate organizational structures are necessary.

Thelevels 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 involvedatthe classroomlevel; mostteachersparticipate atthe schoollevel; sometake part at the schooldistrictlevel;

and, fewer and fewerteachers engageat the state, national, and international levels. However,

a few teachers doparticipate in curriculum development at all levels. Charterschools or private (independent) schoolsare the exceptionto the step model as they havetheir own organizational

structures. They may besingular schools in whichteachers makeall curricular decisions or may

be members ofa charter school or independent school organization that have decisionsregarding curriculum madeatthe executivelevel.

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development

which ledto free public education? What would the progressive education movementofthe 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 programson the recommendations of JamesB. Conant, the formerpresidentof Harvard University? What impact has Maria Montessori had on elementary schoolprograms? Whatresponsesof the curriculum in the latter half of the twentieth century can be tracedto the teachings of Jean Piaget and of B.F. Skinner? Whatchanges will come about as a result of recommendations made by Mortimer J. Adler, Emest L. Boyer, John I. Goodlad, and Theodore R. Sizer? Table 2.1 illustrates the effectsof several forces during periodsof history on both the curriculum and instruction. In the barest skeletal form, American educational history hasfive periods: 1650-1750, 1750-1850, 1850-1950, 1950-2000, and 2000 to thepresent. Someof the curricular and instructional responsesto the philosophical, psychological, and sociological forcesoftheir

TABLE 2.1

Historical View of Forces Affecting Curriculum and Instruction

Period

Forces

1650-

Philosophy

1750

Essentialism

17501850

Psychology Faculty psychology—"mind as a muscle” Sociology Theocracy-Calvinist Male chauvinism Agrarian society Rich-poor dichotomy Philosophy Essentialism Utilitarianism Psychology Faculty psychology Sociology Industrial Revolution

Curricular Responses Latin GrammarSchoolfor boys The Bible The three R's Classical curriculum

Instructional Responses Strict discipline Rote learning Use of sectarian materials Mental discipline

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

Mentaldiscipline

Preparation tobea citizen

Recitation

Strict discipline

Some practical applications

Rotelearning

Westward movement

Rise of middle class Increased urbanization Local tax-supported schools Progressivism

1850 to Philosophy Essentialism 1950

Progressivism Psychology Behavioristic

Experimental

Gestalt

Perceptual

Centralized, then de-centralized control

Consolidation of schools

1850-1925:

High schools

Practical applications Problem-solving

1925-1950:

Attention to whole child

learner-centered curriculum Experimentalism

52

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Classroom Level

Whena teacheris first employed at a schoolit may appear that all curricular decisions have been made. Standardsare provided, subject or grade level textbooks and materials have beenselected,

and guidelines are place. The teacherthinks, with some justification, that the important decisions about the curriculum have already been made byothers, the grade level or subjectteam, the school, the schooldistrict,the state,the nation, and the public.

However, decisions regarding curriculum are ongoing and occur at a variety of levels and at differenttimes throughoutthe school year. Most schools have systemsandstructuresin place to support collaborative decision making. The team approach may be implemented at schools to encourageteacherparticipation in decision making. Some schools may subscribeto a coaching model in which teachers work in pairs to guide curricular decisions. Schools leaders may subscribe to a combination ofboth or offer other means of opportunities. Whateverthe curriculum system, it is important that structures(e.g., resources and time) which support collaboration are

in place for teachers.

Perhaps thelife ofthe teacher would be easier and less complicated ifthe curriculum were prescribed. On the other hand, if there were no curriculum decisionsto be made, teachers would beless involved in the learning process. A main theme of this text is the notionthat teachers are at

the center oflearning decisions and should be in rolesto influence or make decisions. The teacher

then not only makes decisionsorparticipates in collaborative decision making, but also gathers data and evidence on which to base curricular decisions. In whatspecific curriculum endeavorsis

theindividual 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 teacherof a self-contained general education class and a tenth-

grade teacher ofsocial studies. Both have eight years of experience and serve aslead teachers, bothare employedin the same school district, and both participate in curriculum planning at various levels. Our fourth-grade teacher, Teacher F is a grade leader who hasfive teachers. Our

tenth-grade teacher, Teacher N, is a member of a social studies department with eight faculty

members. Now,examinetheir 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 lessonsfor non-proficient students(grade level). He participates on a curriculum team making recommendations for implementing an intensive reading program in the school (schoollevel). Further,he serves on a school district team which studies ways to implement federal legislation regarding Exceptional Student Education (ESE) (schooldistrict level). ‘While Teacher F was making contributions toward curriculum developmentat the school and schooldistrict levels, Teacher N had been noless occupied at the state, national, and interna-

tional levels. She wasselected 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 assessmentsof 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 perhapsthe inclination to participate

in curriculum efforts at differentlevel

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

curricular activities is beyond the realm ofpossibility. 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 stan-

dardsand align instructional goals (essential ideas) and instructionalobjectives(learning targets) with them.As they incorporate subject mater(content), choose materials, and identify resources in the school and communitytheyare extending their curriculum design efforts. Whenthey decide

on and incorporate the scope and sequenceofthe standards,revise the content to alignto the rigor ofthe standard, develop instructional plans, and construct classroom assessments aligned to the

standards,they arerefining their curriculum system. Asthey pilot new programs,differentiate

the curriculum forindividual students and groups of students, and develop their own curricular

materials they becomecurriculum experts in theirteacher 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. Includedin this conceptare thefinal 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. Withinthis context teachers select appropriate emphases within the standards, decide which contentforstudents need particular emphasis, and allot timesfor the

various topicsand units to be taught, unlessthere is a prescribed pacing calendar. They determine

thestructureof the classroom and how it will be modified and decide how resources may best be

used to maximizelearning.

Teachers also have the responsibility of evaluating both the curriculum and their instruction. In some waysit is difficult to separate the two dimensions and to tell where instructional

evaluation ceases and curriculumevaluationbegins. In a very realsense, evaluating instruction is evaluating curriculum implementation. You can clarify the distinctions between the two dimensions of evaluation in the following way: Curriculum evaluation the ent of programs, proce: and curricular documents and artifacts (e.g., guides, formative assessments, alignment tables). Instructional evaluationis (a) the assessment of student achievement before, during,

and at the end ofinstruction and (b) the assessmentofthe effectiveness ofthe instructor through student learning outcomes. Thus, teachers work at the task of curriculumevaluation when they seekto find outif programs are valid, relevant, feasible, ofinterest to the learners, and meet the

rigor ofthe standards. Additionally, teachersreview the choices of delivery systems, materials, and resources and examine the finished curriculum documents and artifacts they have created

suchas guides, unit plans,and lessonplans. Teachers conductinstructional evaluation when they assess the learner on entry skills and knowledge beforethe start ofinstruction; progress moni-

tor 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 curriculumdevelop-

ment and instruction are complex and demanding responsibilities. As curriculum developmentat

the various levelsis discussed in the following pages, it may seem that individual teachers have

little autonomy. To some extentthereis truth in that belief. The influence offederal, state, and local school district mandatesthataffect the teacher's prerogatives in the areas of curriculum and

instruction is reality. In spite ofthe influence on theteacher's professional responsibilities, many curricular and instructional decisions remainto be made, especially in selecting delivery systems, differentiating to studentlearning needs, monitoring student academic progress, and reteaching when needed based on room evidence and data.

53

54

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Team, Grade, and Department Levels

In the following section,specific curriculum innovationsare discussed primarily to delineate the processof curriculum development and to help leaders to impact and evaluatecurriculum change. Organizational patterns also appearin this section to illustrate teachers’ participation in curriculum developmentat various levels beyond the classroom. Typically, elementary teachersin schools share curriculum development responsibilities as a collaborative team and

at gradelevels. Teachers in middle schools customarily take part in curriculum development at the team, grade, and department levels. Secondary school orhigh school teachersprimarily join with their colleagues in curriculum planning at the departmentlevel, but alsoat the course or grade level. Oneofthe axiomsin Chapter 2 statedthat curriculum development is essentially a group undertaking. Oncethe teacherjoins other teachers, curriculum development takes on a new dynamic. It calls for a spirit of collaboration on the part ofeach 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 beginsto emerge. Examples of curriculum developmentpracticesthat teachers on a collaborative team, a given grade,or a particular departmentorsubjectare called on to makeinclude: « reviewing data onstudent progress towards proficiency on a standard; + establishing or revising team, grade, or departmental priorities based on studentdat * aligning the curriculum to standards;

* developing a scope and sequenceof the standards;

+ selecting materials and resourcesforinstruction;

+ determining how technology will be incorporated into instruction,provision offeedback, and assessment;

* writing common progress monitoring assessments; + establishing actions to differentiate instruction based on studentprogress; and « evaluating instructional effectiveness.

The associatedlist 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 decisionsthataffect their ownclasses. Whena decisionis likely to have an impact on teachers, otherthan their individual classroom,it

becomes a matterforjoint deliberation by the parties outside of the classroom orat higher levels

tobe affected. To enable the decision making process to become more efficient, choosing the mosteffective teachers with leadership skills, as curriculum developersor subject matter experts

(SMEs)fora collaborating group is wise. If curriculum development is also viewed as professionallearning then teachers, both veteran and novice, may be included. Being purposeful and deliberatein selecting participants for collaborative decision making is more importantthan it may appearon the surf: Patterns of organizational interaction vary amongteachers, teams, grades, subjects, and departments, from school to school and from school district to school dis Curriculum matters that can be determined and implemented within a team, grade, subject, or departmentare handled at that level. However, curriculum development can impact persons beyond the team and the

groupfor whomthe documents were made.

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

The SchoolLevel

Although many curriculum decisions are made at the classroom or team, grade,subject, and departmentlevel, other decisions can be reached onlyat a school level. The school provides some mechanism whereby the curriculum is articulated and integrated and schoolleaders and staff should hold themselves accountable for the implications of curriculum decisions.

Systems and structuresdiffer school by school within the nation, within thestate, and within the same locality. Educational diversity is both a blessing and a dilemma for curriculum devel-

opers. It is a strength in thatit permits schools to respond to needsevidenced in the individual school and locality. Tt presents a problem in the light of state and national standards thatspecify commonalitiesof 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 schooldistrict or state level. Michael G. Fullan (1994) called attention to the need for coordinating top-down and

bottom-upstrategies (pp.186-202). Site-based managementand shared decision making should notbe perceived as the delegation of all authority and responsibilityto the individual school. A bottom-up approach without support of higherlevels may be no more successful in creating lasting curriculum improvement than a top-down approach without cooperation of lowerlevels. Commented Fullan (1994), “In sum, decentralized initiatives, as far as the evidenceis concerned,

are not faring much better than centralized reforms” (p. 189). Efforts toward empowerment at thelocal level have soughtto balancethe heavier control formerly exerted by schooldistrict and state levels. However, the local school cannot work in isolation. Collaboration among levels remains essential.

The preceding chapter demonstrated that curriculum developers conceive ofcurriculum

development as a collaborative undertaking. Given the many dimensions ofthe

school admin-

istrator's job, a participatory approachto administration is sound not only philosophically but

also practically. Collaborative decision making, whetherin 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 developmentare usually identified as the staff, teachers, students,and lay members ofthe community. Onoccasion, nonprofessional employeesof the school district becomeinvolved in theplanningprocessbutrarely as major participants. The conceptofinvolving stakeholders in the process is not new. In 1970, Jack R. Frymier and Horace C. Hawnstated a principle that summarizesthebeliefin the necessity for involving persons in curriculum planning ona broad scale: Involve People WhoAre Affected. Involvementis a principle fundamental to democracy and to learning theory. The very essence of democracy 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 curriculumdevelopment and change should have a genuine opportunity to participate in the process.(Frymier, 1970, pp. 28-29)

55

26

Part 1 + 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 methodof teaching reading, changedto look/say methods, and whole language, and then back to phonics-based for primary grades understanding that students are measuredin vocabulary and comprehension, notin word calling. The late 1900s saw a rise in world language offerings. However, a survey conducted by the

Centerfor Applied Linguistics revealed a decline in number ofelementary and middle schools offering world languages betweenits last survey in 1997 and 2008. Signaling once again the

effect of social, political, and cultural needs onthe curriculum, Arabic grew in those schools offer-

ing foreign languages whereas French, German, and Russian declined, (Rhodes & Pufhal, n.d.) Onthe other hand, some schools, particularly the essentialistic, have remained unchanged and continue to offer Latin, while social transformations have swirled around them. As Spanish speak-

ing families have immigrated to the US, Spanishlanguage instruction has adjusted to have special

courses for native Spanish speakersas their needs often vary from the native English learnertak-

ing Spanishas a second or world language. The schools of theearly days in America stressed basic skills taughtin strict expectationsof discipline, even to the point that students may have beenrequiredto stand to addressthe teacher. The carly 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 forreading, 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 culturesof schools may have changed andare

more inclusive and valuing ofdifferences, respect for the adults and otherstudentsin the school is expected. In some school districts, there are even school board policies, which may be called

codes ofconduct that haveastheir purposes consistency in expectations ofresponsesto certain misbehaviors. As curricular themesare often recapitulated, someteachers and curriculum developers are disposed to maintain the status quo, concluding thattheir current mode ofoperation,

while it may be out of favor now, will be in style again sometimein the future. “Why change when weare probably going to eventually change back?” theyask. Whenthe status quo no longer serves the needsofthe learnersorof society, the maintenance of the status quois inexcusable, for it prohibits accomplishment of the ethical expectation ofservus and informed manner. Even if prior responses return later, ing the students in the mostef they should result from a re-examinationofthe forcesofthat time. Thus, the re-emergenceofprior

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 oflesson 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 Marzanoand his contemporaries, this lesson de model continues to be an expectation for many teachersin the US. In fact, it may even be part of teachers” formal annual evaluation system.

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

curriculum developmentconsistently promotes a collaborative approach. However, it is important to note,as in any organizational modelin the educationalsetting, external stakeholders should

onlyserve in an advisory mannerto the school leaders. The SchoolDistrict Level

Noneof 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 thedirection of a superintendent who works for the school board.Efforts are to be coordinated amongentitiesto achieve the schooldistrict strategic curricular goals. Consequently, thesuperintendent orhis designee provides a mechanism wherebyschool district level curriculum planning may be conducted. Patternsoforganization at the school district level increase in complexity asthe size of the schooldistrict increases. Curriculum planning on a district level is often conducted through various teams. Districtwide teams may be composedofteachers, schoolleaders, schooldistrict curriculum developers, stakeholders, and, in somecases, students. Representatives may be either elected by membersoftheir respective groups or appointed by school district level leadersor in thecase of schoolpersonnel, bythe recommendation of school instructionalleaders. Subcommittees of professionals from anywhere in the schooldistrict may be appointed by the curriculum team to conduct specific phasesof curriculumdevelopment. School district level teams and curriculum teams meet to consider problems such as: + adding new programs; + abandoning programs; « implementing standards based curriculum and instructio: + creating itemsfor progress monitoring or EOC exam:

« writing orreviewing proposals for state, federal, and private foundation grants ; and

« articulating programs betweenlevels. 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 Edu-

cation (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 numberof 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 standard: * review and adopt instructional materials; + establish graduation requiremen oversee funding:

appoint board members to military and special school districts;

57

58

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

・ provide final review ofrulesin educatorcertification; and

* review the commissioner's proposed award of new charter schools, with authority to veto a

recommended applicant. (Texas Education Agency, 2016)

SEAs operatein the arena ofcurriculum development through a numberofchannels within

the education profession byinterpreting and enforcing legislated policy. The SEA maycall on a variety ofstakeholders with various backgrounds to serve on statewide committees or teams.

The educational professionals who are asked to serve constitute theprofessional channel for curriculum development. STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION. The SDOE or SEAexercisesdirectresponsibility over the curriculum ofthe school districts. Led by a Chief State SchoolOfficer (CSSO) (superintendent

or commissioner of education), thestate department of education, an agency ofthe executive branch of thestate government,consists of a number of deputies, directors, coordinators, supervisors,specialists, and otherstaff members. The SEA provides general leadership to the school districts. SEAsinterpret, enforce, and monitorstate and perhaps federally legislated regulations for which they have responsibility, particularly when fundsflow through the SEA to the school districts, such as those for Title I and Title II. SEAs wield great powerover the schooldistricts. In curriculum matters it provides technical

assistanceto the legislaturein developing statutes,setting standards and achievementlevels forstate exams, selecting and approving programs, and monitoring student progress. SEAs also disburse state and federal funding for specific programs, provide technicalassistance toschooldistricts in interpretingstate statutes and policies, and enforce the application ofstate laws and policies. Attimes, decisions are madeonthestate level without advance consultation with the local school district personnel. At other times, however, the state departmentof education seeks advice

and assistance from individuals and from ad hoc committeescreated forthe purpose ofstudying

specific problems and recommending solutions. Schoolleaders 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 dis-

seminating information regarding curriculum innovations and practices among the schools ofthe 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 forcurriculum development and consideration of curriculum problems through

activities ofthe 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

subsequentcurriculum reform. This type ofcurriculum professional learning cannot be equated

with more structured efforts under the SEA. Nor, can the examination of curriculum problems

sional organizations be labeled as a level of planning, as noelement of authority

exists in this type of voluntary activity. More appropriately, the state professional organizations constitute a sector that seeks to influence curriculum change throughresearch, example, and recommendations coupled with collaboration across school district boundaries.

LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS. State legislaturesthroughout the country consistently demonstrate a penchant for curriculum making. Legislation can be a result ofa grassroots movement within thestate orit can evolve from recommendations made by the SEA. In some cases, acts of the

28

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Alan N. Rudnitsky (2006) affirmed that “Curriculum developmentis typically done by teamsof

people working together on a common project” (p. 13).

Several groups or constituenciesare involved in curriculum developmentin differing roles and with differing intensities. Students and otherstakeholdersoften, though perhaps notas 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 underthe direction of the school and schooldistrict administrators whosetask is to facilitate the

curriculum development efforts at all stagesof the process. Students enter the processof curriculumdevelopmentasdirect recipients ofbenefits that result from curriculum change,and parents are broughtin as the persons mostvitally concerned with the welfare oftheir ownstudents and the

community. It is commonforstudents and stakeholdersto beinvitedto participate in the process of curriculum planning. Some schooldistricts go beyondparentsofchildrenin 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 preparednessof studentsto be productive contributors to the economy. Broad community involvementin providing input related to school

offeringsis a positive approach for designing curriculum that will have support when implemented. Generally, anysignificant change in the curriculum should involveall the aforementioned

constituencies, as well as the school’s noncertificated personnel. The more peopleaffected bythe change, and the greaterits complexity and costs, the greater the numberof persons and groups that should be involved. The roles of various individuals and groupsin curriculum development

are examinedin Chapter 4.

Although somelimited gainscertainly 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 thanindividual 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 otherto change and to achieve commitment to change. Carl D. Glickman (1998) averred: “Any comprehensive

changes made without the understanding and support ofat least a core majority of educators and

parents will fail, not necessarily because of the changes themselves (Glickman, 1998, p. 39). But because ofthe 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, changeefforts for the long term will be for naught” (p. 39). Being cognizant ofthe attitudes ofvarying constituents that have a stake in curriculum

developmentis a fundamentalresponsibility ofthe curriculum developer (Taba, 1962). Change Leadership

Those who lead curriculum change and implementation may either have been directed to lead

specific changeor perhapsthey haveidentified that curriculum redevelopmentis needed from analysis student learning outcome data and progress towards meeting schooldistrict or school There are three categories ofplanned changethat are generally considered. All strategic goals. three may apply to curriculum development: empiricalrational strategies, power coercivestrategies, and normative reducative strategies (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985).

60

Part II + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

FIGURE 3.3 Hierarchical Structure Model

State

Schooldistrict Individual school Team/grade/department Classroom

case decisions that they are empowered and/orrequired 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 overthe schools,including

the curriculum.

Consequently, a curriculum model showsthelevels ofcurriculum planning through the state

level and beyond thestate 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 ofreferring

tolevels of planning. The concept ofsectors eliminatesthe hierarchical and sequence problems

of the step model and simply states that curriculum planning goeson in eightsectors: the classroom; the team/grade/subject/department; the individual school; the schooldistrict; the state; the

region; the nation; and the world. The sectors of planning model,illustrated in Figure 3.4, show

that the majority ofcurriculum developmenttakes place by teachers and curriculum specialists in the classroom, team or grade, school, and schooldistrict. Decreasing amountsof curriculum

developmenttake place in sectors beyondthe schooldistrict boundaries. The broken lines signify that an individual teacheror curriculum developers may workat separate times or simultaneously in more than one sector.

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

Sectors of Development

Nation Re;

District

In

discussing sectors of development,the sectorsin which specialists work and those

where decisions are made should bedistinguished. These are not necessarily the same. Deci-

sions about classroom curriculum that the individual teacher wishes to make may be referred

to a higher level of decision making, especially ifthese decisions will impact otherteachers.

For example, teachers should not make a unilateral decision to replace an adopted textbook

that alignsto 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 cither at the schoolor 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

statesector.

SECTORS BEYOND THE STATE When curriculum specialists work in the regional, national, or international sector, they work in

quite a different context. Exceptin the cases of federal legislation and federal judi

or

case law, which are discussed in the following pages, information sharing and persuasion

rather than statutory power are the tools ofthe regional, national, and international sectors. No assurance of any kind existsthat 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 planningin the

regional, national, and international sectors, the opportunities that doarise can berich for the participants.

61

62

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Regional Sector

Participationin developing curriculum in the regional sector is not comparable to that in the previouslydescribed sectors. On occasion,curriculum specialists of a particular region of the USA or even from a number ofcountries may assemble and develop curriculum materialsthat they may use in their schools. Notable illustrations ofthis type of collaborative endeavor occurred when

American schools were underfire 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 wonthe race to space and that the USA wasnotas technologically advancedasits adversaries (National Aeronau-

tics 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). Asdissatisfaction with

schools increased the United States Office of Education's life adjustment education curriculum,

which sought to makeschool 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. Forthefirst time, a school accountability movement, dueto the large

amount of public funds being allocated, was propagated (Bowers, 1991). Scholars and stakeholders from variousparts ofthe country developed the New Math and NewScience programsas a part of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in an attempttoensurethat highly educated individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technicalfields (National Defense Education Act, 2017). New Math and New Science included

higherlevel courses,such as calculus and physics in an effort to preparehigh schoolstudentsfor college and to compete with international counterparts. Asa general rule, curriculum developmentin the regional sectors are more likely to consist of sharing commonissues, exchanging practices, reporting research, and gathering information. Much of the participation in which school personnel take part in the regional sectorfalls into the category of data analysis related to curriculum evaluation, in contrast to planning or implement-

ing curriculum.

The National Sector

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. Although education in the USA is a function ofthestates, the profound effect of nationallegislation 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 toreform organizational and resource allocation practices (Kantor,

1991). Significant monies were included toentice 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 fundingto assist in the areasofeducation technology, professionallearning (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 of1965, 2008).

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

A major expectation of the ESEA was that schooldistricts using federalfunds were expected to improvestudent academic performance of economically disadvantaged studentsin 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 ofthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 2008). Thelasting impact of ESEA remainsthroughits many revisions. In 2016, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) waspassed to replace ESEA and to sig-

nal a new era in leadership for curriculum development (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

As noted in Chapter 2, ESSA provides someflexibility that many educatorsbelieve 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) gathersdata, disseminates information, provides consultative assistance, sponsors and

conductsresearch, funds projects, and disburses funds appropriated by Congress. The USDOE exercises a degree ofleadership in curriculum developmentfor educators and schoolsofthe nation, particularly in areas that are fundedat the federal level. In the public governmentalsector, USDOEexercisesa strong influence. Educators find the opportunityto participate in national curriculum efforts supported by the USDOE by writing and submitting proposals for grants to conductcurricular researchorto putparticular programs into operationin their school districts. An example of the USDOEfunding curricular efforts took place in 1990 and 1991, when grants were

providedforstates to voluntarily create standards for history, ELA,science, civics, economics, history, the arts, world languages, and physical education. Atthe federal executivelevelthere was leadership change with different political influencesso the beginning of standards development

funded by the USDOE went by the wayside (Ravitch, 2010).

The USDOE maycall on curriculum experts from particular fieldsto 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.

Localschools in various regionsofthe country haveparticipated 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. Underthe direction of NAEP, objectives have been specified, criterion-referenced measurementinstruments have been created, and assessments have

been conducted in a numberofsubject areas.

From these data curriculum developersin 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 ofthe executive branch of the U.S. government, have been mentioned. On occasion, the judicial branch ofthe federal government assumes

therole ofcurriculum 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 instruc-

tion in English mustbe given to non-English-proficient students,that prayerin the public schools

63

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development lengthening, and troubleshooting. Hilda Taba (1962) made the same observation when shelikened

curriculum developmentto quilt making: the compilation of diverse individual contributions that

are interconnected only bythreads of similarity (p. 8). Curriculum planninghasoften beentoo fragmentary ratherthan comprehensive orholistic. Too many curriculum planners have focused on the trees and notseenthe forest. The popular expression thatthe whole is greaterthanthe sum ofits parts applies well to curriculum development. Although parts ofthe curriculum may be studied separately. planners areto frequently and periodically view the macrocurriculum—thatis, the curriculum as a whole,as distinguished from the sum ofits parts.

A comprehensive view encompasses an awarenessofthe impact of curriculum development not only on the students, teachers, and parentsdirectly concerned with a programmatic change, butalso on the innocent bystanders, those not directly involved in the curriculum planning but affected in some way by the resultsof planning. Human sexuality education, an example that is sensitive in many communities, mayaffect not only teachers, students, and parents ofstudents for whom the program is intended but also teachers, students, and parents of those who are not scheduledfortheinstruction. Some from the groupsinvolved may not wish to be included. Others

from the groups notin the program may wish to receivetheinstruction. There may be those from both groups who reject the subject asinappropriate for the school. The comprehensive approach to curriculum planning requires a generous investment of physical and human resources. Curriculum specialists engagein planning for curriculum development or in what might be referred to as developing the management plan. Some predetermination is made priorto initiating curriculum development as to whetherthe 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. arealso to be taken into consideration by the curriculum leaders. Perhaps one ofthe reasons that

curriculum development has historically been fragmented and piecemealis the level of demand that the comprehensive approach places on the school district's resources.

Systematic Development AXIOM 9. Systematiccurriculum developmentis moreeffective thantrial and error. Curriculum

developmentshould ideally be made comprehensive by examination of the whole and should be madesystematic by following an established set of procedures. Procedures, including normsof collaborationfor the participants, should be agreed upon and knownbyall those whoparticipate in the development of the curriculum. Curriculum planners are more likely tobe 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 normsofcollaboration that will be part of the process.

If the curriculum specialist subscribesto the foregoing axioms and consents to modeling

his or her behavior based on these axioms, will success be guaranteed? The answeris an obvious

“no,” forthere are manylimitations on curriculum specialists,

some ofwhich are beyond their

control. Among therestrictions on the curriculum plannerare the style and personal philosophy of the administrator, the resources of the schooldistrict, the community context, the expertise,

knowledge, and skillsof the participants in curriculum development, and the availability of professional materials and resource persons. One of the greatest limi

sometimes overlooked because it is

so obvious and

encompassing—isthe existing curriculum. Many treatises have been written by curriculum experts on the characteristics ofdifferent types of curriculum. The earmarks ofan activity

31

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 developmentare 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 deepinterestin supporting projects designed to improve education in the USA. Examplesoffoundations’ interestin

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 professorsin arts and sciences,education, and engineering at the University ofIllinois to develop a school mathematics program for gradesnine through twelve, which became known asthe UniversityofIllinois Committee on School Mathematics (UICSM). Shortly thereafter,in the late 1950s, the Carnegie Corporation funded another mathematics project: the developmentofa program for grades seven and eight by teachers of mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematics educatorsat the University

of Maryland.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation entered into curriculum developmentin the late 1950s by

supporting,along with the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation’s Fundfor the

Advancement ofEducation, the production of a new program for high school physics known as

PhysicalScience Study Committee (PSSC) physics. Bystudyingthepast, several observations can be made about nationalcurriculum development in mathematics and science.First, these programs were created throughthe collaboration of scholars and practitioners, professors and teachers which support the axiomthat curriculum development is essentially a group undertaking. Second, all these undertakings took considerable effort and cost

a significant amount. Without the largesse ofthe 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 continuedinto the early 1960s. The 1950s were a time when there was a great deal of ferment in education, and money flowed into

educationalpursuits. Asa response to the technology of the former Soviet Union and in the name

ofnational defense, the funding for educational projects and research was abundant in the 1950s. Nosuch 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 wasnoted in Chapter 2 and againin the next section (U.S. Department

of Education, 2015).

Thereare numerousprivate organizations, foundations, and corporationsthat continue to pro-

vide fundsto influence the educational landscape (e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Education Foundation, Lucas Education Foundation, Wallace Foundation). Mike Fineberg and Dave Levin, established

à private foundation KIPP (Knowledge is PowerProgram)after working for Teach for Americ

another private foundation (Author, 2017). Many schooldistrictsstrategically seek grants by estab-

lishing departments with sole purpose to seek funding to pay for strategic initiatives. Additionally, schoolsdevelop grant writing teams to address smaller curricular projects. The curriculum specialist canplay a key role in seeking grantsorin providing technical assistance on grant writing teams. OTHER INFLUENTIAL VOICES. Although education in the USA is a function ofthe 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 IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Governors Association setforth six national educational goalsthat resulted in the America 2000

legislation. Expanding on the Bush reform efforts, the U.S. Congressin 1994 enacted President Bill Clintons educational reform package known as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,

which added two goals beyond theearliersix 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 signedinto 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 subgroupsof 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 includedthe Raceto the Top (RTTT)initiative, withthe first awards made by the U.S. Department

ofEducation to Delaware and Tennessee in the spring of2010 (U.S. Departmentof Education,

2015). This funding provided for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) development and associated assessment consortiums (Common CoreState Standards Initiative, 2010).

The International Sector

INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. Involvement of American curriculum

specialists onthe 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 Chil-

dren holds conferences in various parts ofthe 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

Studiesis a member ofthelatter. Sponsoring periodic conferences in variousparts of the world,

these international organizations offer opportunities for individuals interested in curriculum studies to exchange ideas and develop an understanding of one anothers educational systems

and problems. If teachers and otherschoolleaders are willing to spend a period oftime abroad, they can become intimately involved in curriculum developmentoverseas by accepting employment in the U.S. Department ofDefense 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 becomeactivein developing curricula offoreign 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 curriculumstudy, research,teaching, and technical assistance from membersof the United Nations. The Institute of International Education in New

York City directs aninternational exchange ofstudents 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 ofhigher education to conduct research and teach beyond the USA. Another professional organization that targets specific education arenasthatare 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. iINACOL’s focus is in creating national

standards, blendedlearning, competency-basedlearning, and personalized learning (International Association for K-12 Learning, n.d.). Online education and the current landscape andtrendsin

this arena will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 13. Opportunitiesforfirsthand participation in curriculum construction on a cross-national

basisare rare, and this dearth of opportunityis to be expected. The curricular needs and goals of education in various countries are so divergentas to make impractical the building ofa 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 ofdisciplines have been conducted by the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), the International Assessmentof Educational Progress (IAEP), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development's (OECD) Programmefor International Assessment (PISA), the Trendsin Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

(PIRLS). In the United States,leaders regularly compare student achievementto achievementin other countries via these results and therefore, influence curriculum. You will find discussion of

international comparative studies in Chapter 12 ofthis text.

Summary

This chapter discusses a variety of organizational patterns for carrying out curriculum activities in the individual school and school district. A teacher

of curriculum efforts sponsored by regional, national, and international organizations and agencies. Teachers have considerable opportunity to

or curriculum specialist may be requested to serve on a number of curriculum committees and councils within a schooldistrict.

school, and school district levels along with some opportunityat the state level.

Curriculum developmentis viewed as occur-

Forces outside the schools also influence cur-

shape curricular decisions at the classroom, local

ring on levels: classroom, collaborative team/grade/

riculum decision making. Curriculum development

subject/department, individual school, school district, and state. Each level in ascending order exercises

is perceived as a multilevel, multisectorcollaborative

authority over preceding levels.

In addition, developmenttakesplace in national

process.

Models of levels or ofs

address the questionsof where decis

and international sectors. Sectors are distinguished from levels because sectors have no orlimited power overthe five level: Teachers and curriculum specialists will find

what organizational processes are usedfor developing plans. These models do not answerthe question of why decisionsare made, a topic explored in later chapters. Aslong as we conceptualize levelsofplanning

their most frequent opportunities to participate actively in curriculum developmentat the first four

as loci of work ratherthan levels of importance, and understand that curriculum specialists do not necesrily work at all levels or sectors, the concepts of

levels. Somecurriculum specialists are called on by the state to serve on curriculum projects. À limited

number of school-based persons take part in a variety

levels ofplanning 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 impactedthe teacher's role in curriculum development in your context? Use

evidenceto support yourposition. 2. In your context, how canteachersshape curricular decisions in a school? Provide evidence and

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

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Research the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA)andexplain how the core tenants of the

act will impactthe various levels of curriculum

development.

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

2. Should the USDOE exist? Support yourposition.

Websites

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

National Council of Teachers ofEnglish: ncte.org South Atlantic Modern Language Association: samla -memberelicks.net United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization: unesco.org U.S. Departmentof Education: ed.gov

WIDA:http://wida.us World Council for Curriculum and Instruction: weciinternational.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). Genderdifferences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles’ expectancyvalue model. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press. Glickman, C.D.(1998). Revolutionizing Ameri schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas

Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.” Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. National Education Association. (1983). Report ofthe committee of ten onsecondaryschoolstudies. Washington, DC:National Education Association. Sowell, E. J. (005). Curriculum: An integrative approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

34

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

* What are or will be the essentials of each discipline, including the past, present, and the future?

Decisions on the scopeofthe curriculum are multiple and relate to the curriculum as a whole

for the various disciplines, courses, or content within thedisciplines, units, and individual lessons. Curriculum planners makedecisions on scope not only within each ofthe three domains of

learning but also from amongthe domains. Within the domainsthey mustraise questions such asthefollowing:

+ Shall a course in geology as well as human geography be included (cognitive)? + Shall the developmentof charity and/ortheattitude of cooperation be included (affective)? + Shall physical education and dancebeincluded (psychomotor)? Curriculum planners may find the determination of scope within a domain,albeit taxing, easierto resolve than making decisions between domains. Which domain, it must be asked,is

most important? Thisquestionresurrects philosophical argumentsabout the nature of knowledge as well as the nature and needsoflearners and ofsociety. What knowledge is worth more? Arno

Bellack (1965) addressed this

question, and concluded that schools should enable teachers to

developstudents’ knowledge in the major disciplines.

Other theoristsstressed the domain of knowledge, the cognitive domain. Jerome S. Bruner (1962) wrote: “Thestructure 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 containedin thedisciplinesis appropriate to the curriculum”(p. 57).

Combs, Kelley, and Rogers(1962) on the other hand, looked beyond the realm of knowl-

edge to the developmentof values and the self-conceptas central to the educational process. Manyteachers and curriculum planners, do not rely ontheir own judgment, leaving decisions on scope to others—to curriculum consultants, to writers of curriculum guides, and to the authors and publishers oftextbooks. Thus, the scope may consist of many pages of one or moretexts,

andthe determination is made simply by dividing the numberof pages by the numberof days

of schooling or by dividing the numberof topics and learning activitiesin a course ofstudy by the number of days or weeks. Although this simplistic planningis better than none, the curriculum would be far more pertinent ifplanners exercised, through a systematic, collaborative process, their own combined professional judgment and selected from theentire field only those concepts, skills, and knowledge they deemed appropriate to their school, learners, society, state, region, and country. Since the implementation ofstandards and accountability for student learning outcomes,

there have been changesin the examination of scope byinstructionalleaders and teachers. Because ofthe scrutiny of the outcomes, teacherscollaborate and add in their own experience about how

much timeit 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 doesprovide some limitations on curriculum decision making,

it doesnot eliminate the many decisionsthat teachers makein planning, organizing, presenting, and evaluating learning to support students’ success.

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/over-

view/intro/4pillars.html U.S. Department of Education (2015). Fundamental change: Innovation in America's schools under race 10 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: À synthesis offindings fromrecent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 20, 115-136. Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum:Principles andfoundations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Zolmanet al. v. Simmons-Harris et al., 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952).

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension THE SCHOOL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A UNIQUE BLEND

Schools differ considerably from one anotherin their physical facilities, resources, and locales. Yet,it is not the schools thatdiffer as much as the people whoeither support them or operate within them. Each school has a unique blend oftalent, with differentskills, knowledge, experience, and personality. Curriculum developmentis à people process, a human endeavor in whichindividuals and groups accept and carry out mutually reinforcing roles. Faculties with a predisposition to change curriculum to better serve students with the subtle blending oftheir skills and knowledgecan achieve significant successes in curriculum improvement. Differences Among School Facul

The human variables in the process of curriculum developmentare

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe the roles of (a) the instructionalleaders, (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.

many and complex. When schools’ achievements in curriculum improvementare compared, it is quickly discovered thatthere are great

variationsin the leadershipskills of (a) the person or persons leading the curriculum study, (b) the curriculum developmentteam, (c) the

total faculty, and (d) the preceding three entities working together. Success orfailure will depend toa great extent on howpeople 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 timesthrough-

out the school year. In addition, curriculum developers conceive of curriculum development as à collaborative team undertaking in which

decisions must be made. Due tothe humanfactor,there are variables that impact the decision making process.

Talent Variables

School and school district faculties and administrators have a wide range ofcapacity in the areasofleadership, instruction, curriculum, technology, data analysis, organization, and communication.The differences among individuals and teams participating in curriculum 71

36

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Smith (1969) admitted thatit is difficult to show the utility of abstract subject matter:

Unfortunately, the utility of this form of subject matter is much moredifficult to demonstrate...... Perhapsthechief reason utility of abstract knowledge cannot be demonstrated to the skeptic

is that a great deal ofit functions as a second-orderutility. 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 leaming that shapes behavior, but which is notitselfdirectly observable in behavior. (Smith, 1969. p. 131) USES OF KNOWLEDGE.

Smith (1969)classified the uses of knowledge that are notdirectly

observable as associative, interpretive, and applicative. By associative Smith meant the learner's abilityto relate knowledgefreely, sometimes bringing about solutions to problems. Abstract knowl-

edgehelpsindividualsto interpret their environment, which they cannot do without fundamental knowledge. Abstractsubject matterenableslearners to apply concepts to solve new problems.

Curriculum specialists in collaboration with others decide what is meant by relevance and

then proceed to makethe curriculum asrelevantaspossible. Balance

Balanceis an unusual curriculumconceptthat on the surface seems obvious but with some prob-

ing becomes somewhat cloudy. Nailing down a precise definition ofbalance is difficult. Many— perhaps most—educators think thatthe 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 kindsare slow in adapting to newneeds and demandsofthe culture except when social changeis rapid and urgent in its implications for theseinstitutions” (p. 7).

Thesearch for a definition ofbalance is complicated by differing interpretations as it applies

to the curriculum. Halverson (1961) spoke of balancing ends and means, as follows:

“A balanced

curriculum impliesstructure and orderin its scope and sequence (means) leading to the achievementof educationalobjectives (ends)”(p. 4).

Goodlad (1963) would bring the learner-centered curriculum andthe subject-centered cur-

riculum into balance, commenting:

Muchrecent and current controversy over the curriculum centers on the question of what kind and how muchattention to give learners and subject matter, respectively. The prospect of stressing one to the exclusion ofthe other appears scarcely worthyofconsideration. Nonetheless, the interested observerhaslittle 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 describedit as follows:

A balancedcurriculumfor a given learner at a given time would completely fit the leamer in termsof his or her particular educational needs at that time. It would contain just enough of each kind ofsubject matter toserve the individuals purposes and to speed his or her development. Perhaps the best that can be done in working toward balanceis to be clearer about what is val-

ued for the growth ofindividual learners and then to apply these valuesin selecting curriculum

content, grouping pupils for instruction, providing for articulation, and furthering guidance programs. (Doll, 1996 pp. 186-187)

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 managementskill for it servesto develop others and to provide motivation: however, if not managed correctly, it can have a negative impact. In this case,the instructionalleaderplayed an active role throughout the process by supporting, communicating, and holding the team accountable to ensure success.

Components of the deliverable established bythe instructional leader required the curricu-

lum specialist to develop a team, establish processes, conduct research,seekinputfrom stakeholders, and gain group consensus on the outcome. Additional expectationsthatheset surrounding the composition ofthe team and parameters for which the team would operate included:

« membershave diversity of thought and represent the demographicsof the school; * membersbring to the task expertise, knowledge, and technical competence in the areas of curriculum,applicable standards, instruction, assessment, and technology; * members haveexcellent written and oral communication skills; + members should have objective decision makingskills;

« 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 developmentof the deliverable. ‘Whether the instructional leaderplays a direct or indirect role, his or herpresence should

always be stronglyfelt.If the instructional leaderserves actively in the process of curriculum developmentorindirectly by delegating leadership responsibilitiesto 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” waslisted as the number onecritical task for the

instructionalleader by the Southern States Cooperative Program in Education, sponsored bythe W. K. Kellogg Foundation (Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administra-

tion, 1955).

However,in today’s schools the span of responsibilities thatfall on the instructionalleader

often overweigh the opportunities for him or herto develop curriculum. In someinstances,cur-

riculum development does not head the list of priorities ofprincipals. In 2003, William H. Roe

and Thelbert L. Drake (2003) observedthatthe principalis torn betweenhisor her desired role as or heractualrole as administrator and manager (p. 22). More recently instructional leader and John Hattie (2009) provided conclusions from meta-analysis research, that instructional leader-

ship, which is focused on processes leading to change in student achievement, has a higher effect size than othertypesof leadership. Somefactorsthatlead principals away fromspendingtime on instructional leadership are businessand personnel management; efficiency ofoperation and safety; mandates from the state and schooldistrict, along with stakeholders’ expectations of engagement. In most schools, stakeholders are aware thatthe instructional leader by both tradition and job description is charged with

the responsibility for conducting all the affairs and decision making ofthe school. Similarly, at the school district level curriculum would be the responsibility of the superintendent. In that

sense,

all curriculum teams and groupsofthe school and school district are advisory to the principal and superintendent respectively.

73

74

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

“Theory X” and “Theory Y”

Througheach person's individual approach, the instructional leader exerts a force оп all operations within the school. The success ofthe curriculum specialists and developers may depend to some extent on whether the principal is a “Theory X” or “Theory Y”leader. In 1960, Douglas McGregorclassified 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 persondislikes work andtries 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 avoidsresponsibility. * The average person mustbe directed. * The needfor security is the chief motivation of the average person. (McGregor, 1960,

pp. 33-34)

Authority, control, task maintenance, and productorientation dominatethe thinking of the Theory X administrator. On the other hand, the administrator who subscribes to Theory Y holds thesebeliefs.

* Theaverage person welcomes work.

* The average person seeksresponsibility. * Mostpeople will demonstrateself-reliance whenthey share a commitmentto therealization 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 amongpeople. (McGregor, 1960, pp. 47-48) Whereas administrators may be more inclined toward onetheory, he or she will manifest behaviorthat will at times leans toward the other. There are occasions whenthe Theory Y admin-

istrator will exercise authority andfollow Theory principles. Nevertheless, the position among manyspecialists in curriculum development andin leadership is that a Theory Y approachis recommended. ThomasJ. Sergiovanni and Fred D. Carver (1980) counseled: “In ourview, the

uniquerole ofthe schoolas a humanizing and self-actualizing institution requires that school executives adoptthe assumptions and behavior manifestations of Theory Y” (p. 49).

The human relations-oriented principal nurtures the curriculum development processby estab-

lishing a climate in which the curriculum team feels valued and in whichtheysatisfy, to use Abraham Maslow's (1970)term, “the need forself-actualization”(p. 4). The instructional leader encourage andfacilitates the process. Becausethe instructionalleader holdsthe power forfinal decision mak-

ing, he or she is wise togive serious consideration to recommendations made bythe curriculum team. Theory Y administrators might well find compatible with their viewsofleadership prin-

ciplesof 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 ofsolving problems and improving the effectiveness ofthe organization (Ouchi, 1981).

These quality circles may soundlike a professional learning community (PLC)to readers genesis of the PLC may have been from the quality movement.

the

38

Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Whether curriculum planners choose to integrate subject matter hinges upon their

philosophy of the nature of knowledge, the nature oflearners, and the purposes ofeducation.

Manyeducatorssupport the integration of subject matter based ontheir analyses ofstudies point-

ing to successes with interdisciplinary curricular plans. Tyler (1949) defined integration as “the horizontal relationship of curriculum experiences’ and wenton to say, “Theorganization of these experiences should be such that they help the student increasingly to get a unified view and to unify his behaviorin relationto the elements dealt with” (p. 85). Hilda Taba (1962) commented

that learning is more effective when connections among variousfields of study are made explicit,

especially whenoneis applying knowledge. Subject matter may be organized based on separate disciplines with their owntimeblocks.

Another approachis to integrate it either on a schoolwide basis (as with the core curriculum) or

on theclassroom level (as with certain types ofunit plans) without regard for disciplines. Notall educators, of course,

are advocates ofintegrating subject matter. Some believe that

the variousdisciplinesshould be taught separately. Thus, they reject the broad-fields approach to curriculum organization and recommend thatteachers and students concentrate on the separate

disciplines. Correlation of the curriculum is a typeof integration and is the relating of subjects to one another while still maintaining their separateness. Relationships among subjects taughtat a particular school level are shownto students,

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 ofthe latter, world history, taughtin 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. Thefirst view is the horizontal relationship ofsubjects. 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 individualsin this process of creating a unity of knowledge. This interpretation of integration throws the emphasis

from integrating subjects to locating theintegrative threads”(Taba, 1962, p. 299). Regardless of whetherthe subject matter is presented to the learner in an integrated fashion, the learner must integrate the knowledgeinto his or her own long-term memory. Ifnew informa-

tion is not integrated intoprior knowledge then it will not be retrievable accurately and quickly at

a laterdate,for example in the spring when accountability assessmentstake place. Taba (1962) remarked:

Unification of subjects has been athemein education ever since the Herbartians. By far the greatest number ofexperimental curriculum schemes have revolved around the problem ofunifying learning. At the same time we are far from achieving unification, partly because offear of loss of disciplined learning ifthe study ofspecialized subjects is discarded, and partly because as yet noeffective basis has been found for unifying school subjects. (Taba, 1962, pp. 298-299)

You haveseen and will see a number ofreferences to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary integrated curricula in this text. Although leadersand teachers may seek to employaninterdisciplinary approach to curriculum and instruction at more than one level, integration ofthe curricu-

lum was, in the days ofthe core curriculum, found more frequently in middle schools. Integrated curricula challenge the time-honored organization ofcurriculaintoseparate dis-

ciplines. Curriculum planners must decide whether they will make a conscious effort either to

76

Part IT + 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 ofthe work ofthe curriculum planning team.

According to the Center forStrengthening the Teaching Profession (2009), knowledge andskills a teacherleader must bring to any task include: * working with adult learne:

* communication; + collaboration;

« knowledge ofcontent and pedagogy: and + systemsthinking. (Centerfor Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2009) Each ofthe 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 concertedeffort of both team membersand leaders. The curriculum

specialist must create a collaborative environment built on trust.

ROLE OF THE TEACHERS. In our proposedsetting the teachers serve in a varietyof roles. The brick and mortar teachers,traditional school-based, who participated on the team:

+ provided insight on the learning needs of the students; « providedinsight to the level of expertise thestaff hasin the use of technology,curriculum design, and instruction methods usedat the school:

+ served as experts for the standardsstudentsare required to master; * helpedto design formative and summative assessmentsthat align to the ELAstandards; + provided insight on current curricular and instructionalinitiatives; and * liaised with the team,staff, and teachers on matters importantto the success ofthe initiative. Theonline teacherassisted by:

« aiding in selecting a robust digital curriculum aligned to the standards; + providing expertise on types of pedagogy neededfor online instruction; and + accessing resourcesto assist

in the implementation of the initiative.

The examples given are not definitive nor are they germane only to online and brick and mortarteachers; however, the combinedstrength of the teachers on the team will serve the school

well. The teachers will serve as a primary voice in the curriculum developmentphase and will be

instrumentalin executing the implementation plan. In addition, they will serve as teacherleaders among their peers when the 1:1 initiative is rolled out to other members ofthe faculty.

Over theyears, the roles that teachersplay in curriculum development have varied depend-

ing on the circumstance. Until the recent movementto standards based curriculum, teachers

were the primary team in curriculum development. In the 1980s and 1990s the empowerment movement gained momentum and soughtto raise the status ofteachers and thereby improve the school’s curriculum and instruction program's effectiveness. The empowerment, which permitted teachersas professionals to take part in the decision making process ofthe school wasconsidered fundamentalto a school’s success (Maeroff, 1988). Schools and school districts ascribed to this

model, which evolvedinto another conceptionreferred to site based management. Following thepracticesofsite based management, administrators literally shared their power with teachers

(Snowden, Gorton & Alston, 2007).

Site based managementreferred to decisions being made closestto 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 schoollevel, which then may have been shared with teachers. Over time, someschooldistricts

foundthatthere are functions which are better to be madeatthe school district level for consistency, such astalent recruitment, budgeting and financial management, and curriculum devel-

opment. 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, hasresulted in much curriculum development nowtaking place at the schooldis-

trict 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 empowermentand shared decision making argued that teacher involvementin decision making or shared decision making was an unnecessary demand on teachers’ time, an inappropriaterole, or an infringement on administrative authority. However, this was in direct conflict with the successof 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 indicatesthat when teachers find themselvesto be valued professionals whose opinions carry some weight, they will be more satisfied with their profession. This improvementin teacher morale,in turn, will increase school

productivity,thatis, student achievement.

In 1990, George H. Wood (1990) connected the empowermentofteachersto the empower-

ment ofstudents whenhesaid, “Only bylinking democracy to empowerment, that is, working

for the democratic empowerment ofstudents will teachersfind a genuine sense of empowerment themselves” (p. 107). Morerecently, Taylor, Hocevar, and Touchton (2011) in a national study ofprincipals and superintendents found that as accountability for student learning outcomes

increased, principals reconsidered shared decision making, sincethey felt the weight of accountability. However, principals expressed continued belief in shared decision making and in finding funds and timeforteachers 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 oflevels such as schools and schooldistricts. Both internal (staff, students, and district level personnel), and external (parents, community members, and businesses), have a critical roleto play in improving student outcomes; therefore, involving stakeholders in initiativesis wise if managed properly. Tosustain 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 schoolstaff 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 atits best. (U.S. Department ofEducation, 2009)

The role stakeholders play on the curriculum team fluctuates fromproject to project as well from schoolto school andacross schooldistricts. In working with adults, the curriculum specialist should understand risks from inviting and honoring diversedecisions, maintain objectivity while building trust, and be able to manage healthy discourse while facilitating focused conversations(Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2009). In the1:1 initiative described at high school XYZ, stakeholders assisted in areas suchas: + defining and providing insight to the needs of the community: sting on decisions regarding technology;

77

78

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

«+ assisting with online survey design, implementation, and analysis ofthe results: * marketing the curriculum and instructional changes and expectations for equitable access; and « liaising between the curriculum team and school community on theinitiative. The roles of stakeholders in the affairs ofthe 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

andto instruct theirchildren. The church providedinstruction in its religiousprecepts, and young men learned tradesas 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. Forthe 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 aboutissues and activities. Stakeholders would meetto hear aboutthe schoolor 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.

Thecurrent professionalliteratureis filled with discussions of the necessity for involving the community in the educational process; therefore, a shift of stakeholder involvementis

noticeable. School leaders seek stakeholder engagement and strategize to receive input from a representative demographic of the communitythe schoolserves. 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 contributionto curriculum improvement that students can makeis to provide feedback onthe teachers” instruction. Although someteachers

resist student feedback oftheir performance,it can be provided anonymously by the leamers. Valuable clues for modifying a curriculum and improving methodsofinstruction can be provided. Effective teachersoften seek feedback from their students and are wise in doing

so, given that when teachers

seek feedback from students, the probabilitythatstudentlearning 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 andthey supportedtheinitiative by: * providing insight onthe educational and technology needsofstudents; « assisting with the design of surveys used by stakeholders; ingin the selection of and giving feedback on the chosen technology; * participatingin assessments; and + identifying strengths and weaknes

s in theinitiative.

The contributions made by the students to the curriculum initiative enhanced the work

of the professional educators. Additionally, leaders sought student inputthrough other actions Progress monitoring, informal assessments on studentlearning outcomesastheyrelate to a standard, provided valuable insight related to a teacher or curriculum team on the level ofrigorof the curriculum, instruction, and the effectiveness or instruction.

Chapter 4 + Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension Evenin those schools and schooldistricts in which student input is notactively sought, or whereit is prohibited by collective bargaining agreements, and in which channels have not

beenestablished forgathering data from students, their learning outcomes speak loudly. Forthe instructionalleader, teachergrade distributions are an example of an important indicator to con-

sider when determining the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction. If teachergiven grades

are high, and studentscoreson aligned nationally standardized exams and state assessmentsare consistently below national andstate averages, it can be concluded that some adjustmentsare necessary with respect to eitherthe curriculum, instruction, orresources.

THE CURRICULUM SPECIALIST AND THE TEAM PROCESS Neithertechnical expertise nor knowledge about curriculum theory can substitute for a curriculum specialist's knowledge of and expertise with the team process. Foursets or clusters of team

processskills appear to be particularly important.

1. Changeprocess. The leader must be knowledgeable aboutthe process ofeffecting change and be ableto translate that knowledge into practice with the team. He or she must demonstrate effective decision-making skills and can lead team membersin learning to use them. 2. Interpersonal skills. The leader must be knowledgeable about team dynamics. He or she mustexhibit a high degree of humanrelationsskills, be able to develop interpersonalskills

among membersof the team, and beable to establish a culture of collaboration.

3. Leadership skills. The leader must demonstrate leadershipskills, including organizational skills and the ability to managethe change process. He or she must help members ofthe team to developtheir leadershipskills and developthe school or schooldistrict's capacity. 4. Communicationskills. The leader must communicate effectively in English orthe official

language bothorally and in writing, aligned with establishinglines 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 ofeach.

THE CHANGE PROCESS

Axiom 1 in Chapter 2 proposed that change is both inevitable and desirable. Humaninstitutions, like human beings, change if theyare to continue growing and developing. Gail McCutcheon (1985) cited the ease and comparative safety ofthe statusquo, the requirements oftime and effort, the lack ofrewards,established policies, and routines as impediments to

change. Nevertheless, neitherthe status quonorregression to outmoded practices is a defensible position for school and schooldistrict leaders. They seek to continuously improve. Curriculum developmentis 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 byall participants. One should begin the examination ofthe change process by investigating the variables that exist within organizations and that have an impact upon that proces:

Whatare the typical functions of a change agent? Warren G. Bennis (1965) listed norma-

tive goals of change agents, including suchtas]

improving interpersonalrelationships among

managing personnel, helping in resolving conflicts, and reducing tensions among workers.

FOUR VARIABLES. Harold J. Leavitt and Homa Bahrami(1988) identified fourorganizational variables: “structures,” “information and control methods” (i.c., the technology of managing), “people,” and “task” (pp. 246-256).

79

Chapter 2 + Principles of Curriculum Development Continuity Continuityis the plannedrepetition of contentat successivelevels, each time at an increasedlevel

of complexity. Tyler (1949)described continuity as follows.

Continuity refers to thevertical 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 samekinds of skills will be brought into continuing operation. In similar fashion, if an objective in science is to develop a meaningful concept ofenergy, it is importantthat 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. Theprinciple of continuity is represented in thespiral curriculum (Bruner, 1963). Concepts, skills, and knowledge are introduced and reintroduced—for example,

the repetition ofaddition, study of democracy, writing, personal health, and conservation, each

reintroduction enhancingtheearlierlearning over various school years. An example that is com-

mon is the spiraling within a schoolyear of standards in English Language Arts (ELA). A specific standard may be learned several times within a school year using different kindsof texts with the

expectation of the student work outcomesto increase in challenge each time.

EXPERTISE NEEDED. Planning a curriculum for continuity requires a high degree of expertise, which demands both knowledge ofthe subject field and knowledge of the learners. For

example, to plan a mathematicssequence 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 resourcesat each stage, followed by professional learning forteachers and instructional leaders. This concept was applied in the

developmentofthe Common Core State Standards which begin in kindergarten and progress with increasing challenge through high school. Whereaselementary school learners, for example, may learn that democracy means governmentof the people, by the people, and for the people, secondary students may wrestle with controversial and unresolved problemsof democracy in the global community.

Collaboration with those affected will reveal tocurriculum developers which standards and

units ofcontent are to be reintroduced and at what point. Preassessment or checking for back-

ground knowledge and readinessof thelearner,is essential before each neworganizing element is broached. Preassessment will uncover whether the learners are readyfor (a) newcontent based

on prior content and (b) prior content that will be repeated at a more complex level. Articulation

If continuity is viewedasthe spiraling of content upward throughthe grades then view articulation as the meshing oforganizing elements across school levels—that is, across elementary, middle, and high schools. Articulation from high school topost-secondary institutions is an elementof sequencing thatis increasing in importance and frequency with the expectation that graduates are college and career ready, and thatretention and graduation rates increase for undergraduate degree granting institutions.

41

Chapter 4 + Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension the organization, neither change for change's sake nor changefor creating an image of newness

perse, but changeinstead for bettering the products ofthe school. TABLE 4.1

CommonBarriers to Change and Possible Change Strategies

Barriers Fear of changeonthe part of those likely to beaffected

Lack of clear goals Lack of competent leadership Lack ofability of team members to

function as a team

Strategies Leaderprovides authentic and clear expectations regarding potential impact on and options for those affected by change. Involvementin decision making of thoseaffected The change must be made more attractive than lack of change. The team agreesto cleargoals. Leaders selected by peer or appointed are qualified Ineffective leaders are provided other opportunities. Establish professionallearning in the collaborative process.

Provide research, data, evidence, and analysis, along with support if needed forclarifications and understanding A history of unsuccessful curriculum efforts Strategize for quick wins to motivate staying the course. Lack of evaluation of previous curriculum Evaluation supported by data and evidenceleading to the conclusionthat change is needed. efforts Collaboratively design or engage an evaluator forthe

Lack of research on problems to be addressed

target change.

Negative attitudes from the community Lack of resources External pressures such as state and federallegislation, and accreditation Lack of experience or knowledge about a curricular issue

Stakeholders and community members are involved and updatedonthe process and progress. Adequate resources (human, physical, and intellectual) to carry out curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation are provided and mustalso be available. Lobby to changebarrierlegislation and develop relationshipswith decision makersin these arenas. 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 anyprinciples 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 venturedthatthe process ofdecision making consists

of

four stagesawareness, design, choice, and action. During the process, he proposedthatfourkinds

ofdecisions 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 ofdata points regarding

81

82

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

curriculum and instruction should be at the centerofthe continuous improvement model. Because

decision making neverends, skills in data analytics, monitoring, and decision-making processes

are to be developed.

INNOVATIVE INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL TEAMS. Mostcurriculum developmentis 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 approvalof leadership. Initiatives

or pilots ofnew ideas; created by innovative individuals or small teams can be widely translated

into practice. Informalteamsare self-constituted, ad hoc, impromptu collectionsof individuals who gathertogether for some immediate purpose and later disband. The wise curriculum leader seeks to identify informal teamsthat may have an impact on curriculum development efforts and seeks to channeltheir energiesinto the deliberations of the formalstructure. 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 questionsare established and data are used to

determine outcomes. The activity should not be replicated or continued without proofthat it is an effective practice or pilot. When an innovative endeavorbegins to place demandson others, without supportive data or without sanction ofleadership, independence may bring ineffective practices into the learning environment. Curriculum leaders guide the team in bringing about change. In

so doing theyexhibit expertise in facilitating and leading the change process. Everyoneinvolved developstheir analyticalskills for decision makingif positive curricular changesare to be effected.

TEAM DYNAMICS. The success of a curriculum team, to someextent, is based on a clear under-

standing ofthe team’s task otherwise knownasits purpose and expected deliverablesfrom its

actions. Oneof the greatdifficulties for the curriculum leaderis keeping a team on task. Chal-

lenging this goal are the many individuals whotry to satisfy their own personal needsin a team setting. A behaviorreferred 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 betweentask orientation and

processorientation. He or she must seeto it that a team moveson with its task while permitting

individuals to achieve personalsatisfaction as membersof the team. Excessivestress on either

approach canleadtofrustration of members.

The curriculum team leader should be awareof the presence of three types of behaviors

Within a team. First, each team is composed ofindividuals whobringtheir ownindividual behaviors to the team. Some will maintain these behaviors, sometimes consciously andat other times

subconsciously, regardless ofthe teamsetting. Thus, the team members arelikely to bring personal preferences and behaviorsinto the team setting. Some behaviors have a positive impact on

the team while others have a negative one. Theteam leader needsto channel negative behaviors

into constructive paths or eliminate them where possible. Second, individuals in teams sometimesbehave in waysthatare quite different from their individual behaviors. There are contrasts in behavior between the individual whorelies on his or her own inner resources, the inner-directed personality, and the individual who takes cues

fromthose around him orher, the outer-directed personality. Not only do personal behaviors sometimes changein a team setting, but alsoindividuals assumespecial rolesthat they donot and cannot perform in isolation. At times, an individual's behavior causes that individual to behavein a way in which heor sheperceives the team members wish him orher 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 ofthe team is morethan the sum of the functioning of each ofthe individuals who make up the team. The individuals interact with and reinforce each other,creating a unique blend.In this

respect, somedepartmentsor grade level teams of a schoolare perceivedas being more produ 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 orga-

nized 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 teamtaskrolesare those of information seeker, information giver, and energizer. Team members play team building and ‘maintenance roles when they are concerned with the functioning ofthe team. Includedin the seven team and maintenanceroles are those of encourager, harmonizer, and gatekeeper. Team members

also indulgein individual rolesto satisfy personal needs. Aggressor, blocker, and recognitionseekerare amongeight individualroles. Teamscan be helped by the leader orby 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 membersalready possessa high degree of self-awareness and interac-

tion skill. If, however, a team appears to lack skills in interaction or self-awareness,it may be advisable to depart fromthe team’s task to conduct teambuilding 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 ofthe team’s goals, sometimes

not. Individuals who are motivated and possess the necessary personal and professional expertise

should be encouragedto take part in curriculum developmentfortheir contributions, but also for

their own professional learning andorganization capacity building.

TEAMS. Curriculum development teamsshould be essentially task-oriented. They are given a specific job to do,carry out, and then either accept anotherjob orceaseto function. Their productivity should be measuredfirst in the quality of improvementthat 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 ofthe Western Electric Company in Chicagoproduced evidencethat involvement ofthose affected in planning and carrying out a projectled to greater productivity. From historical perspective, the characteristics of a productive team have received muchattention from respected researchers. Rensis Likert (1961) saw a supportive environment, mutual confidence and trust

among team members, and a sharing of common goals ascontributing to team effectiveness.

Ned A. Flanders” (1970) studies of classroom verbal interaction led users ofhis instrument for observing this process to concludethat team leaders need todecrease their own verbal behavior

and stimulate membersofthe team tointeract more. Fred E. Fiedler (1967) concentrated on the ofthe leader, and Kimball Wiles (1967) gaveattention toskill in communication as effectiveness

83

84

Part IT + 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 oftrustis apparent among members;

« understood and mutually accepted goals; + necessary expertise in the team: * necessary resources; * shared decision making; * evidenteffective communication;

+ leadership opportunities provided; + noted progress towardstask accomplishment; * satisfaction of members” personal needs;

* leaders seektorelease the potential of the member + effective time management.

RESPONDING TO INDIVIDUAL TEACHER CONCERNS. Fundamental to successful change,be it curricularor other,is an understanding of concernsofindividuals who forma team. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (n.d.) was developedat the Research

and Development Center for Teacher Education atthe University of Texas. CBAM illuminates the necessity for analyzing concerns among individuals in a team that intends to effect change.

CBAMtargets the personal concerns ofindividuals in the team by providing a diagnostic approach to understanding human beliefs. In 1978, GeneE. Hall and Susan Loucks(1978) described seven stages of concern during

the changeprocess, 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 ofthese concerns and guides the members constituting the team throughthe sevenstages to shifting concerns away from themselves to successful implementation of the innovation.

LEADERSHIP. Curriculumteamproductivityarises from a synchronousblendof skills by team members and the curriculum leader, yet a heavy burden for the productivity ofthe team rests with the leader. Ifa survey were administered to educatorsto determine the characteristics ofa

sful leaderthe following descriptors may well emerge:

+ intelligence, + experience,

sertiveness, * articulate, * innovative, and

+ dynamic.

It is almost impossible to ascribe any single set of characteristics to persons in positions

ofleadership. Generalizing that leaderstend to po: among other attributes, slightly above averageintelligence as well as requisite personal and leadership skills, Ralph B. Kimbrough and Michael Y. Nunnery (1998) concluded that the possession ofcertain character

guarantee success as à leader, nor doestheir absencerule out success.

s does not

44

Part] + 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 curriculumsystem that attendsto scope, relevance, balance, integration,sequence, continuity,articulation, and transferability.

Summary tem ofeducation respondsto changeas condi-

tions in its suprasystem (society) change. Curriculum change is a normal, expected consequence of changes

Both teachers and curriculum specialists have roles in curriculum development in collaboration with other school personnel. Teachers, curriculum

to seek continuous improvementin the curriculum.

specialists, supervisors, administrators, students, parents, and otherstakeholders can all play significant roles in effecting curriculum change and its success-

The task of the curriculum specialistis facilitated if

ful implementation to achieve intended outcomes.

in the environment.

It is the responsibility of curriculumspecialists

generally accepted principles and concepts for curriculum development are followed. Ten general principles or axiomsand eight conceptsare presented in this chapter as guidelines to curriculumdevelopment.

The principles and concepts stem not only from disci-

plines outside of professional education but also from

Curriculum developers start fromthe given and work within specific contextual parameters. Unless thereis an edict orpolitical need forrapid curriculum

change and implementation. Most successful change is developed and implemented by those who are the key stakeholders forthe target change.

the folklore of curriculum, observation, experimental data, and commonsense.

Application

2. Which curriculum innovations in your context or

3. Howhave available technology and digital tools impacted the practice of curriculum development and implementation? Provide examplesof influ-

nationally are based on halftruths, whole truths, or false premises? Use evidence to support the

riculumchange and resulting changesin teaching

1. In yourcontext, which curriculumprinciples and concepts guide practice?

learning outcomes and any resulting modifica-

ence ofthese developmentsofresources on cureffectiveness and student learning.

tionsto the curriculum.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Hypothesize the development and results of the movements ofchoice such as online learning,

charter schools, home schooling, and early-college entry programs.

2. Choose three social developments, events, pres-

sures, 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 changesandto what extent? funding priority to 3. Race to the Top had as establish challenging standards, develop and sustain systems,create data s professional evaluation for monitoring outcomes, and turning around lower

86

Part IT + 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 effectsof threedifferent stylesof adult leadership on four groupsof eleven-year-olds.

They examinedthe effects of “authoritarian,” “democratic,” and “laissez-faire” leadership. Under

theauthoritarian leadership they were more dependentupon the leader, gave more expressionsof discontent, and lack of group initiative. Thelaissez-faire atmosphere resulted in greaterreliance 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 ofthe laissez-faire leader. The converse of thesesituations was true for the democratic group climate. Consequently, they

remained productive in the democratic leadership atmosphere. Underthe democratic leadership

theyrelied more on each other. Further,in the absenceof the leader of the democratic group children were able to proceed with their work (Oliva, 1956).

Although curriculumspecialists are not leading children, the noted study has implications

for leading teams. Ifa curriculum leader seeks commitment from a team, the authoritarian and laissez-faire approachesare notlikely to be effective. The curriculum leader's poweris 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 personalstyle or from the circumstances ofthe

situation in which the leaderfinds

himself or herself. Fiedler spoke ofthe needfor an appropriate match betweenthe leader's style

and the team situation in which he or she mustexercise leadership. Developing what is called the contingency model, Fiedler classified leadersas task-oriented or relationship-oriented. In some respects, this classification resemblesthe dichotomy betweenthe autocratic and democratic leader.

The task-oriented leader keepsthe goals of the organization alwaysin front of him or her and the team. The needs of the organization take precedence overthe needsofindividuals. The superordinate-subordinaterelationship is always clear. The relationship-oriented leaderis lesstask oriented

and moreconcerned with building harmonious relationships among the members ofthe organization. He or she possesses a high degree of humanrelationsskill and is less conscious ofstatus.

Persons exhibitingeitherofthese two styles may find themselves in organizations that are eitherstructured or unstructured, or in mixed situations possessing elements ofboth 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 endsof 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 andinfluence. Relationship-oriented persons function best in mixed situations in which they possess moderate authority and influence.

Situational Leadership. Leadership, then, arisesfromthe exigenciesof a situation. Stephen J. Knezevich (1984), for example, espoused a situational view ofleadership when he said: A person is selected to performthe leadership role because ofpossessing a setofsensitivities, insights, or personal qualities the teammay require forrealization of teamobjectives and decisions. The leaderis selected and followed because ofbeing capable to achieve what the followers need or want. A leader successful in one community with a uniqueset ofeducational needs may not experience similar success when moved toanother with a markedly different set

Chapter 4 + Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension ofeducational problems, personnel, and value orientations. Changing thesituation, or team's

nature and purposes, resultsin a significant variation in leader characteristicsdesired that upsets all but the broadest interpretations of personal attributes. (Knezevich, 1984, р. 66) Instructional Leadership.

Review ofleadershipliterature 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 overtime for sustained improvement and instructional leadership has greater change in student achievement

(Hattie, 2009).

Theresearch on leadership thus suggests that theleaderin curriculum developmentshould. Seekto develop a collaborative approach. Seekto 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 somecollaborative teams experience great difficulties in mov-

ing toward accomplishment oftheir goals. Without effective leadership,little can be expected of teamsin terms of productivity.

EMPOWERMENT. W. Edwards Deming (1986), whoseideas on management are credited with helping Japan's rise after World WarII as an industrial power and influenced Ouchi (1981),

blended industrial management principlesinto a concept known as Total Quality Management (TQM). Although Deming’s ideas applied to industry, TQM when applied to education incorporatesprinciples of shared management, the notion that quality should be determined in process rather than tested at the end ofthe process, the idea that learners should share responsibility in

evaluating their own work, abandonmentofperformanceratings ofindividuals, and participation of team membersin finding solutions to problems. This kind of collaboration and ownership

results in what is called empowermenttoday. In 1992, William Glasser (1992), in

a vein similar to Deming`s pointed out obstacles

to quality schoolsin the presence of too much boss-management, too much coercion, not enough cooperative learning,too much traditionaltesting,toolittle emphasis on enhancing the ability to use knowledge, and too little opportunity for learnersto evaluate the quality of

their work. Neither American industry nor education has fully implemented all principlesof

quality management. However, some evidenceexists in the concepts of performance assessment, cooperative learning, and constructivist psychology, which encourages the learnersto take responsibility for formulating their own knowledge underthe guidance of the teacher. COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

Much ofthe success of a curriculum development team is based

on how communicationstructures are established and by the skill level ofparticipants 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 thoughelectronic means such as phone conferences, online information portals, and IMSthat allows video conferencing. Both curriculum teams would communicate through oral and writtenformats and mayestablish similar timelines, benchmarks,

87

46

Partl + 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 imperativefor 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). Waitingfor Superman [Videofile]. 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 knowaboutteaching. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor 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 guidefor aspiring schoolleaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A nationat risk: The imperativefor educationalreform. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting 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. 0. (1978). Curriculum development: Issues and insights. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Parkay, FE. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. T. (2006). Curriculumplanning: A contemporary approach (Sth ed.). Boston. MA: Allyn & Bacon. Phenix, P. H. (1962). The disciplines as curriculum content. In (n.a) Curriculum crossroads. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to curriculumdevelopmentfor 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 languagefor curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association, Centerfor the Study of Instruction. Smith, B. O. (1969). Teachersfor the real world. Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education. Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1957). Fundamentalsof curriculumdevelopment. New York, NY:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Taylor, R. T.. Watson, R.. €: Nutta, J. (2015). Leading, reaching, learning, the common core standards: Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basicprinciples of curriculum Press. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Fundamental

change: Innovationin America’s

schools under race

10thetop. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education, Office ofState Support. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Every student succeeds act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://wwwed.gov/ESSA. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child lefr behind act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ index.html.

Chapter 4 + Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension 5. Members fail to follow an orderlyprocess 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 respecteach other’s views. The team leader collaboratively establishes group normsto facilitate productive communication. 6.

Consensus is not achieved. The team strivesto reach consensus through thorough discus-

sion oftheissues. The goal is commitmentof as many persons aspossible to curriculum development and implementation. Without commitment, curriculum improvementis not

possible.

7. Sessions end without closure. If next stepsare notclear, 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 forcalling the team’s attentionto the next steps. 8. The communicationflowis primarilyfrom leaderto members. The leadershould 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 membersofthe team to the leader and to each other as well as from the leader to team members. 9. Acrimony, hostility, and disharmonyexist within a team. When these conditions occur, the leader mustintercede and work to removethefriction. The leader should be attuneto team

dynamics and seek to create an environmentof trust and respect.

Written Communication. Writing easily comprehensible messagesis an art, at least in a cooperative activity such ascurriculum 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 guidelinesas 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 impactofhis or her words in a written communication. Extra

care is taken whenstructuring a written message.A written message maygive a far different impression from whatthe writer intended, without benefit of nonverbal communication. Thereader's disposition atthe time can influenceinterpretation. The writer should review

any written communication in the light ofthe impact it may have on him orherif he or she weretherecipient. 2. Written communicationsare 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 ifconventions of grammar (e.g, English orofficial language), punctuation, and usage are lacking. Inaccurate spelling, improper grammar, and poor sentencestructure can detract from the messages and can generate lack of support and unnecessary criticism.

Face-to-face communication is ordinarily a far more effective meansthan writing for conveying ideas among members of small teams ofpeers such as a typical curriculum developmentteam. Data or evidencedisplaysor spreadsheets most probably are provided electronically so they can be analyzed before the meetings or during the meetings. Even in the case of complex ortechnical data presented in written form, follow-up discussions are usually necessary.

89

90

Part Il + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Nonverbal Behavior. Nonverbal communication is shaped both biologically and culturally. A team leader should be able to detectfatigue, boredom, hostility, and sensitivity on the part of

the members through body languageandother nonverbalcues. Heor she should be able to sense when a discussionis turning negative and turn the discussionto constructive paths. The leader mustbe especially cautious of nonverbalsignals he or she gives and must makeevery effort to ensure thatthose signals are positive. Finally, for successful curriculum development both the leader and team members must exhibit a high degree ofskill in all modes of communication

(Hall, 1959).

Summary

development at the individual school and school district levels. Some instructional leaders perceive

Students, depending ontheir maturity, participate in curriculum improvement by serving on committees and by providing data and evidence about their own learning experiences.

themselves as experts in curriculum and instruc-

Stakeholders participate in curriculum devel-

This chapter focused on the roles played by various persons and teams participating in curriculum

tion and take an active part in curriculum develop-

ment, 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 organiza-

tions emphasize collaborative decision making and

responsibility over individual decision making and

responsibility. Instructional leadershipis essential to improvestudentlearning outcomes,of which curriculum developmentis a part and transformational leadership developsprofessional capacity over time.

opmentbyserving on advisory councils, responding to surveys, providing data and evidence abouttheir children, and serving as resource persons. Theprofessional 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, relatinginterpersonally, in leading teams,and in communicating.

Application 1. In your context, in what roles do teachers play

in curriculum development? Give examplesin which teachers have participated in a curriculum initiative and the roles they have played. How

would you adjust thoserolesfor 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.Asa leader,design a

plan to manage participants in a variety of roles

whoare 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

yourposition by considering time,effort, and

costs.

3. In your context, what evidence is there that

today’s principals either are or are not instruc-

tional leaders? Support your evidence with changes in student learning outcomes.

Suggested Reading Johnson, J. (2011). You can’t doit alone: A communica-

tions and engagement manualfor leaders committed to reform. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

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

References

Alfonso, R. JL, Firth, С. 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. JournalofSocial Issues, 4(2), 43-46. Bennis, W. G. (1965). Theory and method in applying behavioral science to planned organizational change. The Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 1(4) Bennis, W. G., Benne, К. D., & Chin, R. (1985). The plan-

ning of change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistic choice andleadership (Sth ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Center for Strengthening the Teaching Process. (2009). Teacher leadership skills framework. Retrieved December 17, 2016, from hup://cstp-wa.org/estp2013/ wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Teacher-LeadershipFrameworkpdf The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (n.d.). A modelfor change in individuals. Retrieved from www nationalacademies.org/rise/backg4ahtm 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 theoryofleadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. (1969). Style or circumstance: The leadership enigma. PsychologyToday, 10(2), 38-43. Flanders, N. A.(1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley P. C. Gl: т. W. (1992). The qualityschool: Managing students ithout 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 ofover 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. NewYork, 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 ofpublic education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Leavitt, H. J., & Bahrami, H. (1988). Managerial psycholManaging 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 theoryin social science. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.

92

Part Il + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns ofmanagement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Maeroff, G. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis ofconfidence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mangin, M. M. & Dunsmore, K. (2014). How the framing ofinstructional coaching asa lever for systematic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179-213. Maslow, A. H.(1970). Motivation andpersonality (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 humanside ofenterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Morphet, E. L.. Johns, R.L.. & Reller, T. L. (1982). Educationalorganization and administration: Concepts, practices, andissues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oliva, P. (1956). High schooldiscipline in American society. NASSPBulletin, 40(6). Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: HowAmerican business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation (1971). Educationalevaluationand decision making. Itasca, NY: Peacock.

Roe, W. H., & Drake, T. L. (2003). The principalship (61h ed.). Upper Saddle River. NI: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Roethlisberger. F. J.. & Dickson. W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Sergiovanni, T. 1, & Carver, F. D. (1980). The newschool executive: À theoryof 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 (Tth 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. tasca, NY: Peacock. Taylor, R. T., Touchton, D., & Hocevar, M. (2011). Principals’decision making: The influenceof accountability. Education Leadership Review, 12(2). U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Step 6: Engaging stakeholders. Sustaining Reading First, 6, 205-243. Retrieved from hup://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/stakeholderlores.pdf Wiles, K. (1967). Supervisionfor better schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wood, G. H., (1990). Teachers ascurriculum workers. In J.T. Sears and J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and

thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Chapter 3 + Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

[6-8], and four[9-12] in high school. These changesare complexandrequire both administrative and curricular decisions. Considering how school and schooldistrict leadersarrive at these decisions vary. More

progressive schooldistricts have continuous improvement modelsin place to address curriculum decision making and are constantly affecting changes in the curriculum as a result of these plans. Others approach curricular decisionsas a responseto an identified need that has presented itself dueto student performanceor otherpressures. Some make decisions haphazardly withoutresults,

while some school districts demonstrate lethargy and apathy toward curricular decision making and are, forall intents and purposes,stagnant.

Though why and how curriculum decisionsare made run the gamut, the importance of a school district following a systematic processto arrive at sound decisions regarding their curriculum system is paramount. When curriculumis viewedas a systemwith 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 schooldistrict in the form of waves starting in the individual teacher's classroom and terminating with the schooldistrict 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 higherlevels. If a curriculum team wishes to initiate a plan that affects other

levels,it must involve persons from thoselevels beginning at theearliest planning stages. If those in a level wish to initiate or endorse a plan that goes beyond the assignedresponsibility or that mightbe likely to create repercussions anywherein the system,it must seek approval at higherlevels. FIGURE 3.1 Sequence

of Decision

Making

District curriculum team

49

CHAPTER 5

Learning Outcomes

SELECTING MODELS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Theliterature of educationis replete with discussions of modeling.

1. Analyze the models and select one or more ofits 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 pre-

seriptive anddescriptive models for curriculum development.

5. Understand a systems approach to models in

curriculum development.

Models, which are essentially patterns to provide consistency, serve as guidelinesfor action. They can be foundfor almostevery form of educationalleadership task. Theprofession has modelsofinstruction,

of administration, of evaluation, of supervision, and others. There are

even models of curriculum as opposedto modelsof curriculum development (Johnson, 1967).

Unfortunately, the term modelas used in the education profession

often lacksprecision. A model maybe 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 forreplication on a granderscale. Atthelocallevel, some faculties and instructional leaders follow models or adjust them to meet the needs of students. They devise their

ownpatternsfor solving educational problemsorestablishing 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 researchif they chooseto vary from an evidence based model.

Variation in Models Someof the models found in theliterature are simple; others are very complex. Within a given areaof 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 trendsthat are affectingthe educational practice and leadership, such as accountability and standards based curriculum.

Four models ofcurriculum development are presentedin this

chapter. By examining models for curriculum development, you can analyze the phasesthe originators conceived as essential to the

Chapter 5 + Models for Curriculum System Development process. The purpose ofpresenting two of the models (Tyler and Taba)is to acquaint the reader with a historicalbasis for curriculum development. Thethird 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) demonstratesa systems approach to standards based practice, during a timeof accountability, with a feedback loop. Three of the models (Tyler, Oliva, Gordon Taylor) are deductive. A deductive model

proceedsfrom the general (e.g., examining the needs of society) tothe specific (e.g.,

specifying

instructional objectives). On the other hand, Taba’s modelis inductive. An inductive model uses a bottom to top approach,starting with the assessmentofthe needsof students served atthe local

leveland leading to generalization. Thefour modelsdescribedin this chapterare linear; thatis, they propose a certain order

or sequence of progression throughthe various steps. The term linear applies to a model whose

stepsproceed 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 previoussteps can

takeplace even in “mostlylinear” models. For simplicity's sake, the term linearis used. A nonlin-

ear approach would permit developersto enter at various points of the model, skip components,

reversethe order, and work on two or more componentssimultancously. This text promotes using

a model, whetherlinearor nonlinear, in a task such as curriculum development, which can result

in greaterefficiency and productivity.

The four models presented in this chapter are prescriptive rather than descriptive. A

prescriptive model recommends whatshould 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

developerrelies on a practice they are familiar with and they donot necessarily follow an exact

approach, every time. Control of outcomescould beless All of the models presented specify sequencesfor carrying out the various phases or com-

ponents; however,the various individuals and groups involved are notincluded in the models. The roles of individuals in the process are discussed elsewherein 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 ofeffectiveness.

A model can provide consistencyand give order to the process. As Taba (1962) expressed,

curriculum development should be approachedsystematically. When considering both structure and strategyin curriculum development, the curriculum continually and authentically evolves in a relevant context.

The Tyler Model for Curriculum Development Perhaps oneofthe best-known models for curriculum development with special attentionto the

planning phases canbe found in Ralph W. Tyler's elassic book, Basic

Principles of Curriculum

and Instruction (1949). “The Tyler Curriculum Rationale,” a process

for selecting educational

objectives,

is widely known and has beenpracticed in curriculum circlesthroughoutthe world.

95

96

Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process Although Tyler proposed a rather comprehensive modelfor curriculum development,the first part of his model(selection ofobjectives) 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 outsidethe school, and the subject matter. Afteridentifying numerous general objectives, the developers refine them byfiltering them through twoscreens: (a) the educational and social philosophy of the school, and (b) the psychology oflearning. 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

andsocial philosophyas the first screenfor these goals (Tyler, 1949). The general objectivesthat successfully pass through the two screens become knownas instructional objectives. In describing educational objectives, Tyler (1949) referredto 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 relevantto student needs and interests. The total range of needs,

educational, social, occupational, physical, psychological, and recreational, is studied. Tylerrecommended evidences such as observations by teachers,interviews with students, and interviews

with parents. Questionnairesand test results were recommendedas techniquesforcollecting data

aboutstudents. By examining the needs andinterests ofstudents, the developeridentifiesa 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 processof formulating general objectives. Tyler suggested that developerscreate a classification scheme that divideslife into various aspects such as health,

family, recreation, vocation, religion, consumption, and civic roles. From the needsof society

flow many potential educational objectives. The developer should study trendsin society, both past and present, to make anintelligent analysis of needs of social institutions. After considering

this second source,the developerhaslengthened his orhersetof objectives.

SUBJECT MATTER AS SOURCE. Tyler recommendeda third source for the developer, the subject matter, the disciplines themselves. Manyofthe curricular innovations ofthe 1950s, the new math-

ematics, audio-lingual foreign language programs,and the plethora ofscience programs, came from the subject-matterspecialists. From the three aforementioned sources curriculum developers

derive general orbroad objectives such asinstructional goals. These goals may be pertinent to specific disciplines or may cross multiple disciplines. Mauritz Johnson, Jr. (1967) held a different perspective aboutthese sources. He commented

that the “only possible source [ofthe 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 oflearners or the values and problems ofsociety, can be considered a source of curriculumitems.

PHILOSOPHICAL SCREEN. To develop a subject matter screen, Tyler (1949) advisedteachers of a particular schoolto formulate an educational and social philosophy. He urged themtooutline their values and illustrated thistask by emphasizing our democratic goals: * the recognition ofthe importance ofevery individual human being regardlessofrace or national, social, or economicstatus; * opportunity for wideparticipationin all phases ofactivities in the social groupsin the society;

Chapter 5 + Modelsfor Curriculum System Development + encouragementofvariability rather than demanding single type of personality: and

« faith in intelligence as a method ofdealing with important problemsrather than depending onthe authority of an autocratic oraristocratic group. (Tyler, 1949, p. 34)

In his discussion about the formulation of an educational social philosophy, Tyler (1949) personified the school. He implied when à school commits to an education and social philosophy, many schools personify their beliefs. For example, a school which establishesits philosophy may use the word we or us whenstating îts philosophy (Tyler, 1949, pp. 33-36). Therefore, Tyler perceived schools to be dynamic, living entities. In screening for subject matter, the developer should reviewthe list ofgeneral objectives and omit those that are not in keeping with the faculty's agreed-on philosophy. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREEN. The application ofthe psychological screenis the next step in the Tyler model. To apply the screen, teachers clarify the principles oflearning that theybelieve to be sound. “A psychologyof learning,” said Tyler (1949), “not only includes specific and definite findings but it also involves a unified formulation of à 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 ofthis 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 thesignificance of the psychological screen. + A knowledgeof 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 psychologyoflearning enablesusto distinguish goals that arefeasible from those that are likely to take a very long time or are almost impossible ofattainment at the age level contemplated. + The psychology of learning gives us someidea ofthelength oftimerequired to attain anobjective and the age levels at which the effort is mostefficiently employed. (Tyler, 1949, pp. 38-39)

After the curriculum developerhas applied this second screen, his or herlist of general objectives will be reduced,leaving those that are the most significant and feasible. Care is then takentostate 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. Bakercast the model into theillustration shown in Figure 5.1,

The Tyler Curriculum Rationale (p. 87). In applyingthe Tyler Curriculum Rationale, Popham and Baker advocated forthe use ofbehavioral objectives, and referred tothe stage after the philosophi-

cal and psychological screenings asidentification of “preciseinstructional objectives.” Tyler saw

that stage as the identification of a small number of important objectivesthat, although general in nature, arestill specific enough to incorporate content and behavioral aspects. Tyler left room

for curriculum developersto determine educational objectives in keeping with their beliefs about learning. In this respect Tyler's objectives, though behavioralin nature, may be somewhat less precise than those proposed by other behavioral objectives advocates. For some reason, discussions ofthe Tyler model often stop after examining thefirst part of

the model, the rationale for selecting educational objectives. Actually, Tyler's modelgoes beyond

this process to describe three more stepsin curriculum planning: selection, organization, and eval-

uation oflearning experiences. He defined learning experiencesas “the interaction between the learner and the external conditions in the environmentto which he can react” (Tyler, 1949, p. 63).

He suggested teachersgive attention to learning experiencesthat develop thinking, information

gathering, social dispositions, and expand interests (Tyler, 1949).

97

52

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Classroom Level

Whena teacheris first employed at a schoolit may appear that all curricular decisions have been made. Standardsare provided, subject or grade level textbooks and materials have beenselected,

and guidelines are place. The teacherthinks, with some justification, that the important decisions about the curriculum have already been made byothers, the grade level or subjectteam, the school, the schooldistrict,the state,the nation, and the public.

However, decisions regarding curriculum are ongoing and occur at a variety of levels and at differenttimes throughoutthe school year. Most schools have systemsandstructuresin place to support collaborative decision making. The team approach may be implemented at schools to encourageteacherparticipation in decision making. Some schools may subscribeto a coaching model in which teachers work in pairs to guide curricular decisions. Schools leaders may subscribe to a combination ofboth or offer other means of opportunities. Whateverthe curriculum system, it is important that structures(e.g., resources and time) which support collaboration are

in place for teachers.

Perhaps thelife ofthe teacher would be easier and less complicated ifthe curriculum were prescribed. On the other hand, if there were no curriculum decisionsto be made, teachers would beless involved in the learning process. A main theme of this text is the notionthat teachers are at

the center oflearning decisions and should be in rolesto influence or make decisions. The teacher

then not only makes decisionsorparticipates in collaborative decision making, but also gathers data and evidence on which to base curricular decisions. In whatspecific curriculum endeavorsis

theindividual 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 teacherof a self-contained general education class and a tenth-

grade teacher ofsocial studies. Both have eight years of experience and serve aslead teachers, bothare employedin the same school district, and both participate in curriculum planning at various levels. Our fourth-grade teacher, Teacher F is a grade leader who hasfive teachers. Our

tenth-grade teacher, Teacher N, is a member of a social studies department with eight faculty

members. Now,examinetheir 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 lessonsfor non-proficient students(grade level). He participates on a curriculum team making recommendations for implementing an intensive reading program in the school (schoollevel). Further,he serves on a school district team which studies ways to implement federal legislation regarding Exceptional Student Education (ESE) (schooldistrict level). ‘While Teacher F was making contributions toward curriculum developmentat the school and schooldistrict levels, Teacher N had been noless occupied at the state, national, and interna-

tional levels. She wasselected 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 assessmentsof 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 perhapsthe inclination to participate

in curriculum efforts at differentlevel

Chapter 5 + Models for Curriculum System Development the progressive thoughtof 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 presentin curriculum literature since discussionsbegan to take place, from the mid-twentieth century to the presentcentury.

EXPANDED MODEL. Figure 5.2, Tyler's Curriculum Rationale (Expanded) shows how an expandedversion of Tyler's model might appear if the selection, organization, direction, and evaluation of the learning experienceswereincluded. Tyler's Curriculum Rationale (Expanded)

Tentative general objectives

Philosophy

Psychology

of

of

education

learning Precise

instructional objectives

Selection of

learning

experiences

Organization of

learning

experiences Direction of

learning

experiences Evaluation of learning experiences

99

100 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess The Taba Model of Curriculum Development

Hilda Taba wasa 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: Theoryand Practice, she stated consideration oflearning experiences becomes a majorstrategy in curriculum design (Taba, 1962, p. 13). Further, she suggested that

fr, © 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.

O Determine a structure.

Curriculum planners write a scope and

sequence for the unit, including a rationale.

© Revise and merge.

Considering student needsfirs,the units are adjusted so they meetall students" needs, the availability of resources, and

variations amongteaching styles within

the staff so that the curriculumis globally appropriate.

@ Practice experimental units.

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

© Createlearning units for each grade

level or subject area.

Tabasaw this stepaslinking theory

and practice. \

FIGURE53 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 + Modelsfor Curriculum System Development teachers should be involved in the processofcurriculum designby creating specific teaching and learning unitsfortheir students,rather than byinitially engaging in creating a general curriculum

design (Taba, 1962, p. 457). Using this approach Taba advocated for an inductive approach by starting withthe 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 takesvariables into consideration will result in a more thoughtfully planned and dynamic curriculum. Aftercreating the instructional unit, teachers implementthe unit, make necessary revisions, and determine

a structure and sequencefor optimum learning.Finally, professional learningforteachers should be provided so they caneffectively implementthe units in their classrooms. Taba’s Model of Curriculum Developmentis representedin Figure 5.3. The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development The Oliva Modelfor Curriculum Developmentis a deductive modelthat consists of 12 components.

The model(Figure 5.4) illustrates a comprehensive step-by-step processthat takesthe curriculum developerfrom the sourcesof the curriculum throughevaluation ofinstruction 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 circlesrepresent operational phases. The process starts with Component I, at which time the curriculum developersstate the aims of education and their

philosophical and psychological principles. These aimsare beliefs that are derived from the needs

ofour society and the needs ofindividuals living in our society. This component incorporates

concepts similar to Tyler's screens. ComponentII requires an analysis of the needsof the community in which the school is located, the needsof studentsserved in that community, and the exigenciesof the subject matterthat will be taught in the given school. Sourcesofthe curriculumare seen by cutting across Components I and II. Whereas Component I addresess the needs ofstudents and society in a more general sense, Component II introducesthe conceptof needs of particular students in particular localities, because the needs ofstudentsin particular communities are not always the sameas the general needs of students throughout our society.

ComponentsIII and IV call for specifying curricular goals and objectives based on the aims,

beliefs, and needsspecified in Components I and II. A distinctionthat will be clarified later with exam-

plesis drawn between goals and objectives. Thetasks of Component V are to organize and implement the curriculum and to formulate and establish thestructure 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 statedfor each level and subject. Once again, a distinction betweengoals 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 studentsin the class-

room. Simultaneously, the curriculum developerinitiates preliminary selection of evaluation

techniques,phase A of component IX. At this stage a curriculum developerbeginsto consider ways heorshe will assess student achievement. The implementation ofinstructional strategies,

ComponentX, follows.

101

102 Part TI+ Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess

ummuro

O uoneneaq

uommas o wnmea

Snbupa vnmee jo uopajos eu

ー

ogmcas Jo uoneueuedui

B ummume jo

soandalqo ummus »

uonenynads

EI) ウJ

CL u

voneayads

sieo8 uopnnmu o

®NO J

sannsalgo

ruopnumu e uoneyneds

их

A こ pue AHに XA

voneaysads

ouuduossdo

aseyd feuonesado pue Зимчец saseyd 2uuuejg

pen

mnbupa wnmee o wmeps

Ух

ET swuapms jo spaaujo uoneypads,

“uoneanpa jo q Aydosopyd pue sure Jouuams

Suipnpur

anoge gopa

Burn]

saarens o vonaies

Y

ャs aunp

Juewdojanag wnjnaman) 10; ¡PO ento aus

algas o spoau jo vonenypads Auauuos poms о

-=A

vonesypads suuapms

Jemaned

2 spaaujo pal,

topos Jo spaaujo uoneypads,

Chapter 5 + Modelsfor Curriculum System Development Afterthe students have been provided appropriate opportunity to learn (ComponentX), the developerreturns 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 ofinstruction (IXA)and the secondfollows the implementation (IXB). Theinstructional phase (Component X) providesthe developer with the opportunity to refine, add to, and complete the selection of meansto evaluate student performance. ComponentXI is the stage at which evaluation of instruction is carried out. Component XII

completes the cycle with evaluation notof the student orthe teacher butrather of the curricular

program.In this model components I-IV and VI-IX are planning phases, whereas components X-XIIare operational phases. ComponentV is both a planning and operational phase. A scheme for curriculum development(Components I-V and XII) and a design for instruction (Components

V-XD)is included.

Important features of the model are the feedback that cycles back fromthe evaluation of the curriculum to the curriculum goals and from the evaluation ofinstructiontothe 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

processforthe complete developmentofa school’s curriculum. The faculty of cach subject area or grade level, for example, language arts, can determine a plan for the curriculum ofthat area

and design waysin which it will be carried out through instruction. Or, thefaculty may develop

schoolwide, interdisciplinary programsthat cross subject areas (Components VI-XI).

TWO SUBMODELS. This 12-phase model integratesa general model forcurriculumdevelopment with a general model forinstruction. Components I-V and XII constitutea 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 brokenlines. 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 othersinto instruction. Furthermore, when the instructional submodelis followed, the teachers

or team focusing on instruction are aware ofthe curriculum goals and objectivesof the school as

à whole or of a given subject areaor areas.

The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development You may havenoticed throughoutthetext thatthere is an expectation of a curriculum system and not

curriculum only. The precise languageof the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Developmentencapsulatesthe idea thatall componentsidentified

a part of curriculum orthat influence

curriculumare included.A curricular system blendsthe entire process ofcurriculumdevelopment, including a feedback loop,into one modelas a holistic approach that is more impactful than as individual components. General systemstheory (von Bertalanffy, 1969) based on the concept that each part has only a unique impact, butthat all parts ofa system are interdependent and therefore, the combination into a functioning system has an exponential impact on outcomes.

103

104 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess The modelbegins with standardsor curriculum objectives that have been adopted, developed, or need to be developed by the SEA, LEA, or organization. The development ofthose items

influences the remaining ones to be created and implemented. Specificationsfor writing standards or curriculum objectives may be developed and then the standardsor curriculum objectives written to those specifications or vice versa depending uponthe unique context, content, gradelevels, and assessments. Forthat reason, you will see the arrows going both ways amongthose items. Specifications are developed from the examination ofrelated data and evidence to determineif therigor or parameters should be adjusted or not. These specificationsare very importantas they

are more precise thanthe 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 thatall will take place should be designed.It is ideal to design both atthis timeto align to the standards

and specifications so that the system is of one accord. If time elapses and the curriculum evaluation andthe student assessmentsare designedlaterthat will inform the evaluation, then the chance

of other variablesintervening 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 thatapply) and horizontally across content areas. In the CCSS you have experienced that standardsare established vertically and

are the same at each grade level; however,they build in the expectation ofincreases in the rigor

ofthinking throughthe grade levels. As an example ofhorizontal organization in the CCSS, the writing standards apply across multiple contentareas ofsocial studies, mathematics, science, and othersto provide ample and targeted writing experiences for students.

Curriculumguides are developed based on how the standards are bundled together or organized. Somestandards are intended to be taught together (reading and writing) and others perhaps are taughtas lesser or nonessential but supporting more rigorous ones. As you will see in Chapter 8, curriculum guides today go by manytitles and mostoften are on organization, schooldistricts, and

state organization websites. Some are publicly accessible and others are available only to employees of a schooldistrict or school. Nevertheless, the guidesto be developed includethe support needed for successful implementation of associated instruction with differentiation of time and resources

but not ofthe expectations for various learners.

Before the Gordon Taylor Modelof Curriculum System Development can be implemented,

professional learning for affected teachers, administrators, and stakeholders should be developed

and provided. The professional learning maytake the form ofvideos oronline 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. Mostprobablythe specifications will be a part ofthe 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 ofeffective 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 ent, not just continuous improvements ofthe curriculum, guides, instruction, and the ass at some future appointed time. With ready access to valid and reliable data and consistent

monitoring, decisions to make improvements can takeplace very quickly to each component ofthe system.

Chapter 5 + Modelsfor Curriculum System Development Examine data.

SEA, LEA, or Organization Develop curriculum objectives or standards.

Organize

Create specifications.

standards wmalynd horizontally.

Develop guides

If none,develop

curriculum objectives.

Design curriculum evaluation & student

Provide feedback and revise each process.

assessments.

Provideprofessional 2

learning.

rE curriculum system.

Evaluate

Gather ⑧

curriculum.

datalevidence.

FIGURE 5.5 Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development

© 2017 WilliamR. Gordon, Il 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 andreflect upon how the componentsare developed and implemented in your context, and the extent to which implementation in your con-

text is a systems approach. This model is uniqueasit is conceptualized as a system and includes specifications of the standards and therefore of the assessmentitems that have becomecritical in an era of standards based curriculum and standards based assessment.

Similarities and Differences Among Models The models discussed reveal both similarities and differencesin approaches to curriculumdevel-

opment. The models ofTyler, Taba, Oliva, and, Gordon and Tayloroutline certainsteps to be

taken in curriculum development. Tyler's model is deductive and the concept of sources and tands out in his model. Taba’s model is inductive and she advocated starting with spe-

and then building to a general design. Oliva's model is deductive and he recognized that cifics the needsof students’ communities are not always the same as the general needs ofstudents

throughout society. The most recently developed model, Gordon Taylor, is deductive and reflects à systemsapproach whichincludesall parts ofcurriculum orthose influencing curriculum devel-

opment, including assessment and accountability for student learning outcomes

Models are inevitably incomplete; they do not and cannot show every detail and every nuance ofa process as complicated as curriculum development. In one sense, the authors are pointing out key components and actionsto follow to provide con:

ncyto the process. To depict

every detail ofthe curriculumdevelopment process would require an exceedingly complex drawing or several models. One task in building a model for curriculum development is to determine

105

106 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess the most essential componentsin the process and to limit the modelto those components. Model

buildersare often caught between oversimplifying or being too complex to the pointof confusion.

The following consideration maybegivenin creating a model:

* major components of the process, including stages of planning, implementation, and evaluation;

* customary butnotinflexible “beginning”and “ending”points; * the relationship between curriculum and instruction; * distinctions between curriculum and instructional goals and objectives;

« reciprocal relationships among components; + acyclical pattern;

+ feedbackprocesses;

+ the possibility of entry at any point in the cycle; + an internalconsistency and logi * enough simplicity to beintelligible and feasible; and * componentsin the form of a visualto aid in implementation.

Any one modelis not inherently superiorto all other models presented in this text. For example, some curriculum developers havefollowedthe Tyler modelfor 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 orthat any model is universally accepted as a basis for curriculum development. Before choosing a model or designing a new modelas a viable alternative, curriculum developers should outline the criteria or characteristics they lookfor in a model for curriculum refinement that will result in improved student learning outcomes. Summary

Four models ofcurriculum developmentare presented in this chapter. Models canhelpus to conceptualize a process by showingcertain principles and procedures

inductive and deductive approaches in models are presented. Some are prescriptive; others, descriptive.

models are in the form of diagrams, othersare lists of stepsthat are recommendedto curriculum developers.

modeling with the intent of having greater impact on student learning outcomes than models that consider

while promoting consistency in actions. Whereas some

Modelsare linear, step-by-step approachesor allow for departure from a fixed sequence of steps. Both

One model, the Gordon Taylor Model ofCurriculum

System Development presents

systems approach to

componentsseparately.

Application 1. Conduct a needs assessment in your context and

developinstructional objectives or learning targets using oneofthe 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 ofthe curriculum. 3. Based on evidence and data, formulate the criteria or characteristics of a model for curriculum

improvementin 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 busi-

ness (e.g.hotels, technology companies, banking) use to develop curriculum for their employees”

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

continuing education?

Websites

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ascd.org

Leaming Forward: Leamingforward.org

References

Johnson, M.(1967). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. Educational Theory, 17(2), 127-140. doi:10.1111/.1741-5446.1967.1b00295.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. EnglewoodCliffs, 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). Curriculumdevelopment: Theoryintopractice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago 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

Learning Outcomes

USING THE PROPOSED MODELS

After studying this chapter,

TheOliva Modelfor Curriculum Developmentand the Gordon Taylor

1. Explain how the aims of education are derived. 2. Write statementsof the

along with other models. For a moment, take anotherlook at Figures 5.4 and 5.5, andthen review the characteristicsof the models. Examining the models reveals the following special

you should beable to:

aims of education.

3. Outline major beliefs of four well-known schools ofeducation philosophy. A ia Serea SE ETT,

Model of Curriculum System Developmentwere presented in Chapter 5,

characteristics.

1. The modelsflowfrom the most general (aims ofeducation in the Oliva Model; curriculum objectives and standardsin the Gordon Taylor Model) to the most specific (evaluation in the Oliva Model; evaluation andfeedback in the Gordon Taylor Model). Curriculum development committeesor teams may wish to set their own schedulesfor considering the various components. Those componentsthat are closest to the teaching. involve fewerpersons, are more easily managed, and are less costly in time and money might be reassessed with greaterfrequency

than those componentsthat are largerin 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 ofteachers, 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 mightbe considered ontheschedule 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.

$ A single curriculum group, such as the curriculum team of an

individual school, department, or grade, will not carryout all phases ofthe models. Various groups, subgroups, and individuals will assume responsibility for different parts of the models.

108

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof 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

Assessmentof studentlearning needs

Within 3 years

Continuously

Curriculum goals(big idea)

Within 2 years

Continuously

Instructional goals (essential question) Instructional objectives(learning target)

Every year Every year

Continuously Continuously

Organization and implementation of the curriculum

Within 5 years

Every year

Other components

Continuously

Continuously

Decisionsat any phase that have relevanceto the entire schoolorentire school district may

be presented to a broad scale audience for review and input through town hall meetings, webinars, and electronic surveysfor gathering responses. Throughout the process, decisions made by anyofthe subgroups would be presented eitherin person or via virtual meetings so that relationships amongthe 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 canbefollowedat anylevel or sector ofcurriculumplanning. Parts of the models may also be applied at the various levels and by entities that provide curriculum.Tt 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 ofthe Gordon Taylor Model

is expected, given accountability for learning outcomes, digital resourcesfor 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,ratherloosely and often interchangeably, to signify terminal expectations of education. Educatorsspeak ofoutcomes, aims, ends, purposes, functions, goals, and objectives. Although these terms may be used synonymously in every day conversations, it is helpful ifdistinctionsare 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 aimsofeducation are the very broad, general statements of the purposes of education: they are meant to give general direction to education throughoutthe country. Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis (2004) likened aims of education

to wishesfor “something desirable for people in generalthatis only possible for them to have because of something they learn” (p. 12).

Also, in this text curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, instructional goa instructional objectives are separate entities of special relevance to the local school ors district. Curriculum goals are defined as general, programmatic expectations without criteria

ofachievement or proficiency, whereas curriculum objectives or standards are specific,

110 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess programmatictargets with criteria (specifications) of achievement and, therefore, are measurable. The curriculum objectives stem from the curriculum goals. Both curriculum goals and curriculum standardsor objectivestrace their sourcesto the philosophy and the statement of aims of education

(e.g.. mission and beliefs).

Instructional goals are statementsof instructional targetsorin general targets (no observ-

able terms formulated or withoutcriteria of achievement). Whereas instructional objectives are expected learner behaviorsthat are formulated in measurable and observable terms, with possible

exceptions for those behaviors

in the affective domain. Instructional objectivesare derived from

instructional goals, and both instructional goals and instructional objectives originate from the

curriculum goals and objectivesor standards. Measureable instructional objectivestendto be thosethat a teacher implements and quickly formatively assesses in the classroom, in contrast to curriculumstandards which are more likely

to have state or schooldistrict assessments with related metrics for official measurement for monitoring ofprogress and accountability. The aims of education have special relevance to the nation as a whole. The local educa-

tion authority (LEA), state education authority (SEA),and regions may have their ownaims. In

the twenty-first century it would seem an anachronism to promoteregional aimsas if the broad

purposes of education in California, for example, were different from those in New York or the

purposesof education in Indianadifferent from those of Mississippi. Global Aims

It is possible, even desirable, to define aimsof 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 worldwidescale to state aims of education for humanity. Among the aimsof education that UNESCO seeksto promote are these:

+ fostering international understanding among all peoplesof the world, « improving thestandard of living of people in the various countries, and « solving continuing problems that plague humanity, such as war, disease, hunger, and unemployment. The citizens ofthe United States who participate in organizations at the internationallevel

find some opportunity for expressing aims ofeducation that can apply across national boundaries. More commonare statements of aims of education bythe respective nationsofthe world to guide the developmentoftheir own educational systems.

In anydiscipline, the field of curriculum notwithstanding, the specialist seeksto find or develop generalizationsor rules that apply in most situations. On the other hand, the specialist must always be awarethat exceptions may be found to most rules. Although in this textcurriculum

developmentis presented as a group process and is more effective because ofthat process, there may be individuals whocarry out any ofthe components ofthe suggested model ofcurriculum 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 ofaims ofeducation have been made over the years by prominentindividuals. 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 ofthe ideas of individu-

als, certainly a tenable procedure.

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aims of Education ⑪① Thatstatements 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 asthe result of the work of independently motivated instructional leaders.

Statements of Purposes

Various organizations propose purposesof 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 promotesocial justice. Aims ofeducation are encountered in a descriptive form with declarations such as:

* education is life, not preparationfor life; * educationis the transmission ofthe culturalheritage;

+ education is providing career and collegeready individuals; * educationis theliberal arts; * educationis cognitive development;

+ educationis personal development;

+ educationis socialization of groups and individuals; and

+ education is the developmentofdigitalliteracy.

Slogans, like those that follow, should not be mistakenfor aimsand would be considered nonexamples. + If you think education is expensive,try ignorance. + If you can read this sign, thank a teacher. * A sound mindin a sound body. Today, in the USA,the aimsgenerally 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 ofscience, technology, and engineering. Overall, the aim is forgraduates of PreK-12 education tobecollege and career ready sothat they can providefor themselves. Derivation of Aims

The aimsofeducation are derived from examining the needsofstudents,

from analyzing cultures,

and from studyingthe various needs ofsociety. Given thehistoric developmentofnations withtheir own institutions, mores, values, and languages, no two countries exhibit exactly the same needs. Suchheterogeneity

is present in the United States, makes

it extremely difficult to reach

consensus on aimsofeducation and particularly on valuescentral to aims. Many years ago, the National Education Association (1951) attemptedto identify moral and spiritual values that members believed should be taught in the public schools. Theylisted 10 values, among which were

moral responsibility and the pursuit of happiness.

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

Sectors of Development

Nation Re;

District

In

discussing sectors of development,the sectorsin which specialists work and those

where decisions are made should bedistinguished. These are not necessarily the same. Deci-

sions about classroom curriculum that the individual teacher wishes to make may be referred

to a higher level of decision making, especially ifthese decisions will impact otherteachers.

For example, teachers should not make a unilateral decision to replace an adopted textbook

that alignsto 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 cither at the schoolor 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

statesector.

SECTORS BEYOND THE STATE When curriculum specialists work in the regional, national, or international sector, they work in

quite a different context. Exceptin the cases of federal legislation and federal judi

or

case law, which are discussed in the following pages, information sharing and persuasion

rather than statutory power are the tools ofthe regional, national, and international sectors. No assurance of any kind existsthat 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 planningin the

regional, national, and international sectors, the opportunities that doarise can berich for the participants.

61

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education 113 tosolve theriddlesoflife, 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 Congressin 1962, Vice-Admiral Hyman G.Rickover (1962), generally acknowledged as the father ofthe 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 facts on problemsthey will encounter in a laterlife.

using

MortimerJ. Adler (1982) expressed the aim of education and schooling as follows: “The

ultimate goal of the educational processis to help human beings become educated persons.

Schooling is the preparatory stage; it forms the habit oflearning and provides the means for

continuing to learn afterall schooling is completed” (Adler, 1982, p. 10).

John I. Goodlad (1983) addressed the themes of social purposes served by the schools,

educationalgoals 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 approxi-

mately a hundred goals from various sources and refined theminto 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

andethical character, emotional and physical well-being,creativity and aesthetic expression, and self-realization. Theodore R. Sizer (1992), who was instrumentalin the formation of the Coalition of Essential Schools in 1984, wove into his narrative of the fictitious Franklin High School the purposes

ofschooling and at the same time pointed out an American dilemma:

“some Americans do not

see the schools as engines both of information and ofintellectualliberation. 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 outin quoting from Aristotle’s Politics:

Atpresent opinion is divided about the subjects ofeducation. 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 tothe best life possible; nor is opinion clear whether education should bedirected mainly to understanding, or mainly to moral character. If we lookat actual practice, the result is sadly confusing; it throwsnolight on the problem whether the proper studiesto befollowed are those which are usefulin life, or those which makefor goodness, or those which advance the boundsof knowledge. Each sort ofstudy receives somevotes in favor. (Kliebard, 1998, p. 21) This amazingly pertinent observation from ancient Greece more than 2000 years ago mightwell have come from an authorin 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 DevelopmentProcess

AMERICA 2000. In September1989 at the University of Virginia, President George H. W. Bush and the National Governors’ Association developed a statementof six performance goals. The president presented this statementto 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 includedthe creation of 535 experimental schools (onein each congressional district) for the purpose of demonstrating effective curricula and instructionaltechniques; voluntary national examinations in English, mathematics, science, history, and geographyat the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades; and parental choice of school. The six performance goals to be reached bythe 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 competencyin challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensurethat all students learn to usetheir minds well, so they may be preparedfor responsible citizenship, furtherlearning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adultin 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 ofcitizenship. 6. Every school in the United States willbe free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (U.S. Department of Education, 1990) Theproposals 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 ofthese noble goals but doubted very

muchthatthey could be reached in the short timeto the year 2000. Educators expressed concern about

the lack offederal funding to implementthe 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 Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP)alreadyassessed student achievementin 37 states. Objecting to national assessments, some educators feared that national assessments could lead

toa nationalstandardized curriculum, which they found unacceptablein principle. The Congress moved to implement America 2000 by creating the National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Its duty wasto oversee developmentof(a) national standards,

beginning in thefive disciplines: English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. with the possibility of adding other disciplinesat a later date; and (b) a voluntary systemof 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 bythe University ofPittsburgh'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 notall curriculumtheorists subscribed to America 2000 canbe seen in the remarks of Henry A. Giroux (1993):

Under the guise of attempting to revitalize the languageof leadership and reform, these reports signify a dangerousattack on someofthe most fundamental aspects of democratic public life and the social, moral, and political obligations ofresponsible, critical citizens. (Giroux, 1993, p. 14)

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education 115 GOALS 2000: THE EDUCATE AMERICA ACT.

Following the initiative begunin the Bush admin-

istration, in the spring of 1994 the Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Goals 2000 authorizing federal supportto the states for plans to improve the schools, reiterating in

slightly edited form the six national goals earlier proposed, and addingthe following two goals callingfor professional learning for teachers and increased parental involvement.

« Thenation’s teaching force will have access to programsfor the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepareall Americanstudents for the next century. + Every schoolwill promotepartnershipsthat 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” thatcalled for achievement of subject-matter standardsand for national ssment: (a) the presumption that “it is realizable, poverty and inequality notwithstanding™; (b)

“the implicationthat standards and tests can simply be imposed”; and (c) the “untappeddiversity among American youth today” (p. 17). She suggested that new waysofthinking about serving all learners wasin need.

Citing the family asthe crucial element in raising educational standards, critics ofthe legislation decried the expenditure of millions ofdollars, which they maintained would not guarantee improvementin the schools. They objectedto involvementofthe federal governmentin education,

whichthey believed would take autonomy awayfrom 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 ofthe goals had been fully achieved by that

date.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001. Recognizing continuing concerns about student achieve-

mentby particular populations or studentsubgroups, Congress ventured onceagain into the field of PreK-—12 education, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965in 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 duringthe same year. State educational agencies received federal funding through grantsto addressthe 10 titles of theact, whichreflected the intent ofassuring that all student subgroups would be provided excellent educational opportunities and thatstates and schooldistricts would be held accountable for

improvement, not only of the overall student population or the mean, but alsoofdiscrete student

subgroupssuch

economically disadvantaged,special needs, English learners,

andso on. This

change in metrics for determining achievement at a more in-depth level wasa significant change forstates and schooldistricts as many had relied on the achievementofhigh performing students

to bring up the means upon which schools and school districts had been previously measured.

The 10 titles arelisted with brief descriptors.

Title I: Improving the academic achievement ofthedisadvantaged with special attention to reading and literacy. Title II: Preparing,training, and recruiting high-quality teachers and principals. Title 111: Providing language instruction for limited English-proficient and immigrant students.

116 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess 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 thestates, and the developmentofstate 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 termsused.

Title X: Provisionsrelated to repeals, redesignations, and amendments to otherstatutes.

NCLB had beenup for cither reauthorization, revision, or termination by Congress but with no action taken, President Barak Obamaby executive orderin September2011 gave states the opportunity to select to option out of someof 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 forstates to improve academic

performanceby 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

achievedsignificant improvementin student outcomes, including making substantial gainsin closing achievement gaps amongstudentsubgroups, improving high school graduationrates, ensuring student preparation for successin 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 standardsand to belong to an assessment consortium or not. The fourareas offocus 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 improveinstruction:

3. Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and

4. Turning around the lowestachieving schools. Thefirst statesto receive RTTT grants were Delaware and Tennessee, followed in the second round byninestates (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island) plusthe District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

64

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

is a violation ofthe First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that Cleveland's school voucher program doesnot 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 ofEducation, 1948; Zorachv. Clauson, 1952; Epperson

v. Arkansas, 1968; Lau v. Nichols, 1974; SchoolDistrict ofAbington Township, Pa. v. Schempp & Murrayv. 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 notseektherole ofcurriculum specialists, but when they elect to consider cases they electto be in a curriculum decision making role.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS. Professional education associations have

afforded opportunitiesfor 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 mostinfluential and foresighted documentsin the history of American edu-

cation. The document, CardinalPrinciples ofSecondary Education, made 19 generalizationsor principles, some of which applied at all levels of education. In speaking ofthe role of secondary education in achieving the main objectives ofeducation, 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, proficiencyin the basic skills (reading, writing, and mathematics), and technical education.

The Commissions report, possessing no authority other than its persuasiveness, was broadlyreceived and acceptedas a valid statement ofgoalsfor the secondary education ofits time. Many high schools attempted to implementthe Commission’s Cardinal Principles. Although some criticism of the Seven Cardinal Principles exists, many educators think thatthis statement ofthe purposes of secondary education is as relevant todayasit was whenfirst 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 ofstudies

through its print and onlineresources, publications (Educational Leadership), and journals. Of special help to personsinterested in the curriculum field are the ASCD's conferences, in which

participants under the leadership of recognized experts focus onparticular curriculum problems.

Its online newsletters SmartBrief and SmartBrief on EdTech providelinks to articles on current educational events and issues.

PROFESSIONAL BOOKS. Professional books on education maketheir contributions tothe quest for curricular solutions to many social and educationalissues. A few noteworthy books that were written in the past that have had an impact onhistorical 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 ofarriving at instructional objectives; Benjamin Bloom and his

associates (Bloom, Hastings,

& Madeus, 1971), who offered a way of

evaluating mastery ofeducational objectives. James B. Conant (1959), who made recommenda-

tions that were widely adopted by secondary schools; Jerome S. Bruner (1959), who wrote on the structure ofdisciplines; Theodore Sizer (1984), who founded the Coalition of Essential Schools; John I. Goodlad (1984), who directed an extensive study ofschools and made recommendations

118 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess FIGURE 6.1

FourPhilosophies of Education

of education cannotjust be pulled out of a hat, but must be derived from more fundamental and

generalthinking aboutvalue,reality, and knowledge”(p. 487). Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins (2004)attributed the curriculum specialist's philosophy to “his or herlife experiences,

commonsense, social and economic background,education, and general beliefs about himself or

herself and people” (p. 31). Discussion of general philosophiesis beyond the scope of this text. Numerous booksdescribe various schoolsof philosophy. Reconstructionism

Hilda Tabapoints out that John Deweyviewedthe function of the schoolthrough a psychological and social lens. Taba (1962) contends that Dewey andhis disciples viewed education as anartist

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 educatorsto reconsiderthe role of schools in our society. In essence, recon-

structionism holds that the school should not simply transmit the cultural heritage or simplystudy 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,

problemsof the day such as unemployment, health, housing, and urbanization. Group consensus is the methodology by which solutionsto the problems are sought.

Theodore Brameld (1971) made clear the values ofthe reconstructionists, referring to 12

needsincluding companionship, health, nourishment, and shelter (p. 418). There are educators who agree that students should considerpressing 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 ofindoctrination,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 makethe schoola primary agencyfor social change, reconstructionism has not made great inroads intothe largely middle-class, public schools ofthe United States.

Perennialism In the tradition ofPlato, Aristotle, and the scholasticism ofthe Catholic thinker St. Thomas Aqui-

nas, the contemporary perenni

see the aims ofeducationasthe disciplining ofthe mind, the

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education ⑪⑨ developmentof the ability to reason, and the pursuit of truth. Unlike progressivists, who hold that truth is relative and changing, the perennialists believe thattruthis 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 ofthe perennialist curriculum, the great booksof the Western world. In the great booksof the past, one searched fortruth, 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 ofthe Bible

andtheological writings. Robert M. Hutchins, formerpresident of the University of Chicago, was perhapsthe bestknown proponentofthe 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 whenhe 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 forlife but opposes

the progressivist who holds that educationis life. If taken seriously, perennialism would afford

an education suitable to a small percentage ofstudents who have interest and aptitude to pursue

the intendedlearning. The perennialist looks backward forthe answers to social problems. Do you wonder how useful Lucretius’s

De Rerum Natura is forthis and future generationsin solving

environmental problems? One criticism thatappears to be overlooked in most critiquesof perennialism is its ethnocentricity. The perennialist showcase features the great books ofthe Western

world,considered by them asthe greatest worksof all humanity. Excluded are the great writings ofthe Eastern world. An outstanding curriculum project would bring together, perhaps under theauspices of UNESCO,a group of world scholars who would draw upa set ofgreat booksof

the entire world. In conclusion, perennialism has not proved an attractive philosophyfor 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 betweenthe two schools of thought whenthey said: Thefirst halfofthe twentieth century witnessed a running battle between progressive educators, who saw in the ideas of Dewey and other progressives newways to think aboutthe curriculum, and the traditionalists, who were sure that the curriculumdid not need change because it had proven itself essential to the education ofindividuals who would maintain an intellectually sound and civilized society. Manybattles were fought overthese opposing views, leaving a profound mark on elementary school practices especially and curriculumtheorygenerally that is still visible today. (Walker & Soltice, 2004,p. 18) From 1635 with the establishmentof the Boston Latin School to 1896 with the creation

of John Dewey's Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, a period of261 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

66

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Governors Association setforth six national educational goalsthat resulted in the America 2000

legislation. Expanding on the Bush reform efforts, the U.S. Congressin 1994 enacted President Bill Clintons educational reform package known as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,

which added two goals beyond theearliersix 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 signedinto 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 subgroupsof 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 includedthe Raceto the Top (RTTT)initiative, withthe first awards made by the U.S. Department

ofEducation to Delaware and Tennessee in the spring of2010 (U.S. Departmentof Education,

2015). This funding provided for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) development and associated assessment consortiums (Common CoreState Standards Initiative, 2010).

The International Sector

INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. Involvement of American curriculum

specialists onthe 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 Chil-

dren holds conferences in various parts ofthe 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

Studiesis a member ofthelatter. Sponsoring periodic conferences in variousparts of the world,

these international organizations offer opportunities for individuals interested in curriculum studies to exchange ideas and develop an understanding of one anothers educational systems

and problems. If teachers and otherschoolleaders are willing to spend a period oftime abroad, they can become intimately involved in curriculum developmentoverseas by accepting employment in the U.S. Department ofDefense 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 becomeactivein developing curricula offoreign 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 curriculumstudy, research,teaching, and technical assistance from membersof the United Nations. The Institute of International Education in New

York City directs aninternational exchange ofstudents 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 ofhigher education to conduct research and teach beyond the USA. Another professional organization that targets specific education arenasthatare related to non-traditional learning is the International Association for K-12 Learning iNACOL). iNACOL

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 roleas the recipient of the many stimuli to which he or she must respond. Knowninits variants as connectionism, association, S-R (stimulus-

response) bond, and conditioning, behaviorism brought into the classroom drill, programmed instruction, teaching machines,standardized testing, and, ofcourse, 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

learnerand reinforcement, preferably immediate and positive, are centralto behavioristic thought.

Noted among the behavioristsare 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 whateverhe wished; Edward L. Thorndike, who is considered by many to be thefatherof the controversial standardized

В. Е. Skinner, who popularized teaching machines.

test; and

Teachers of the behavioristic-essentialist school fragment contentinto logical, sequential

pieces and prescribe the piecesthe learner will study. Typically, they begin instruction by giving the learners a rule, concept, or model, for example, the formula for finding the area ofa rectangle, and then provide many opportunities to practice (drill) using this guide. With adequate practice,

the learnercan presumablyuse the rule, concept, or model whenever he or she needsit. The learn-

ing has become a habitual part ofthe individual's behavior. Though human beings are prone to forget content not used regularly, the behaviorists and essentialists maintain thatif the content

hasbeen 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 becomesa 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 doctrinesofessentialism. Led by John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, John Childs, and Boyd Bode, the progressivists maintainedthatit was time to

subordinate subject matterto the learner. Borrowing from some European philosophers like Rousseau, who advocated rearinga child in a relaxed environmentwithoutforcing 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 publications that included Democracy

in a series of

and Education, Experience and Education, How We Think,

and MyPedagogic Creed. By insistingthat the needs and interests of learners must be considered ng that learners bringtheir bodies, emotions, and spirits to schoolalong with their minds,progressivism captured the attention and allegiance ofeducators. Dewey (1902) clearly statedthe differences betweenthe essential and the progressive curriculum:

‘The fundamentalfactors in the educative process are the immature, underdeveloped being: and ain social aims, meanings, values incarnate in the matured experience of the adult. The educative process is the dueinteraction 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 DevelopmentProcess of the curriculum as compared with the contents of the child’s own experience. . Hence the

moral: ignore and minimize thechild'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 studyinto lessons: each lesson into specific facts and formulae.Let each child proceed step bystep to master each oneof these separate parts,and at last he will have covered theentire ground. … Problemsof instruction are problems ofprocuring texts giving logical parts and sequences, and ofpresenting these portionsin classin a similar definite and graded way. Subject matter furnishesthe end, and it determines method. The child is simply the immature being who is to be matured: he is the superficial being whois to be deepened:his is narrow experience which is to be widened.Its his toreceive, 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 studiesare subservient; theyare instrumentsvalued as they serve the needs ofgrowth. Personality, character,is more than subject matter. Not knowledgeor information, butself-realization,is

the goal. ... Moreover, subject matter never can be gotinto the child fromwithout. 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 asit reaches out and assimilates. Subject matter is but spiritual food. possible nutritive material. It cannot digest itself: it cannotof its ownaccord 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 becomea synonym for what is irksome, and a “lesson”identical with a task. (Dewey, 1902, pp. 7-14) Tothe progressivesthen, education is not a productto be learned, for example, facts and motor skills, but a processthat continuesaslong as one lives. To their way ofthinking a studentlearns best

whenactively experiencing his or her world, as opposed to passively absorbing preselected content.

If experiences in schoolare designed to meetthe needs and interestsof individual learners, it follows

that no single pattern of subject matter can be appropriateforall learners. Brameld (1971) explained this point ofview held by progressivists such as Dewey and Harold Rugg (1947):

The proper subject matter ofa curriculumis any experience thatis 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 ofcontent, no system ofcourses, no universal method ofteaching is

inappropriate. For, like experience itself, the needs and interests of individuals and groups vary fromplace to place, from time to time, from culture to culture. (Dewey & Rugg. 1947, p. 133)

The progressivist position thatthe student should undergo educative experiences in the here and now hasledtothe cliché-like indicators ofprogressive philosophy: “educationis life” and

“learning by doing.” The progressivists urged schools to provide for learners” individual differ-

ences

in the broadest sense of the term, encompassing cognitive, physical, emotional, spiritual,

social, language, economic, and cultural differences. In both thought and practice, progressivism

showsconcernforthe student, society, and subject matter, placing the student atthe centerof the

learning process, thus it is student-centered orlearner-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 thatthe learners are immature subjects of adult preceptors and administrators, but rather consider them partners in the educational process. Teachersinfluenced

by progressive thinking see themselves as counselors to students and facilitators of learning,

68

Part II + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Application 1. How has the implementation of standards based assessment impactedthe teacher's role in curriculum development in your context? Use

evidenceto support yourposition. 2. In your context, how canteachersshape curricular decisions in a school? Provide evidence and

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

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Research the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA)andexplain how the core tenants of the

act will impactthe various levels of curriculum

development.

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

2. Should the USDOE exist? Support yourposition.

Websites

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

National Council of Teachers ofEnglish: ncte.org South Atlantic Modern Language Association: samla -memberelicks.net United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization: unesco.org U.S. Departmentof Education: ed.gov

WIDA:http://wida.us World Council for Curriculum and Instruction: weciinternational.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). Genderdifferences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles’ expectancyvalue model. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press. Glickman, C.D.(1998). Revolutionizing Ameri schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas

Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.” Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. National Education Association. (1983). Report ofthe committee of ten onsecondaryschoolstudies. Washington, DC:National Education Association. Sowell, E. J. (005). Curriculum: An integrative approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

124 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess Writing unit plans is common practice amongteachers and continuesto bring together various standards or objectives to be learned. Thegestaltists pointed outthatthe learners achieve insight when they discern relationships

among elementsofa given situation. The gestaltists encourage inquiry to sharpen the skill of insight. Both the experimentalists and gestaltists agreethat the closer content to be mastered is to real life situations and thecloser problemsare to the previous experiencesof the learner, the morelikelihood thereis for successful mastery of the learning targets.

PERCEPTUAL PSYCHOLOGY. Of more recent vintage, perceptual psychology focused onthe devel-

opment of the learner's self-concept. The goal of the perceptualists is the development of the selfactualizing orfully functioning personality. AbrahamH. 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... actualization of these latent capacities and potentialities, “full functioning.”availabilityof the human and personal essence; and (b) minimal presence ofill 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 whofeel positive about themselves. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) listed “four characteristics of the perceptualfield

which alwaysseem to underlie the behavior oftruly adequate persons” (p. 51). These four char-

acteristics are: (a) a positive view ofthe self, (b) identification with others, (c) openness to experience and acceptance, and (d) possession ofa 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

developa positive conceptof themselves and to dealwith both their perceptions of the world and the world asit is. The perceptualist maintainsthatit is more important to know howthe learner

perceives the facts or their world than what the facts of a given situation are. The perceptualists

emphasize dealing with people’s perceptionsofthe world around them.

Anindividual's positive or negative feeling of adequacy or inadequacy can often be

attributed to other people's perceptions. Ifa studentistold by a parentthat he orshe is a weakling, the student may agree thatit is so. If a studentis told by teachers that he or she has an artistic

talent, the student may seekto develop thatability. If a student is told that he or she is a poor reader, lacksaptitude for mathematics, or is short on musical talent, the students may accept

these perceptions and internalize them. The studentis exemplifying then whatis referred to in the literature asthe self-fulfilling prophecy. Students may believe what adultsor authoritiestell them and act on those beliefs. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) described howthe self-conceptis

learnedin the following passage.

People learn who they are and what theyare 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 fromthe kinds ofexperiences 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 thesethings, not from being told so, but only through the experience ofbeing treatedas 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 Aimsof Education ⑫⑤ The perceptualistsattacked the notionthat students must experience failure. Combs,Kelley, and Rogers(1962) said, “Actually, the best guarantee we have that a person will be able to deal

withthe futureeffectively 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 relatively briefperiod, and peaked, but left an indelible mark on our educational

system. Because ofprogressivism,essentialism will never be the same.

CRITICAL INQUIRY. You will encounterin your readings discussionsofcriticalinquiry. 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 nameof X? (X is a placeholder for things like educational goals and schoolingfunctions; instructional practiceslike the use of time, tracking students, and achievement testing; organizationalpractices like leadership, decision making, and communication, etc.). How did it come to be that way? Whose interests are being

served (andnot being served) by the waythingsare? What information and knowledge do we have, and need to get, that bear uponthe issues? .

Is this the way we want it?

we going to do about all this? (Sirotnik, 1998, pp. 66-67)

‘What are

Notingthat goal statementsforthe public schools often differ from classroom realities, Sirot-

nik (1998) might view the following as more accurate statements of what goes on: “to develop in students’ abilitiesto 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 on” (Sirotnik, 1998, p. 64). “At the heart ofcritical inquiry, therefore,” said Sirotnik in 1998,

the willingness and ability of people to engage in competent

discourse and communication” (p. 67). Giventhat the twenty-first century standards include inquiry and complexthinking at high levels that require students to examine multiple sourcesto gather evidence, and draw conclusions supported withtextual evidence, it may be that critical inquiry will be morefrequently observed in classrooms (Coleman & Pimentel, 2011).

CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY. Like experimentalist, gestalt, and perceptual psychology. constructivism complements progressive philosophy. Constructivists hold that the teacheris a facilitator of learning; students must be taughtto take responsibility fortheir own learning; learning is an active process (recall the progressives “learning bydoing”); learning must be presented in ways meaningful to students; and basicskills will be learned in authentic situations, not by separate concentration ontheskills themselves. Kenneth T. Henson (2006) defined constructivism as “the beliefthat learn-

ing occurs only whenthe learnerties newly acquired information to previously gained understand-

ings” (p. 4-5). Numerousprogramsand practices in schools todayfollow constructivist doctrine. Nell Noddings

(1995) noted, “Constructivists

in educationtrace their root

. to [Jean] Piaget” (p. 115).

Like other schools of psychology, constructivismdoesnot dictate anyparticular program

or method of instruction to accomplishits aim: the developmentof thinking individuals able to use knowledgeeffectively in society. Constructivism is accepted by manyeducators 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 DevelopmentProcess Harris and Steve Graham (1994) pointed outthat the back-to-basics movement was a backlash

against constructivist practices. As often happens,teachers blend elementsof constructivism with more traditional approaches.

THE EIGHT-YEAR STUDY. The cause of the progressives was boosted bythe Eight-Year Study, conducted by the Progressive Education Association between 1933 and 1941. Many educators

recognizethis study as one of the mostsignificant pieces ofeducationalresearch ever conducted in the United States. There have been few longitudinal studiesthat followed participants over a

period of years. Few studies have been as sweeping or have involved as many people.Students, high schoolteachers and administrators, curriculum consultants, researchers, and college professors all playedsignificant roles in the study. The Progressive Education Association was disenchanted with the typicalhigh schoolcollege preparatory curriculum with its customary prescribed constantsrequired for college admission. The Association wanted to see moreflexibilityin 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

thereforeenlisted the cooperation of more than 300 colleges and universities that agreedto accept graduates from a limited number of high schools without regard to the usual college entrance requirements. Obtaining the cooperation ofso many colleges and universities for an experiment of this nature, which might shattertraditional 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) wereinstrumental in conductingthe study. The colleges and universities consented to admit graduates from 30 public and private schools regardlessof their programsfor a 5-year period, from 1936 to 1941. Beginning in 1933 these 30 experimental schools were able to modify their programs in any way theysaw fit. Once admitted to cooperating colleges and universities, graduates ofthe experimental schools were matched with counterparts in the same institution who came from conventional

high schools, and their performancein college wasanalyzed. More than 1,400 matchedpairs of

students wereinvolved in this study. The summary findings of the Eight-YearStudy are:

The graduatesofthe 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 scholastic honors, leadership positions, study habits, intellectual curiosity, and extra class The Eight-Year Study showedrather conclusively that a single pattern ofrequired coursesis not essential for success in college. (Aikin, Giles, McCutchen, Tyler & Zechiel, 1942, р. 120)

The Eight-YearStudy gave impetusto curriculum innovations, such as the core curriculum, which, along with the progressivist experience curriculum. DECLINE OF PROGRESSIVISM. In spite ofits contributions, placing the student at the center of the educational process, treating the whole child, appealing to students’ needs and interests, pro-

viding for individual differences, and emphasizing reflective thinking, progressivism has declined in acceptance by both the public and educators. It is probably nottoo far from the truth to maintain that the public was never completely enamored ofprogressive doctrines. It wasnot the Soviet Union's Sputnik in 1957, followed bythe panickyrushto the substantive

courses, science, mathematics, and world languages, that causedthe turn away from progressivism. Trouble had been brewing for a numberofyears prior to the Soviet achievementin space.

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education ⑫⑦ The essentialist curriculum has always been the easiest to understand, and the simplest

10 organize and administer. It appears clear-cut and can be readily preplanned by teachers and administrators drawing on their knowledge ofthe 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 ofthe so-called progressive schools wentto extremes

in catering to the needs and interestsof 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 progres-

sive schools seemed to sacrifice long-range needs andinterests of which the young learner was

unaware.

A perception developed thatthe graduatesof progressive schools were not learning the basic

skills orthe elements ofthe nation’s culturalheritage. The public was uncomfortable with assertions from educators such as “The student should be taughtto read only after he or she expresses

a felt needfor reading” or “There's no need to memorize the mathematicsfacts; you can always look them up or usea calculator.”

Compared to the apparent tidiness of the essentialist curriculum and therelative ease of measuring achievement of subject matter, the progressivist curriculum appeared attimes disorganized and impossibleto evaluate. Tn attempting to deal with the whole child, the progressive school seemed to many parentsto be usurping the functions of the home, and many harried teachers agreed with them.

Someof the more zealous progressivists led even Dewey (1913) to warn:

Apart from the question ofthe future, continually to appeal even in childhood to the principle ofinterest is eternally to excite, that is, distract, the child. Continuity ofactivity is destroyed. Everything is made play, amusement. This means overstimulation; it means dissipation of energy. Will is nevercalled into action. The reliance is upon external attractions and amusements. Everything is sugar-coated for the child, and he soon leams to turn everything that is notartificially 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 ofprogressive practices. Instructional approachesthat might work in small classes will not necessarily workin large classes. Criticisms of progressive education by the essentialists, the behaviorists, and the scholars converged to restore essentialism to its currently strongposition. However, the numerousreports on educational reformin the 1970s and 1980s,someof which will be

discussed in Chapter 9, revealed dissatisfaction withthe essentialist curriculum. Some contemporary

curriculum theorists characterize the historic role of schools as an outmoded, inappropriate factory

or industrial model, imposed by society onstudents who are its productsdestined 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 governmentschools. Linda Darling-Hammond (1997) described the present school

structure, whoseorigins lie in principles of top-downorganizational management,

a conveyor

belt wherein impersonal treatmentof students and rote learning predominate. Efforts at improve-

mentsuch

“required courses, textbooks, testing instruments, and managementsystems,”

based

facturing industries” model, according to Darling-Hammond, have been assumed to

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension THE SCHOOL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A UNIQUE BLEND

Schools differ considerably from one anotherin their physical facilities, resources, and locales. Yet,it is not the schools thatdiffer as much as the people whoeither support them or operate within them. Each school has a unique blend oftalent, with differentskills, knowledge, experience, and personality. Curriculum developmentis à people process, a human endeavor in whichindividuals and groups accept and carry out mutually reinforcing roles. Faculties with a predisposition to change curriculum to better serve students with the subtle blending oftheir skills and knowledgecan achieve significant successes in curriculum improvement. Differences Among School Facul

The human variables in the process of curriculum developmentare

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe the roles of (a) the instructionalleaders, (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.

many and complex. When schools’ achievements in curriculum improvementare compared, it is quickly discovered thatthere are great

variationsin the leadershipskills of (a) the person or persons leading the curriculum study, (b) the curriculum developmentteam, (c) the

total faculty, and (d) the preceding three entities working together. Success orfailure will depend toa great extent on howpeople 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 timesthrough-

out the school year. In addition, curriculum developers conceive of curriculum development as à collaborative team undertaking in which

decisions must be made. Due tothe humanfactor,there are variables that impact the decision making process.

Talent Variables

School and school district faculties and administrators have a wide range ofcapacity in the areasofleadership, instruction, curriculum, technology, data analysis, organization, and communication.The differences among individuals and teams participating in curriculum 71

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education ⑫⑨ the perspective ofcriticaltheorists, philosophy must be engaged with the great struggles and social movementsof its times” (p. 67).

The critical theorists offer no prescribed programs or pedagogical processes, stressing instead the need for empowerment ofthe individual with the goalof improving both the school andsociety. Noddings(1995) observed that “[p]hilosophers of education have been greatly influencedbycritical theory” (p. 67). An example would be that some ofthecritical theorists may describe their philosophyas a socialjustice philosophy of education; one thatis just for all learners by providing everyoneexcellent learning opportunities that are due them. In spite of the many

conflicting philosophical views and attherisk of overgeneralizing, it might be concludedthat the public and a majority of present-day educators endorse educational programsand practicesin schoolsthat representa judicious mixture of essentialist and progressive philosophy. FORMULATING A PHILOSOPHY

In a systemsapproach 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 statementsof aimsofeducation, choosesthose that appear most significantfor their context, and thencreatesstatements reflecting uniquenessof the context. The curriculum team should be cognizantofthe major principlesof 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 approachto 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 leanstoward progressive thinking(a progressive essentialist) or, conversely, a progressivist wholeans toward essentialist ideas (an essentialistic progressivist). Curriculum specialists should take the timeto think through their own philosophies and to formulate them into a coherent statement that can be shared with others when engaging in cur-

riculum decision making. The formulation of philosophyis not an activity that most Americans,

pragmatists as theyare, engage in with either zeal or frequency. Educators should reexamine

their beliefs periodically to be self-aware oftheir own alignment with changesin the education context, society, and research. Atthe school and schooldistrict levels, the leadership team should

work with the school community to develop statements upon which school-based decisionsare

made. These practicesare generally required for regional accreditation and independent school

accreditation. Schoolteams should formulate a philosophythat will probably be expressed as a mission and belief statements, to establish a framework forthe practices ofthat 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 aroundthe philosophy development, divergent thinkers will discussthe aims and values

that they have related to the school and the students” learning. In a very real sense, the statement where we what we believe”or “Thi of philosophy becomes a manifesto signifying “This stand” as of now.

Value in Writing a Philosophy The

school or school district’s philosophy provides

statementof the intent ofthe 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 statementswill be authentic with a commitment from

thetop ofthe organization to make decisions thatreflect the beliefsa

n represented.

130 Part II + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess If administrators and teachersbelievethat the major purposesofschools areto develop cognitive skills, to preservethe social status quo,or to direct the growth and developmentof the gifted and

academically talented, it should say so.A frank statement of philosophical beliefs is much more defensible than a sanctimoniousstatement ofplatitudes that many organization members may notsupport and therefore are not reflected in the daily practice in schools and school districts. The formulation of a schooldistrict or school philosophycan bea valuable professional learning experience, giving teachers and administrators a chanceto exchange views andto find a common meeting ground.

A school’s philosophy should include statementsofbelief about the purposesof education, society. the learner, and the role of educators. Examplesof statementsofphilosophy 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. Someeducational philosophiesare 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 emphasison developing theintellect, these examplesshow concern forthe wholestudent. In spite of increased stress on the development of cognitive abilities, the examples provided give attentionto 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 andtasks,

such as determiningthe goals of education, the content and its organization,the process of teaching and learning, and in general what experiences and activitiesthey 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 enterinto the process

with differing assumptions, sometimes unexpressed, about thelearning process,the needs of society, and theroles ofindividuals in thatsociety. The various participating individuals may well espouse differing and conflicting philosophies oflife that colortheir 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 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 managementskill for it servesto develop others and to provide motivation: however, if not managed correctly, it can have a negative impact. In this case,the instructionalleaderplayed an active role throughout the process by supporting, communicating, and holding the team accountable to ensure success.

Components of the deliverable established bythe instructional leader required the curricu-

lum specialist to develop a team, establish processes, conduct research,seekinputfrom stakeholders, and gain group consensus on the outcome. Additional expectationsthatheset surrounding the composition ofthe team and parameters for which the team would operate included:

« membershave diversity of thought and represent the demographicsof the school; * membersbring to the task expertise, knowledge, and technical competence in the areas of curriculum,applicable standards, instruction, assessment, and technology; * members haveexcellent written and oral communication skills; + members should have objective decision makingskills;

« 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 developmentof the deliverable. ‘Whether the instructional leaderplays a direct or indirect role, his or herpresence should

always be stronglyfelt.If the instructional leaderserves actively in the process of curriculum developmentorindirectly by delegating leadership responsibilitiesto 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” waslisted as the number onecritical task for the

instructionalleader by the Southern States Cooperative Program in Education, sponsored bythe W. K. Kellogg Foundation (Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administra-

tion, 1955).

However,in today’s schools the span of responsibilities thatfall on the instructionalleader

often overweigh the opportunities for him or herto develop curriculum. In someinstances,cur-

riculum development does not head the list of priorities ofprincipals. In 2003, William H. Roe

and Thelbert L. Drake (2003) observedthatthe principalis torn betweenhisor her desired role as or heractualrole as administrator and manager (p. 22). More recently instructional leader and John Hattie (2009) provided conclusions from meta-analysis research, that instructional leader-

ship, which is focused on processes leading to change in student achievement, has a higher effect size than othertypesof leadership. Somefactorsthatlead principals away fromspendingtime on instructional leadership are businessand personnel management; efficiency ofoperation and safety; mandates from the state and schooldistrict, along with stakeholders’ expectations of engagement. In most schools, stakeholders are aware thatthe instructional leader by both tradition and job description is charged with

the responsibility for conducting all the affairs and decision making ofthe school. Similarly, at the school district level curriculum would be the responsibility of the superintendent. In that

sense,

all curriculum teams and groupsofthe school and school district are advisory to the principal and superintendent respectively.

73

132 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process FIGURE 6.2 Des Moines Public Schools

Source: Based on Des MoinesPublic Schools, Educational Philosophy, website: old.dmps.k12.ia.us/ schoolboard/6philosophy.htm, accessed November 5, 201 1. Public domain. TABLE 6.3 STATESBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mission Statement At Sallie Zetterower, our missionis to inspire every studentto think,to learn, to achieve, andto care. OurBeliefs Ourbelief is that every person:

deservesto work and learn in a safe environment. can learn and experience success. is responsibleforhis/her ownactions and words. deservesto be treated with dignity.

Theattitudes and habits of teachers, students, and parentsaffect the quality of learning.

Source: Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, Statesboro, Georgia, Mission Statement and Our Beliefs, website: szes-bess-ga.schoollt00p.com/ems/page_view2d=x8pid=8vpid=1283580802403, accessed February 7, 2011. Reprinted by permission.

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education ⑬③ TABLE 6.4 The Florida Virtual School

Purpose: The purpose for FLVS is legislatively prescribed. From Florida statute (1002.37 FS.): “The Florida Virtual Schoolis established for the development and delivery of online and distance learning education. The school shall serve any student in the state who meetsthe profile for successin this educational delivery context and shall give priority to:

1. Students who need expandedaccess to coursesto meet their educational goals, such as home education students and students in inner-city and rural high schools who do not have accessto higher-level courses. 2. Students seeking accelerated access to obtain a high school diploma at least onesemester early.” District Mission:

To deliver a high quality, technology-based education that provides the skills and knowledgestudents 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 collaborativesetting theyare respected, motivated, and challenged through authentic learning embedded in a relevant and rigorouscurriculum. Positive communication will be used to foster efficacy and interest in life-long learning. Values: Student Focus Innovation

Quality

Integrity

Commitment: The studentisat the center of every decision we make.

Source: Florida Virtual School, Orlando, Florida, retrieved from 2014-2015 Legislative Report at https://www.flvs.nevdocs/default-

source/districVlegislative-report-2014-15.pdf?sfvrsn=0

summary In this chapter, you examined four philosophies of education, reconstructionism, progressivism,

in society. Aims are perceived as the broad purposes

of educationthatare national and, on occasion, inter-

essentialism, and perennialism, two of which,

national in scope. Over the years a number of prominent individuals and groupshaveexpressed their positions

A systems approachto curriculum development begins with an examination of the aims of education

on the appropriate aims of education for America. The curriculum specialist should not only be able

essentialism and progressivism,are deemed to have special significance for schools.

134 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess public. Samples of philosophies are included in this

to formulate his or her own statement of aims, but should also be knowledgeable about historic and

chapter not as models of content, that is, statements

significant statements of aims.

to be borrowed, butrather as examplesresulting from

Essentialism, with its emphasis on subject matter, hasbeenthe prevailing philosophy of education throughout most of America’s history. Progressivism

the development process. Curriculum developers should put togethertheir ownstatementofbeliefs in their own words. It is very likely that their statements

withits emphasis on the student's needs and interests, has had a profound impact on educational programs

will be eclectic in nature, borrowing from both essen-

and practices. Curriculum specialists are urged to clarify their own philosophiesand to draw upa statementoftheir schooldistrict's philosophy that can be communicated to other professionals and to the

tialism and progressivism.

The developmentof a statement of aims of edu-

cation 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

are systematicallyaligned. 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

improvestudent learning outcomes?

of an education organization and considerif they

Reflection and Inquiry

1. To what school(s) of thought do you belong? Cite evidence from daily practice to support yourclaim and the systematic influencethat your

school ofthoughthas on yourpractice.

2. Investigate several school district vision, mission, and belief statements and compare the

utility of each for systematic curricular and other

related decision making. Whatdo you inferis

the relationship among the vision, mission, and belief statements and resulting student learning outcomes in each schooldistrict?

Websites

National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment: Nciea.org

3. As schooldistrict 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 allow-

ing each school community to create a unique

set ofstatements? Fromreadings in this text and beyond support yourposition statements.

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education ⑬⑤

Broudy. H. S. (1961). Building a philosophyof 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 ofcurriculum: Passion andprofessionalism (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

References

Adler, M.J. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York, NY: Macmillan. Aikin, W. ML, 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). Ghettoschooling: A political economy ofurban 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 theirpractice in education and religion (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Colman, D. & Pimentel, S. (2011). Publishers’ criteriafor the common core state standards in Englishlanguage arts andliteracy, grades 3-12. www.sde.ct.govisde/ 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 newsocial 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 ChicagoPress.

Dewey. J. (1913). Interest and effortin education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey. J. (1916). Democracyand education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. NewYork, 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 teachereducators (ERIC document ED367661). Educational Policies Commission. (1937). The unique Junction 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: Multiculturalismand the politics of difference. NewYork, NY:Peter Lang. Goodlad,J. I. (1983). A place called school: Prospectsfor thefuture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the modern age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jo ⑥ Harris, K. R., & Graham, S.(1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The JournalofSpecial Education, 28(3), 233-247

76

Part IT + 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 ofthe work ofthe curriculum planning team.

According to the Center forStrengthening the Teaching Profession (2009), knowledge andskills a teacherleader must bring to any task include: * working with adult learne:

* communication; + collaboration;

« knowledge ofcontent and pedagogy: and + systemsthinking. (Centerfor Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2009) Each ofthe 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 concertedeffort of both team membersand leaders. The curriculum

specialist must create a collaborative environment built on trust.

ROLE OF THE TEACHERS. In our proposedsetting the teachers serve in a varietyof roles. The brick and mortar teachers,traditional school-based, who participated on the team:

+ provided insight on the learning needs of the students; « providedinsight to the level of expertise thestaff hasin the use of technology,curriculum design, and instruction methods usedat the school:

+ served as experts for the standardsstudentsare required to master; * helpedto design formative and summative assessmentsthat align to the ELAstandards; + provided insight on current curricular and instructionalinitiatives; and * liaised with the team,staff, and teachers on matters importantto the success ofthe initiative. Theonline teacherassisted by:

« aiding in selecting a robust digital curriculum aligned to the standards; + providing expertise on types of pedagogy neededfor online instruction; and + accessing resourcesto assist

in the implementation of the initiative.

The examples given are not definitive nor are they germane only to online and brick and mortarteachers; however, the combinedstrength of the teachers on the team will serve the school

well. The teachers will serve as a primary voice in the curriculum developmentphase and will be

instrumentalin executing the implementation plan. In addition, they will serve as teacherleaders among their peers when the 1:1 initiative is rolled out to other members ofthe faculty.

Over theyears, the roles that teachersplay in curriculum development have varied depend-

ing on the circumstance. Until the recent movementto standards based curriculum, teachers

were the primary team in curriculum development. In the 1980s and 1990s the empowerment movement gained momentum and soughtto raise the status ofteachers and thereby improve the school’s curriculum and instruction program's effectiveness. The empowerment, which permitted teachersas professionals to take part in the decision making process ofthe school wasconsidered fundamentalto a school’s success (Maeroff, 1988). Schools and school districts ascribed to this

model, which evolvedinto another conceptionreferred to site based management. Following thepracticesofsite based management, administrators literally shared their power with teachers

(Snowden, Gorton & Alston, 2007).

Site based managementreferred to decisions being made closestto the implementation or to those involved, resulting in decentralization of authority from the school district level to the

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

After studying this chapter,

how the curriculumcontributesto 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 hastransitioned from manufacturing to an information and thinking society and therefore curriculum, organizational structures, and

delivery modeshave continued to adapt at a rapid pace The accelerated pace in many aspects oflife in the USA is transforming how students will becomeready for success in their careers

or in college. While the rapid rate of change impacts daily lives, changes

also impactthe way that curriculum specialists and developers view the sources that are to be considered when evaluating curriculum needs. Someof the sources include student achievement data, demographic

data, graduates’ successes, teacher effectiveness, and community employment data. There are other sources ofevidence thatare helpful to considerthat will emerge from teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators in schools and across schooldistricts. 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

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 needsare derived from the structure of a dis 5. Construct a plan for

assessing curriculum needs.

and perhaps eventhe fidelity ofits implementation. These and other

changes support the importance ofunderstanding how to developforward thinking curriculum that addresses the challenges students will

face in an ever-changingglobal environment.

Considerthese queries. How will the focus

areas be determined?

How do developers shape curriculum, based on the needs and predicted needsof society, sothat graduates are competitive in their selected and

potentially changingcareers? Which data and evidence sourcesshould

curriculum developersconsider to develop an effective curriculum? How will leaders know if the curriculum has metthe learning needs or not, and for which students under which conditions? Curriculum

developers’ understandingof the level of transparencythatis expected 137

138 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess 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 mayinfluencethe success of implementation outcomes.

Thecurriculum developerhasa plethora of decisions to make when designing contentthat 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 founderof the Change Leadership Group,

stated that dueto the changing nature ofthe workplace, students need to master communication

andthinking skills to become productive citizensin 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 (2stcenturyschools.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 ofa 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 levelthinking

Higher, more complex thinking

Text book driven

Standardsdriven

Passive learning

Active learning

Learners and teachers work in isolation

Collaborative work

Teacher centered

Learnercentered

Fragmented curriculum

Integrated andinterdisciplinary curriculum

Teacher evaluates

Self and peer feedback

Curriculum irrelevant

Curriculum connected to students’ interests, experiences, talents

Print is primary modefor learning and assessment. Performances,projects, and online learningfor learning and assessment

Diversity in studentsis ignored.

Studentdiversity reflected

Literacy is reading and writing in isolation.

Literacy: reading,writing,speaking,listening,viewing, and

thinking in all subjects

Factory modelbased uponneeds for the Industrial Flexible modelforrapidly evolving global and technological

Age

economy

Source: 21st CenturySchools, 20th century classroomvs. the 21st century classroom. Retrieved from: 21stcenturyschools.com

78

Part IT + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

«+ assisting with online survey design, implementation, and analysis ofthe results: * marketing the curriculum and instructional changes and expectations for equitable access; and « liaising between the curriculum team and school community on theinitiative. The roles of stakeholders in the affairs ofthe 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

andto instruct theirchildren. The church providedinstruction in its religiousprecepts, and young men learned tradesas 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. Forthe 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 aboutissues and activities. Stakeholders would meetto hear aboutthe schoolor 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.

Thecurrent professionalliteratureis filled with discussions of the necessity for involving the community in the educational process; therefore, a shift of stakeholder involvementis

noticeable. School leaders seek stakeholder engagement and strategize to receive input from a representative demographic of the communitythe schoolserves. 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 contributionto curriculum improvement that students can makeis to provide feedback onthe teachers” instruction. Although someteachers

resist student feedback oftheir performance,it can be provided anonymously by the leamers. Valuable clues for modifying a curriculum and improving methodsofinstruction can be provided. Effective teachersoften seek feedback from their students and are wise in doing

so, given that when teachers

seek feedback from students, the probabilitythatstudentlearning 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 andthey supportedtheinitiative by: * providing insight onthe educational and technology needsofstudents; « assisting with the design of surveys used by stakeholders; ingin the selection of and giving feedback on the chosen technology; * participatingin assessments; and + identifying strengths and weaknes

s in theinitiative.

The contributions made by the students to the curriculum initiative enhanced the work

of the professional educators. Additionally, leaders sought student inputthrough other actions Progress monitoring, informal assessments on studentlearning outcomesastheyrelate to a standard, provided valuable insight related to a teacher or curriculum team on the level ofrigorof the curriculum, instruction, and the effectiveness or instruction.

140 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess ofinvestmentortaxes. Consequently, it is sometimesdifficult to categorize a particular need as a needof the person orof society. That degree of refinement is not necessary. If the curriculum

planner recognizes the need, its classification is secondary. To prevent a misunderstanding, the needsof a particular student can besimilar to or vary from other students” needsin general. Likewise, the needsofa particular community do not completely vary from thoseof societyin general, butthey do differ in some respects from those ofother communities that share the same general societal needs. The thousands of communities in the USA are, in spite of localdistinctions of needs, resources, and cultural idiosyncrasies, parts ofthetotal culture linked bytransportation and media, including the Internet.

Interests and Wants Before proceeding with a discussion of needsofstudents, studentinterests and wants in curriculum developmentwill be distinguished from data and evidence generated needs. Interest refers

to attitudesorpredisposition toward something,for example, auto mechanics, history,dramatics, or basketball. Wantincludes wishes, desires, or longings for something, such asthe want for an

automobile, spending money, orstylish clothes. None ofthe 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 modelsfor 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 bethe 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 ofexpensive, designerjeans is not a need, though some

may possibly argue otherwise.If, then, interests and wants can be the basis for needs and are sometimesneedsthemselves, it would be redundantfor them to be shown separately in

a modelfor curriculum improvement. + It would be unduly complex, burdensome, and confusing forinterests and wants to be shownseparately in a modelfor curriculum development. Certainly,asfar as interests go, theliterature is filled with admonitions for educatorsto 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 andsifted in the processes of both curriculumdevelopmentand instruction, forthey can be

powerful motivators.

NEEDS OF STUDENTS: LEVELS

The levels ofstudent needsofconcern to the curriculumplanner may be identified as (a) human, (b) national, (€) state or regional, (d) community,(e) school, and (f) individual. The curriculum should reflect the needs of students that are commonto all such asfood, clothing, shelter, and good health. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his State ofthe Union address to the U.S. Congress in 1941, iterated four universal needs of humanity, widely knownas 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

freedom of speech and expression (Roosevelt, 1941). The American student has commoninterests

to those of otherstudents from all over the world, as well as fundamental human needsthat the curriculum should address.

National Atthe nationallevel, efforts are madeto assess the general needsof students in American society through statements of aims of education. Students throughout the USA have needto: think, be

literate in English, prepare to becollege and career ready, and to have broad general knowledge. Some ofthe national needs that might be identified are ones held in common with all nations.

For example, few would arguethatliteracy in a nation’s official languageis not essentialto the development and growth ofany nation. In thatsenseliteracyis 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 wateror with overexposureto the elements. To become aware of nationwide needs of students, the curriculum planners should be up to date in understandingrelatedresearch and literature andit is helpful to be networked nationally with

other curriculum developers. The curriculum planner should recognize changing needs ofstudents.

For example,students use digital tools and resourcesto 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 curriculumstandards across the USA. However, asin past decades there remain somestate and regional needs, particularly for those who as adults remain in the same community in which they attended prekindergartenthrough twelfth grades.

With readily available national achievement data, such as data provided from results of ment of Education Progress (NAEP), some of the USA's curriculum needs the National A:

can be identified. As an example, disparities among student subgroupsbyrace, 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 pointto 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.

Whereaspreparing for a career is a common need ofall studentsin the USA,preparing for specific

careers may be more appropriate in a particular community, state, or region. General knowledge

andspecialized preparation in certainfields, such as health care, auto mechanics, digital design, anddata analytics, may be applied throughout the country. However, states orregions may require students to be equipped with specific knowledge and skillsfor geographic specific specializations. Hospitality industry jobs may be more prevalentin the Sunbelt region, duetothe tourism industry. Likewise, a high concentration ofagricultural science careers may exist in the Midwest due to

national agribusiness enterprises. Environmentally sensitive states, like Florida, may have a high

needfor environmental engineers, water management specialists, and varying types of biologists, including marinebiologists specific as those whostudy and protectsea turtle nesting. Community

The curriculum developerstudies

the community served by the school or school district and

investigates the student needsin this particular community. Students growing up in a mining town in West Virginia have some demands that differ from those ofstudents living among the

141

80

Part Il + 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 schooldistricts and among individual schools. A school’s

organizationalstructure is shaped not only bythetasksto be accomplished. butalso by the leadership, specialists, teachers, and stakeholders. Nosingle organizational structure will satisfy the personal and professional needsofparticipants 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—Theelementof technologyof managing encompassesboth thetechnological tools and otherresources available at the school’s disposal and the proceduresfollowedto

accomplish the task at hand.

People—The humancapital, or talent variable, sets the operation in motion and carries onthe task; however, the differencesin people make each curriculum development effort a unique undertaking. The personsessential to the curriculum development process have been discussed earlierin this text. Experts in the social science of human behaviorrefer to the main players in the change process as the change agent andtheclient system. A change

agent is a personversedin the behavioralsciences who helps an organization change. The client system consists of those personsin the organization with whom the change agent worksand who themselves may undergo change.This point reinforces Axiom 4 in Chapter 2, which postulates thatcurriculum changeresults from changesin people.

Task—Theschool performs many fasks in a number of curriculum development areas. The tasksof the schoolrelate to learners themselves whose behavior, skills, and knowledge may be changed as a result of engagement with curriculum. Leadership calls for the judicious integration ofthese four variables. Although behavioralscientists argue about whether the change agent must come from Within or outside the school district or organization, in practical terms schools and school dis-

tricts will ordinarily use their own personnel for making change; however,there are times when

a consultant may be engaged. In reality, an instructional leaderis a change agentsincetherole is to improvestudent learning outcom

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 conceptofthe forcefield,

which viewed organizationsas being in a state of balance or equilibrium when forces of change (driving forces) and forcesofresistance (restraining forces) are equalin strength (Lewin, 1951). Changes occur when the organizationis forced into state of disequilibrium. Thisstate of imbal-

ance maybe accomplished by augmenting the driving forces or byreducing the restrainingforces; cither 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 offour theoretical fields assumed to have implications for the behavior ofinstructional

leaders. They tookthe position thata school district should designate the leader responsible for promoting change andthatthe 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 commonbarriers to change and strategiesto eliminate those barrier:

Uppermost in the mindsofcurriculum planners mustbe the purpose of change: improvement in

Chapter 7 + Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

medical care. As an example, in the pre-adolescentyears they will learn about the harmful effects of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, along with how to make decisions. A sound curriculum aidsstudents to understand and meettheir physical needs, not only duringthe yearsof schooling but into adulthood as well.

Socio-psychological

Somecurriculum developers might divide this category into social and psychological needs, yet itis often difficult to distinguish between the two. For example, an individuals need foraffection is certainly a psychological need. Affection, however, is sought from otherindividuals and in that

context becomesa social need. At first glance, self-esteem seemsa purely psychological need (Kelley, 1962).

Among the common socio-psychological needsare affection, acceptance, and approval, belonging, success, and security. Furthermore, each individual has the need to be engaged in

meaningful work reflecting that their thoughtsare valued, which may result in motivated students, whosee 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 experiencesare boring, in which case students may become demotivated (Jensen, 1998). The needs of emotionally exceptional students fit clearly into the psychologicalcategory. Attention is paid to the wide range ofexceptionalities including but notlimited to: the gifted, thecreative, the emotionally disabled, the learning disabled, and the autistic. Curriculum specialists are to use appropriate resources to identify socio-psychological needsof students and incorporate ways to meetthese needs into the curriculum. For students who have anindividual education

plan,flexibility in the curriculum must provide for these requirementsto be met. Educational

Curriculum plannersordinarily view their task ofproviding for the educational needs ofstudents 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 à career andsecular education. They have soughtto meet the educational needsofstudentsthrough general education, sometimesas 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 bycurriculum 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 need:

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

ofindividuals in our society from infancy through later maturity and described the biologic: as well as the educational implicationsofeach task. psychological, and cultural bases,

143

144 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess Found betweenindividual needs and societal demands, developmentaltasks do notfall neatly

into the schemes developed in this chapterfor classifying the needs ofstudents and the needs of society. These tasks are, in effect, personal-social needs that arise at a particular stage oflife and that must be metat 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 usefulnessof the concept of developmentaltasksin the following way. In adolescence,students learn to be independent and assume responsibilityfor themselves. There are two reasons why the concept ofdevelopmental tasks is useful to educators. First,it helps in discovering and stating the purposesof education in the schools. Education may be conceived as the effort ofsociety, through the school, tohelp 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 societyrequires, and the selfis ready to achieve a certain task,the teachable moment has come. Efforts atteaching which would have beenlargely wasted if they had

come earlier, give gratifying results when they come at the reachable moment, when the task should be learned. (Havighurst, 1948, p. 8) Curriculum plannersfashion whatis referred to as the scope and sequence ofinstruction or a scope and sequencechart. This chart assigns standardsor content to be learned at each gradelevel aligned with learners” academic growth and development. Today, it is recognized that develop‘mental appropriateness is important and curriculum provideslearning experiences thatare suitable for the age and academic background oflearners. In contrast to the original intent of scope and sequence documents, they are more than reflections of developmental appropriateness and are intendedto assist teachersin aligned reasonable time framesforinstruction with the school year

calendar and assessmentcalendar. Most probably, they include specified times and opportunities for re-teaching orreviewing critical content and skills. Addressing thefit between the curriculum and the needs of learners, George S. Morrison extended the needs oflearners 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 termsofcultural diversity; and gender,in terms of avoiding discriminatory content or practice (Morrison, 1993). Readersare to be aware that all of

Morrison's four types ofappropriateness relate to practices that could be considered discriminatory or evenillegal if not addressed properly. NEEDS OF SOCIETY: LEVELS

The curriculum developernot only examinesthe needsofstudents in relationto society, but also the needsofsociety in relation to students. These two levels of needs sometimes converge,

diverge, or mirror each other. Whenthe needs of students are thefocal point, the perspective may differ from that accorded in studying the needs ofsociety. In analyzing the needsofsociety, the curriculum developer will bring a particular set ofskills to the task. Grounding in the behavioral

sciences is especially important to the analysis ofthe needsof the individual, whereas a back-

ground in the social sciencesis pivotal to the analysis ofthe needsofsociety. Asin the case of ng students’ needs,two simple taxonomiesof the needs ofsociety have been coi st, as to level, and second, astotype. Thelevels ofneeds of society from the broadesttothe narrowestareclassified: human, international, national, state, community,

andneighborhood.

Chapter 7 + Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

‘What needs do human beings throughout the world have as a result of their membership in the human race? Humansas a species possess the same needsas individual human beings: food, clothing, and shelter. Collectively, humankind has a need for freedom from want, from disease, and

from fear. Asa 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 ofits 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, everyoneis reminded of the need to understand and controlthe forces of nature. Some ofthe needs—or demands, if you

will—of society are commonto the entire humanrace. International Curriculum developers should consider needsthat cut across national boundaries and exist not so

much becausethey are basic needsof humanity but because theyarise from a loose confederation of nations. Thestudy of world languages is a response to the needforpeoples to communicate with eachother. Businesses are internationalas are banking, education, health care, and many aspects of society. There are needsto develop moreeffective meansof sharing expertise and discoveries for the benefit ofall nations.Respectful and continualaddress 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 andtravelrelationship between the USA and Cuba, a communist country,

may influence curricular change in 2018 and beyond. These examples and othersare related to

diverse student populations within manyregionsof the USA and therefore in schools and communities. With the intensification of diversity of culturesthe needfor globally influenced curriculum

may be moreessentialthan 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 needsof the nation. Educationin 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 ional and related occupations, computer and mathematical occupations,

health care practitioners and technical occupations, and education and library occupations, would grow fasterthan any other major occupational group. Service occupationsconstitute the second

145

146 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess 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 anticipatedto decrease. Employment in management, business, financial, and construction occupations were also predicted to increase (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics, n.d.). Schools have responded to career needs through career and technical educationeither in comprehensive high schools, career-technical schools, or magnetschools. Since World WarI, 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 andlife needs of youth. The Carl D. Perkins Act (Public Law No. 98-524, The Vocational

Education Act of 1984) furnishes an interesting example ofthe 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 asthe Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act; and reauthorized in 2006, it droppedthe older and now less-popular label “vocational” and has become the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical

Education Act of 2006. Tracing the transitionofthis funding source, is a good example to note of how curriculum language changes which alsoreflects expectations within the curriculum area of focus. Renewed programsin career education continue to take note of areas needing updates in

the workforceand seek to help students gain skills necessary forsuccessful employment. Among meansofstrengthening careereducation are: analysis ofthe 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 ofpartnerships with business and industry; on-the-job experiences concurrent with schooling: and guidance of students in examining a chosenset of occupations, e.g., business, health, communications, a practice known as careerclustering.

An example of career needs and partnershipas a part of a solutionthat readers may relate to is the teachershortage experienced in Florida in recent years. Schooldistricts began partnering with state colleges and universities to develop pipelinesofpotential teachers from high school experiences, Lo open access state colleges, and on to university teacher preparation programs.

Throughout these education experiences the partnerships are smoothing the wayfor 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 wantto stay in their

community upon completing a teacher preparation program. In addition to a renewedinterest in technical education, progressive schools have responded by ramping up their curricula as a meanstoafford students opportunities to attend college. Not too surprising to persons in education is the finding by the United States Department ofLabor, Bureau of Labor Statistics that “Among the 20 fastest growing occupations, a bachelor’s or

associate degree is the most significant source of postsecondaryeducation ortrainingfor 12 of them”(2003), increasing the nationaltrend 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 outsourcingintensification—all which will

influence curriculum developmentneeds. Thesuccessful curriculum developer will remain up to date in economic and political trendsin the USA and globally to accurately perceive the needs ofthe nation.

Chapter 4 + Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension Third,the team itself assumes a personality of its own. Noted already was that the functioning ofthe team is morethan the sum of the functioning of each ofthe individuals who make up the team. The individuals interact with and reinforce each other,creating a unique blend.In this

respect, somedepartmentsor grade level teams of a schoolare perceivedas being more produ 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 orga-

nized 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 teamtaskrolesare those of information seeker, information giver, and energizer. Team members play team building and ‘maintenance roles when they are concerned with the functioning ofthe team. Includedin the seven team and maintenanceroles are those of encourager, harmonizer, and gatekeeper. Team members

also indulgein individual rolesto satisfy personal needs. Aggressor, blocker, and recognitionseekerare amongeight individualroles. Teamscan be helped by the leader orby 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 membersalready possessa high degree of self-awareness and interac-

tion skill. If, however, a team appears to lack skills in interaction or self-awareness,it may be advisable to depart fromthe team’s task to conduct teambuilding 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 ofthe team’s goals, sometimes

not. Individuals who are motivated and possess the necessary personal and professional expertise

should be encouragedto take part in curriculum developmentfortheir contributions, but also for

their own professional learning andorganization capacity building.

TEAMS. Curriculum development teamsshould be essentially task-oriented. They are given a specific job to do,carry out, and then either accept anotherjob orceaseto function. Their productivity should be measuredfirst in the quality of improvementthat 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 ofthe Western Electric Company in Chicagoproduced evidencethat involvement ofthose affected in planning and carrying out a projectled to greater productivity. From historical perspective, the characteristics of a productive team have received muchattention from respected researchers. Rensis Likert (1961) saw a supportive environment, mutual confidence and trust

among team members, and a sharing of common goals ascontributing to team effectiveness.

Ned A. Flanders” (1970) studies of classroom verbal interaction led users ofhis instrument for observing this process to concludethat team leaders need todecrease their own verbal behavior

and stimulate membersofthe team tointeract more. Fred E. Fiedler (1967) concentrated on the ofthe leader, and Kimball Wiles (1967) gaveattention toskill in communication as effectiveness

83

148 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess metropolitan areasin the 1980s, as evidenced bythe 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 communityrapidly change. In warm climates, thestudents

who are homeless, live in cars, tents, motels, are a growing trend and homelessness influences the curriculum ofthe affected communities.

Shifts in population create challenges for schoolleaders,in the same waythe tax base,

which schools rely on for partial funding, mayaffect the quality of education in a community. As the Serrano v. Priest (1971) decision ofthe 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 fundsthrough taxes on property can provide a higher quality ofeducation than can communities with a poorertax base. In this respect, community need becomesa state need because education, through the 10th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution,

is a power reserved for the states. Parenthetically it might be added that community needs,including schools, becomestate and federal needs when communities are hit by natural disasters, like hurricanes Harvey and Irma of 2017.

School leaders solve societal problemsby themselves. Communities turn primarily to state legislatures for help in equalizing financial support for educational opportunitiesthroughout the state. On the other hand, school leaders can make an impact onthe citizens of the community

whom they are educating by making localpoliticians and the community theyserve aware ofthe challengesso that they may be resolved. Neighborhood Urbanites have needs thatdiffer from those wholive in the suburbs. Density of population creates

needsthatare different from areas in whichthe population is spread far apart. Crime may be more commonin 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 econom-

ically disadvantaged often have health and nutrition needs(food insecurity) which should influence the curriculum,as well asliteracy enrichment needs (Gallagher, Goodyear, Brewer, & Rueda, 2012).

While housing location preferences (urban, rural, or suburban) change overtime, there is a trendto develop new communities designed to create a congenial small-town atmosphere in a suburban-typesetting. Master planned communities often employ the concept of a community center surrounded by a mixture ofsingle-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 centerto the planned community, wherein schools, shops,jobs, and services can be found within walking distance of homes. Even this trend

mayinfluence curriculumdevelopersasthey observe and gather evidences related to changes. NEEDS OF SOCIETY: TYPES

The curriculum planner is to examine the needsofsociety from the standpoint oftypes. For example, each of the following types ofsocietal needs has implicationsfor the curriculum: * political, * social, * economic, + educational,

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

* environmental,

defense, health, and cultural norms.

curriculum team studying the needsof 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 ofthose found in theliterature. 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 societyin the past; however,

thesehistorical 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 throughoutthe yearsto identify societal needs or demands underthe rubrics of social processes, social functions, life activities, and social institutions.

Needs may be dual in nature, such as understanding economicsrelates to personal and societal

needs. Curriculum specialists whoseek to delineate social processes or functionsdo so to identify

individual needsthat have social origins. It might be arguedthat all personalneeds, except purely

biological ones, are social in origin. Long ago, Robert S. Zais credited Herbert Spencerfor the

beginning ofthe practice ofstudying society empirically (1976, p. 301).

The 1934 Virginia State Curriculum Program was identified as one of the better-known attemptsto organize a curriculum aroundlife processes (Taba, 1962). O. 1. Frederick and Lucile J.

Farquear reportedthe following nine areas of human activity that thestate of Virginia incorporated into the curriculum of the schools:

« protecting life and health; + gettinga living; + making a home; + expressing religious impulses; * satisfying the desire for beauty;

+ * + «

securing education; cooperatingin 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 CurriculumBuild-

ing washighly regarded for its social functions approach. The Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction listed the following social functionsin its guide for a core curriculum at the

juniorhigh school level:

* to keepthe population healthy; * to provide physical protection and guarantee against war: * to conserve and wisely utilize natural resource: * to provide opportunity for people to makea living:

* to rear and educate the young; * to provide wholesome and adequaterecreation; * to enable the population to satisfy aesthetic and spiritual values;

149

150 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess * to provide sufficient social cementto guarantee socialintegration; and

* to organize and govern in harmony with beliefs and aspirations. (Wisconsin State Departmentof 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 ofhumanbeings, as shownin 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 ofindividual freedom

Determining responsibility to self and others Aesthetic expression and appreciation

Finding sourcesofaesthetic satisfaction in oneself

Achieving aesthetic satisfactions through the environment SITUATIONS CALLING FOR GROWTH IN SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

Person-to-person relationships Establishing effective social relations

ith others

Establishing effective working relationships with others

Group membership

Deciding when to join a group Participating asa group member Takingleadership responsibilities Intergrouprelationships

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

Dealing with plant, animal, and insectlife Using physical and chemical forces Technological resources Using technological resources Contributing to technological advance Economic-social-political structures and forces

Earninga 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 outthat the strength ofthe Stratemeyer, Forkner, McKim, and

Passow schemeisits unification of both the learners and society’s needsby combining practical concerns with theoretical social goals. In sum, the curriculum developer should analyze both the needs of learnersand ofsociety.

Thestudy of both sources, as Ralph Tyler called them, providesclues for curricular implementation and organization.

NEEDS DERIVED FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER One majorsource of curriculum objectives remainsto be considered: needsas derived from the subject matteror, as Jerome S. Bruner and others would say, from the “structure of a subject.” Brunerrefers

to the structure of a subjectasthe “basic ideas” or “fundamental principles.” “Grasping the structure of a subject,” said Bruner, “is understanding it in such a way that permits manyother thingsto be related to it meaningfully. To learn structure,in short, is to learn how things are related,” (1960, p. 6). As examples ofelements ofthestructure ofsubjects, content,ordisciplines, 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). Thesequencecould be determinedby increasing complexity, as in mathematics, world languages, grammar, science,by logic, as in social studies programsthat 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 programsthatstart with immediateinterests oflearners and proceed to more remote ones. Although these scope and sequencesarehistorical as delineated

many remainsimilar and are considered to be logicaltoday. Changesin the Disciplines

Changes in the major disciplines are not new. The scholarly ferment ofthe 1950s, precipitated by the National Defense Funds, changed the content to be taughtin a course. The New Math, the

New Science, and the widespread development ofthe audio-lingual, using oral recordingsfor practice, methodofteachingforeign languages, now called world languages, created definitions

and structures in those disciplines.

151

86

Part IT + 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 effectsof threedifferent stylesof adult leadership on four groupsof eleven-year-olds.

They examinedthe effects of “authoritarian,” “democratic,” and “laissez-faire” leadership. Under

theauthoritarian leadership they were more dependentupon the leader, gave more expressionsof discontent, and lack of group initiative. Thelaissez-faire atmosphere resulted in greaterreliance 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 ofthe laissez-faire leader. The converse of thesesituations was true for the democratic group climate. Consequently, they

remained productive in the democratic leadership atmosphere. Underthe democratic leadership

theyrelied more on each other. Further,in the absenceof the leader of the democratic group children were able to proceed with their work (Oliva, 1956).

Although curriculumspecialists are not leading children, the noted study has implications

for leading teams. Ifa curriculum leader seeks commitment from a team, the authoritarian and laissez-faire approachesare notlikely to be effective. The curriculum leader's poweris 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 personalstyle or from the circumstances ofthe

situation in which the leaderfinds

himself or herself. Fiedler spoke ofthe needfor an appropriate match betweenthe leader's style

and the team situation in which he or she mustexercise leadership. Developing what is called the contingency model, Fiedler classified leadersas task-oriented or relationship-oriented. In some respects, this classification resemblesthe dichotomy betweenthe autocratic and democratic leader.

The task-oriented leader keepsthe goals of the organization alwaysin front of him or her and the team. The needs of the organization take precedence overthe needsofindividuals. The superordinate-subordinaterelationship is always clear. The relationship-oriented leaderis lesstask oriented

and moreconcerned with building harmonious relationships among the members ofthe organization. He or she possesses a high degree of humanrelationsskill and is less conscious ofstatus.

Persons exhibitingeitherofthese two styles may find themselves in organizations that are eitherstructured or unstructured, or in mixed situations possessing elements ofboth 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 endsof 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 andinfluence. Relationship-oriented persons function best in mixed situations in which they possess moderate authority and influence.

Situational Leadership. Leadership, then, arisesfromthe exigenciesof a situation. Stephen J. Knezevich (1984), for example, espoused a situational view ofleadership when he said: A person is selected to performthe leadership role because ofpossessing a setofsensitivities, insights, or personal qualities the teammay require forrealization of teamobjectives and decisions. The leaderis selected and followed because ofbeing capable to achieve what the followers need or want. A leader successful in one community with a uniqueset ofeducational needs may not experience similar success when moved toanother with a markedly different set

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

Strand 6: Writing to Inform/Communicating Ideas through Informational Texts (WI), and

Strand 7: Writing Persuasively/Communicating Opinions, Critiques, & Arguments (WP). (Hess, 2011, р. 5) An example of a sixth grade Strand 3 RL is: cite textual evidence to support analysis of what thetextsays explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 36).

From theninth and tenth grade levelStrand 3 RL you cansee that the complexity has increased to: cite strong and thoroughtextual evidence to support analysis of whatthe text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 38). This comparison ofthe

samestrand atthe sixth grade and ninth/tenth grade shows how the complexity increases with

thegradelevel. The purposeof the discussion of needsup 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 threesets 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 assessmentis a process for identifying programmatic needs that must be addressed by curriculumplanners. Fenwick W. English and

Roger A. Kaufman (1975) offered several interpretations of the term needs assessment. This

earlier work published bythe Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development rem:

a thorough description ofa process that schooldistricts engaged in at that time, before the plethora of data were readily available. English and Kaufman described needs assessmentas a process in which a school can define its mission and goals and can be measured using defined outcomes.

By using a needs assessmentas a logical problem-solving tool, gaps can be identified, prioritized,

and addressed to obtain desired results.

The objectives ofa needs assessment are twofold: (a) to identify needs ofthe learners not being metbythe existing curriculum, and (b) to form a basis forrevising the curriculum in such a

wayas to fulfill as many unmetneedsas possible. Conducting a needs assessmentis not a single, one-time operation, but a continuing and periodic activity. Some curriculum developersperceive a needs assessmentasa task to be accomplished at the beginning of an extensive study ofthe curriculum,such as maytake place when applying for accreditation. Since the needs ofstudents, society, and the subject matter change over the years and since no curriculumhasreacheda state of perfection in which it ministers to the educational needs of all students, a thorough needs assess-

ment 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 annuala:

ments required by the SEA or LEA, exami-

nation should be continual with revisions emanating from the data and evidenceidentified needs.

English and Kaufman (1975), years before data were easily accessible, pointed out that most

schooldistricts required six monthsto two years to completea full-scale need:

sment. In con-

trast, today a needs assessmentis not time-specific such that it takes place only at the beginning

ofa comprehensive study ofthe curriculum.Instead, a needs assessment is a continuing activity

thattakes place (a) before specification ofcurricular goals and standards, (b) afteridentification ofcurricular goals and standards, (c) after evaluation of instruction, and (d) after evaluation ofthe

curriculum (Wiles & Bondi, 2011). Notall schooldistricts conductfull-scale needs

ssments.

153

154 Part II + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess The scope ofthe needs assessments varies from simple studies of perceived needs to thorough analyses using extensive data. Perceptual Needs Data and Analysis

Someschoolslimit the process of assessing needsto an online or papersurvey ofthe needs of learnersas 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 questionsthatseek opinions from one or more of these groups. Or,a survey can be constructed with Likert type items forrating 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 ofthe twotypes of items, qualitative

and quantitative, will probably provide the most helpful data.

Responsesto the quantitative Likert style items can be analyzed with software and more easily than responsesto qualitative items. Qualitative analysistakes time to examine and for themes and categories of responses to emerge thatlead the investigatorto draw conclusions, Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Whensimilar itemsare on surveys for different populations, e.8., students, teachers, parents, then perceptions can be compared acrossthe three groups to identify similar and different perceptions. Data as noted can also be analyzed by sub groupsin eachofthe populationsto provideinsightinto perceptionsofdifferent neighborhoods, grade levels, and demographic variables. This kind of surveyis probably mostfrequently employedat the school level, but can also be helpfulata larger level.

Parents might be asked questionslike 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, Someof the time, Never) Open-ended item examples: Please provide an example ofwhenthe teacher'sexpectations were too easy, too challenging, and just rightfor your student. Whatcontent 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?

Teachersand students may be askedto respondtosimilar questionstogain their perceptions

of the school’s curriculum and of needed improvements. The perceived needs approach is the

first stage ofthe process. An opportunity to hear the voices of stakeholders is provided through such a surveythat 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. Asa 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 needsof learners as perceived bythe various groups shown by more objective data. Jon W. Wiles and Joseph may be quite different from needs C. Bondi (2011) commented, “In many school districts a failure to assess the true needs ofthe

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

learners’ resultsin a dysfunctional curriculum” (p. 82). Consequently, a needs assessment must

be carried beyondthe 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 nationallevels. Necessary data include background information about the community,

thestudent body, andthe staff. Curriculum plannerswill need information on programsoffered, studentperformance in those programs, and availablefacilities. 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

datasourceson attendanceofteachers and students, disciplinary infractions and resulting time outofclass or school, teachergiven grade distributions, and numbers ofstudents who repeat a course or grade. Data may be obtained from sitesat the school, school district, state, and/or national levels.

National resourcesites, such as the National Center for Educational Statistics (nces.ed.gov) has a multitude ofdata on various topics, e.g., achievement, facility, student subgroups,that can be usefulin providing a national contextforsituating local and state data. Quantified data alone are not enough. As administrators observe teachers and code the

observed behaviors and ratingsusingtheir digital devices, these data points are compiled and can provide a picture of the effectiveness of a curriculum acrossa grade, subject, school, or schools.

Such trend data and evidences can also provide insight into the teachers’ understanding ofthe standardsor learning targets from day to day. Are the teachers teaching atthe level ofrigor 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 studentsare learning and which ones are not and under whatconditions? In closing the achievement gap among student subgroups, the question of who is learning and achieving atthe level of proficiency and who is not,is of primary importance. Keep in mind that other important evidences lie in the alignment ofthe instructional resources, teacher made assessments, and accountability assessment with the curriculum to

forma curriculum system (Taylor, 2010; 2007; 2002; 1999). Examining alignment will provide evidencethat there is an aligned curriculum system or that there is notan aligned system which needsattention. Similarly, English described a process for collecting data in a school through examination of appropriate policies, documents, and practices, which he referred toas 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 asprioritiesfor curriculum development. All of these data and evidences should be put togetherin a coherent fashion, most probably in a digital andsearchable format, so that they can be analyzed, and decisionsregarding 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

ociation,often in conjunction with materials produced bytheir state department of education and the National Study ofSchool Evaluation (2006).

155

156 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess STEPS IN THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The needs assessment processincludes thefollowing steps:

+ « « + + « « + +

setting and validating curriculum goals, based on data and evidence; prioritizing curriculum goals; converting prioritized curriculum goals to curriculum objectivesor standards; prioritizing curriculum objectivesor standards; gathering achievement data, non-achievementdata, and evidence; identifying unmet curricular needs; prioritizing curricular developmentneeds; implementing prioritized needs by redevelopingthe curriculum; and evaluating success ofprioritized curriculum objectives and standards. (English & Kaufman, 1975, pp. 12-48) These steps may look simple butin reality they are complex. They involve many people:

schoolboards, administrators,teachers, students, parents, and otherstakeholders. Intimate knowl-

edge of the school, school district, and community, even ofthe state and nation are necessary fora successful needs assessment outcome. Although leaders will be identified and charged with leading

the process, needsassessment is primarily an activity requiring theparticipation of many groups. Thoseassigned leadership roles should come to the needsassessment 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 aboutthe school and com-

munity and make use of multiple means ofassessment, including perceptions, observation, predictive instruments, and assessments. They should follow constructive techniquesforinvolving and managing individuals and groupsthroughout the process, and must apply effective methods for sharing information to keepparticipants and the communityabreast ofthe process. They mayseekout thehelp ofpersons experiencedin 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 keptasis, kept with revision, removed, and/or added, and

for which students. Thus, you canseethat a thorough needsassessment is more than a survey of perceived needsor one year’s assessmentresults. 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 oflearners is an essential phase of curriculum improvement.

Summary Curriculum planners mustattendto the needs of stu-

and sequence. The structure of a subjectis shown by exposition ofthe basic ideas, fundamental principles broad generalizable topics, competencies, and performance objectives and/orstandards.

tions that have impact on the curriculum.

In addition to studying empirically the needs of students, groups ofstudents, society, and the

dents and society. These needs may be classified as to level and type. Variousattempts have been made toidentify the social processes, functions, and insti

Eachdiscipline has its own unique set of ele-

ments orstructure that impacts decisions about scope

disciplines, curriculum planners

should conduct

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

systematic needs assessments to identify gaps, discrepancies between desired and actual student

performance.Identified unmet needs should play a

majorrole in curriculum revision. A curriculum needs assessment permits school district leadersto discover alignmentissues in their

⑮⑦

curricula. In addition, it creates a vehicle for school and community collaboration, builds community understandingof the schooldistrict's programs, and provides support for the school district's efforts to close achievementgaps.

Application 1. Design an instrument that will allow you to

gather and analyze the curriculum development needsfor a subject area and grade range. Provide explanation of how you will analyze resulting data. Who will you involve to ensure a fair and

transparentprocess?

2. Design a template for inclusion ofsurvey data gathered, along with other important data and evidences.

3. Analyzethe alignmentofsociety and individual needs and a selected curriculum subject docu-

ment. Use evidences and otherdata to support youranalysis.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Think about the concept of UDL and how it

3. Reflect on your own curriculum needs assessmentskills and knowledge. Ofthose identified in

dents within your context.If there are any areas notaligned with UDL, whatsteps will you take

this text, which do you want tolearn more about? Who would you seek out to learn more about predictive analytics or how to construct an online

aligns with learning experiences ofdiverse stu-

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?

valid and reliable survey that will have a high

return rate?

Websites

Center on Education Policy: cep-de.org/ Advanced Ed: advanc-ed.org/ National Centerfor Educational Statisti

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 (4* ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Goodlad, J.1. 1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study ofcurriculum practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Helmer, 0. (1968). Analysis ofthe future: The Delphi method. In James R. Bright (Ed.), (1968). Technologicalforecasting for industryand government: Methods and applications(pp. 116-122). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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

158 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess National Study of School Evaluation. (1997). Improvement:

Focusing on student performance. Schaumburg, IL: National Study of School Evaluation. Rose, D. H.. 4: Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.

Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rose, D. H. 8: Meyer, A. (Eds). (2006). A practical reader in universaldesign 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 Education, 75(4), 90-113. doi:10.1207/ s15327930pje7504_5 Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process ofeducation. 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 assess-

ment: À 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, В. (2012). Urban education: A model for leadership and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Havighurst, R. J. (1948). Developmentaltasks and education. Chicago,IL: University ofChicago 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 Centerfor the Improvement ofEducational 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 CurriculumDevelopment. Morrison, G. $.(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). Commoncore state standards for

English language arts & literacyin history/social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A.

Washington, DC: Authors. National Studyof 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 offoreign 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. Serranoу. Priest, 487 P. 2 1241 5 Cal. (1971).

Stratemeyer, F. B., Forkner, H. L., McKim, M. G., & Pas-

sow, A. H. (1957). Developing a curriculum for modern living (2ed.). New York, NY: Bureau ofPublications,

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 systemthat gets results for theolder, reluctant reader. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 85-87. Taylor, R. (1999, December). Missing pieces, aligned curriculum, instruction and assessment. Schools in the Middle, 94), 14-16.

90

Part Il + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Nonverbal Behavior. Nonverbal communication is shaped both biologically and culturally. A team leader should be able to detectfatigue, boredom, hostility, and sensitivity on the part of

the members through body languageandother nonverbalcues. Heor she should be able to sense when a discussionis turning negative and turn the discussionto constructive paths. The leader mustbe especially cautious of nonverbalsignals he or she gives and must makeevery effort to ensure thatthose signals are positive. Finally, for successful curriculum development both the leader and team members must exhibit a high degree ofskill in all modes of communication

(Hall, 1959).

Summary

development at the individual school and school district levels. Some instructional leaders perceive

Students, depending ontheir maturity, participate in curriculum improvement by serving on committees and by providing data and evidence about their own learning experiences.

themselves as experts in curriculum and instruc-

Stakeholders participate in curriculum devel-

This chapter focused on the roles played by various persons and teams participating in curriculum

tion and take an active part in curriculum develop-

ment, 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 organiza-

tions emphasize collaborative decision making and

responsibility over individual decision making and

responsibility. Instructional leadershipis essential to improvestudentlearning outcomes,of which curriculum developmentis a part and transformational leadership developsprofessional capacity over time.

opmentbyserving on advisory councils, responding to surveys, providing data and evidence abouttheir children, and serving as resource persons. Theprofessional 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, relatinginterpersonally, in leading teams,and in communicating.

Application 1. In your context, in what roles do teachers play

in curriculum development? Give examplesin which teachers have participated in a curriculum initiative and the roles they have played. How

would you adjust thoserolesfor 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.Asa leader,design a

plan to manage participants in a variety of roles

whoare in various physical locations.

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 ofeducation and curricu-

lum goals and curriculum

objectives.

HIERARCHY OF CURRICULUM SYSTEM COMPONENTS In Chapter 6 you encountered the terms“aimsof education,”

“curricu-

lumgoals,” “curriculum objectives,” “instructional goals, and “instruc-

tional objectives” as used in this text. If you recall, Table 1.1 in

Chapter 1 was presented to providethe curriculum developer a cross-

walk of terminology fromtraditional based academiclanguageto stan-

dards based academic language which denotes shifts in academic terminology dueto the national movementto standards. Additionally,

a hierarchy ofpurposesof education fromthe broadest to the narrow-

3. Distinguish betweencurriculum goals and objec-

est was discussed. The hierarchy is essential both to this chapter on

tives and instructional

a visualof the hierarchy and the crosswalk of terminology for the curriculum developer to use in conceptualizing the development of the

goals and instructional

objectives.

4. Write curriculum goals and curriculum

objectives.

curriculumgoals and curriculum objectives and to Chapter 10 which

presents instructional goals and instructional objectives. Figure 8.1 is

curriculum system.

Aims, Goals, and Objectives

The practitioner who secksto carryout curriculum development following principlesestablished 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 ofeducation are broad purposes such as, all students will

be college and careerready. The distinction drawn between aims of

education and curriculum goalsis one ofgenerality. The example

noted, all students will be college and career ready is general and no

single programor school can accomplishthese extremely broad purposes. A school can contributeto preparing studentsto be college and career ready in PreK-12 since those broad areas develop over many years oflearning. A specific school, whetherelementary, middle, or high school, may also adopt as the mission to prepare all students to 160

becollege and careerready. Following, the schooldistrict orschool’s

|

Aims of education

t |

Curriculum goals

t |

|

Curriculum objectives

t

ee

t

Lill]

Chapter 8 * Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

| Instructional objectives

Mission or purpose

)

Overarching idea

)

FIGURE 8.1

Hierarchy of Outcomes

Standards

Essential question (big idea) J

Learningtargets (short-term

measureable outcomes)

mission statement may be very large overarching curriculum goals like, students will read, write, and communicate mathematically and linguistically. This very large statementleadsto the aim or

mission of preparing students to be college and careerready.

In thistext distinctions are made between curriculumgoals and curriculum objectives and

instructional goals and instructionalobjectivesto help practitionersfacilitate the natural flow of curriculum development from general aimsof education to precise instructional objectives. Speci-

fying curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, then, is viewed as an intermediate planning

step between these two poles. Defining the termsis the first step, followed by examples and

guidelines for writing.

DEFINING CURRICULUM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Curriculum Goals

A curriculumgoal is a purpose or end stated in general terms without criteria ofachievement. Curriculum goals are derived from a statement ofphilosophy,defined aimsofeducation, and data

on studentneeds (nee

essment) andtheir achievement. Curriculum developers,in their con-

text, wish studentsto accomplish the goal; however, they leavethe instructional decision making

to others.

An exampleto cons in whichlocalities can aligntheir curriculum is from Michigan. In 2015, The Michigan Department of Education (MDE)

established seven goals to focus learning forchildren. Goal1, “Provide every child access

toan

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 whichto align the curriculum (Michigan DepartmentofEducation, 2015). Tofurther the example, East Lansing Public Schools (ELPS) Strategic Plan’s Vision State-

mentdeclares: “ELPSstrives to provide every student with exemplary instruction in equitable learning environments designed to educate the whole child. In partnership with the community,

161

92

Part Il + Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns ofmanagement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Maeroff, G. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis ofconfidence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mangin, M. M. & Dunsmore, K. (2014). How the framing ofinstructional coaching asa lever for systematic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179-213. Maslow, A. H.(1970). Motivation andpersonality (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 humanside ofenterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Morphet, E. L.. Johns, R.L.. & Reller, T. L. (1982). Educationalorganization and administration: Concepts, practices, andissues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oliva, P. (1956). High schooldiscipline in American society. NASSPBulletin, 40(6). Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: HowAmerican business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation (1971). Educationalevaluationand decision making. Itasca, NY: Peacock.

Roe, W. H., & Drake, T. L. (2003). The principalship (61h ed.). Upper Saddle River. NI: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Roethlisberger. F. J.. & Dickson. W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Sergiovanni, T. 1, & Carver, F. D. (1980). The newschool executive: À theoryof 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 (Tth 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. tasca, NY: Peacock. Taylor, R. T., Touchton, D., & Hocevar, M. (2011). Principals’decision making: The influenceof accountability. Education Leadership Review, 12(2). U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Step 6: Engaging stakeholders. Sustaining Reading First, 6, 205-243. Retrieved from hup://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/stakeholderlores.pdf Wiles, K. (1967). Supervisionfor better schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wood, G. H., (1990). Teachers ascurriculum workers. In J.T. Sears and J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and

thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Chapter 8 * Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

achievement, are measurable and theirspecificationsare the basisfor items on assessments. Chapter 12 provides more detail related to how standardsand their specifications lead to accountability assessment of studentlearning.

Learning targets are short-term and measurableinstructional objectives. They provide the directionforinstructional planning and formative assessments, usually made byteachers but may also be developedat the schooldistrict level. Multiple learningtargetswill emanate from the same standard and naturally would be organized in a sequence ofinstruction leading to student profi-

ciency ofthe focusstandard

Proficiencylevelsor levels indicating progress towardsproficiencyon standards are set by

thestate forstate standardized assessments and state end of course (EOC) exams. Levels of pro-

ficiency may also be set for schooldistrict developed summative and formative assessments. Formative assessments to measure progress on learning targets leading to proficiency on the standard should providea reasonable measure forintervention and instructional differentiation to

achieve proficiency. These formative assessments mayalso be used for predictive analytics, data mining, predictive modeling, and machine learning. Artificial intelligence allows machine learning without being programmed, to make predictions on studentlearning outcomes,orto hypoth-

esize student performance on state accountability assessments. Learning targets can be set by both the schooldistrict and teachersat the schoollevel.

Alignment ofthe curriculum goals andstandards,with instructional goals and instruc-

tional objectives provides for a systematic framework ofcurriculum thatsupports success on state and other accountability assessments. If you review Figure 5.5, The Gordon Taylor

Modelof Curriculum System Development, you will notice that instructionis not explicitly noted within the system, as suggestions are includedin the curriculum guide and the implementation of the curriculum representsthe instructional goal, instructional objective, and instructional methods. These ideas are addressed in more depth in later chapters. This sys-

tematic framework represents instruction and curriculum meeting in the implementation to benefit the student. Implementing the Needs Assessment

In Chapter7. the necessity of a needsassessment 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 ofthe 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 needingto be done. Onceidentified, these data informed needs will result in the creation

of morecurriculum goals and curriculum objectives or a modification of those alreadyspecified. Keep in mind that standards maybe specified by the SEA or LEA and for content areas not having

standards, curriculum objectives maybespecified at the school level or SEA.

A state may formulate both broad aims and curriculum goals, and in somecases curriculum objectives, instructional goals, and instructional objectivesas well, for all schools and all students in thatstate. In practice, school districts and individual schools mayacceptthe state’s formulation

ofcurriculum goals and curriculum objectives verbatim or mayindependently develop their own statements. Not only dothestates and school districts establish curriculum goals

and curriculum

objectives, but the individual schools also enterinto the process by specifying their own

163

164 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess

philosophy, goals, and objectives. Generally, statements oftheschool districts and individual schools align with those of the SEA and policy. CONSTRUCTING STATEMENTS OF CURRICULUM GOALS

In schooldistricts, curriculumgoals may be phrased in a way that stressesthe role ofthecurriculum ofthe school or school district. Thefollowing examplesof curriculum goals demonstrate a variety offormsofexpression. + To teach students to express themselvesclearly and correctly in written and oral English or official language. * Todevelop the students” abilities to purchase goods and services wisely. + Tohelp students develop respect for culturesother than their own. Although an expression thatstresses the role of the school or school district is common,

focusing on studentlearningis preferable forseveral reasons:

hilosophically,it placesthe student atthe center of learning; in keeping with instructional design, which focuses on student learning outcomes,rather than on the performance ofthe teacheror school;

* student outcome statementsparallel writing instructional goals and instructional objectives or learning targets. Thus,curriculum goals may be better understood and the process of curriculum developmentbetteraligned; 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 ofthe preced-

ing illustrations in the following manner. + Studentswill express themselvesclearly andcorrectly 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 otherthan their own.

Characteristics of Curriculum Goals

The characteristics ofcurriculumgoals as conceptualized in this text may be summarized as follows. * They relate to the aims, mission, or education philosophy. + Althoughthey speak to one or moreareasofthe curriculum,they do notdelineate the specific coursesor specific items ofcontent. * Referenceis to the accomplishment of all studentsrather than the achievement ofindividual students.

* Theyare broad enough to lead to specific curriculumobjectives or standards. CONSTRUCTING CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS

Like curriculumgoals, curriculum objectives or standards that relate to the educational aims and

philosophyof the schooldistrict are programmatic, and refer to accomplishmentsofgroups. Unlike curriculum goals, curriculum objectivesor standardsare stated in specific termsand are measurable.

Chapter 8 * Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

With the adoption of CCSS by moststates, and the remaining fewstates developing their own variation ofstandards, instructors are provided with the expectation ofwhatis to be taught. Larry Ainsworth (2010) described standardsasthe meansforachieving a desired end. These meansinclude

the culling andprioritizing ofthe standards, personalizing instruction, formative assessments, and data analysis. Curriculum objectivesor standards contain characteristics which should be considered.

Character:

s of Curriculum Objectives or Standards

Curriculumobjectives are refinementsof 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—thatis, those skills and knowledge the students are

expected to demonstrate atthe level of proficiency;

2. precise degree of mastery or proficiency; and 3. conditions under which the performance

take place.

To accomplish the transition from a curriculum goalto curriculum objective, you mayfind it helpful toestablish several indicators or specifications of student performancethat will serve

as guidesfor writing the curriculum objectives. A curriculum goalin science could be: students

have a fundamental understanding ofthe scientific method. A curriculum objective or standard

maybe: students will apply the scientific method including use of academic language, basic elements ofresearch, and generation of conclusions using textual and other evidence. The demonstra-

tion ofproficiency onthe standard as written would be in an expected sequence ofinstruction that makessense to the teachers. You may expect demonstration of learning to be guided byinstructional objectives orlearning targets such as the

* students will apply the terms associated with research and discovery toan investigation; + students will demonstrate basic elements of sound research when provided a problem to solve;

« students will generate hypotheses fromtextual and other evidences; and + students will draw reasonable conclusions supported bytextual and other evidence and research. Theindicatorsor specifications ofthe standard lead to the instructional objectives or short-

term learning targets. In the CCSS and in SEA developed standards, you will find specifications that lead totheir development. These samespecificationsalign with the accountability assessment

items. By knowing the specificationsfor the standard and assessmentitems, the teacheris provided guidance to narrow the range of choices in designing instruction so that students are pre-

pared for success.

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF CURRICULUM GOALS, CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS Asstated earlier, the assessment ofcurriculum needs is a continuing process thatstartsafter the

formulation ofthe philosophy and clarifies aims ofeducation. The identified needs give rise to initial statements ofcurriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Afterthese curriculum goals and curriculum objectives have been identified, the needs ment process is continued to determineifany data and evidence informed needs have not been met. When unmet needs are exposed,

165

166 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess à revisedlist of curriculum goals and curriculum objectivesis prepared. These curricular goals and objectives require validation and placement in order ofpriority. For instance, with the SEA developed standards, school district and school collaborative curriculum teams may prioritize them in orderoftheir representation on the accountability assessmentor onthe successof students on similar previous items. Think about how collaborative curriculum teams use data analytics to

inform ongoing curriculum developmentin this manner. In past decades the curriculum needs” influence oncurriculum goals, standards and objectives may have taken placeoverquite a length

of time, in contrast to the current time with readily available disaggregated data from various

sources. Validationis the processofdetermining whetherthe curriculum goals and curriculum objectives are accepted as appropriate for the school (or schooldistrict, if conducted on a schooldistrictwide level) proposing them. Determining priorityisthe placing ofthe curriculum goals and objectivesin orderof relative importanceto the data informed needsofstudents. Groups concerned with the progress should beenlisted to collaborate on the validation and prioritization process. seek to validate both curriculum goals and curriculum objectives Curriculum developers and others may chooseto limit the processto 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 ofcurriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standardsis highly analytical work. Curriculum developersare encouraged to approachthe identification of curriculumgoals andcurriculum objectivescollaboratively with others who are expert in the content, grade levels, and curriculum system design, including assessments. The collaborative curriculumteam is needed to assurethat all perspectives and voices are consideredto serveall students. Curriculum

system organization is to be developed in alignmentwith these curriculum goals

and curriculum

objectives and should serve as a resource across the state or school district.

In the discussionsof statements of philosophy, aims,standards, goals, and objectivesin this text, you haveseen variation in styles and approaches. From examination of examples fromvariousschooldistricts throughoutthe country you may conclude: a great deal of thought plus an intimate knowledge and datarelatedto the students and communityhave gone into thestatements; and + with the implementation of CCSSor standards developed by a state, the variations among statements areless than priortothe standards and accountability movement. Thevalidation process, whether carried out by the SEA, LEA,or school, assumes the formation of a collaborative curriculum teamcharged with the task. The collaborative curriculum team

will share with groups whoare concerned with the progress ofthe students. SEAs and LEAs may

havespecified times for public input, during whichstakeholders may goto a website andreview

proposed documents ofpolicy and implementation guidelines andthenenterresponses. Generally, there are also face-to-face meetings in various publicized locations for further official input

gathering. Submitting curriculum goals and any already identified curriculumobjectivesorstandards The effort should be made to learn whether thereis widespread to stakeholdersis good practice. acceptance of the goals formulated by the curriculum developers and to ascertain the groups’

priorities. Curriculum objectives or standardsthat are developedafter a broad sampling of opinion

Chapter 5 + Models for Curriculum System Development process. The purpose ofpresenting two of the models (Tyler and Taba)is to acquaint the reader with a historicalbasis for curriculum development. Thethird 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) demonstratesa systems approach to standards based practice, during a timeof accountability, with a feedback loop. Three of the models (Tyler, Oliva, Gordon Taylor) are deductive. A deductive model

proceedsfrom the general (e.g., examining the needs of society) tothe specific (e.g.,

specifying

instructional objectives). On the other hand, Taba’s modelis inductive. An inductive model uses a bottom to top approach,starting with the assessmentofthe needsof students served atthe local

leveland leading to generalization. Thefour modelsdescribedin this chapterare linear; thatis, they propose a certain order

or sequence of progression throughthe various steps. The term linear applies to a model whose

stepsproceed 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 previoussteps can

takeplace even in “mostlylinear” models. For simplicity's sake, the term linearis used. A nonlin-

ear approach would permit developersto enter at various points of the model, skip components,

reversethe order, and work on two or more componentssimultancously. This text promotes using

a model, whetherlinearor nonlinear, in a task such as curriculum development, which can result

in greaterefficiency and productivity.

The four models presented in this chapter are prescriptive rather than descriptive. A

prescriptive model recommends whatshould 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

developerrelies on a practice they are familiar with and they donot necessarily follow an exact

approach, every time. Control of outcomescould beless All of the models presented specify sequencesfor carrying out the various phases or com-

ponents; however,the various individuals and groups involved are notincluded in the models. The roles of individuals in the process are discussed elsewherein 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 ofeffectiveness.

A model can provide consistencyand give order to the process. As Taba (1962) expressed,

curriculum development should be approachedsystematically. When considering both structure and strategyin curriculum development, the curriculum continually and authentically evolves in a relevant context.

The Tyler Model for Curriculum Development Perhaps oneofthe best-known models for curriculum development with special attentionto the

planning phases canbe found in Ralph W. Tyler's elassic book, Basic

Principles of Curriculum

and Instruction (1949). “The Tyler Curriculum Rationale,” a process

for selecting educational

objectives,

is widely known and has beenpracticed in curriculum circlesthroughoutthe world.

95

168 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess grasp and use of important ideas and skills. The school’s program would be tothe largest practical extentthe preparation for these Exhibitions” (Sizer, 1992, p. 143).

Explaining U.S. Supreme Court decisions, preparing nutritious menus for the school cafetetia, preparing a portfolio on a human emotion, completing an Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, drawing a map ofthe United States and placing a dozenstatesonit, and running a community service programare examplesof exhibitions possible at Horace’s School(Sizer, 1992). In this context curriculum objectivesare 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 outcomesto be achieved bythe learners (Spady, 1994). Forpolitical reasons outcomes based education movedinto disfavor, although the conceptof being responsiblefor student learning outcomes,ratherthan teaching or content coverage, may have beena precursor to the stan-

dards based accountability that is in place now. You may want to review the national standards movement actions during the 1990s noted in Chapter 6.

Anearly exampleofa set ofnational curriculum goals based onperceived needsof stu-

dents was The Seven Cardinal Principles—health, command of fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship, worthy use ofleisure, and ethical character (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Seven Cardinal Principles, 1918). In

1944, The Ten Imperative Needs ofYouth, listed by the Educational Policies Commission, established a set of curriculum goals that included such goals such as learning useful

s,

maintaining physical fitness, recognizing the importance of emotional well-being,practicing civic and social responsibility, valuing family and consumersciences, providing relaxation time, and prioritizing values education and core academics, such as art, literature, music, lan-

guagearts 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 meetsthis definition ofa recent national curriculum goal: “By the year 2000, all children in America will start schoolready to learn” (United States Department of Education, 1994a). 1994 marked a year in which the federal government embarked on a missionto stimulate a standards based school reform movement atthe state and locallevels. Congress established the Goals 2000

which focused on reauthorizing then current education policy and aimedat 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. Departmentof 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 longerbe relevant or necessary with the development of CCSS

developed through support of the CCSSO and the NGA. At the time ofthe publication ofthis 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 Prac-

tices & Council of ChiefState School Officers, 2016).

It

wise for curriculum developers to be acutely aware if a state participates in CCSS or

not. States may developtheir ownstandards and provideflexibility for school districts to lead the

Chapter 8 * Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

curriculum development whenthere are not adopted CCSS.Furthermore,it is importantforthe curriculum developerto understandthe distinction betweennational goals andfederalstatutes or acts. National goals are established to influencethe landscape by promoting concepts: however, nocriteria of achievementare attached. Federalstatutes or actsare a result ofthelegislative pro-

cess and generally have criteria, funding, and in somecasespenaltiesattached,such asthose

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 developerscreate documents and artifacts to be used as resources orguidesfor implementation (instruction) and assessment. They are meant to be put into practice andrevised as needed. Resources should be perceivedasliving documentsthat have functionalvalue the produc-

tion of a plan or tool for implementing or evaluating the curriculum. Readers may have used large binders of curriculum documentsto support implementation and the developmentofinstructional plans. Because curriculum resourcesare impermanent, nonstandardized, and primarily for local use,the variations among them are considerable across states, school districts

schools. Today, such resources are best maintained ona

for ease of access and editing when necessary. Toput thecreation of curriculum documentsinto perspective, visualize collaborative curriculum teamsand individuals in thousands ofschool districts all over the United States con-

structing materials that they believe will be of most help to their teachers,instructional coaches,

and instructional leaders. Terms forthese resources may be quite different and sound like curriculum guides, schooldistrict curriculum resources, or instructional planning tools. The curriculum documentsthat will be consideredin this chapter are curriculum guides and otherresources,

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 ofserving as aids to teachers and specialists in organizing, implementing, and evaluating curriculum. Although state and national standards have influencededthe creation of curriculum guides and other curriculum artifacts, there are subjects for which there are no state standards and school districts develop their

owncurriculum goals, curriculumobjectives, and curriculum guides or leave the responsibility to individual teachers in schools.

CURRICULUM GUIDES A curriculum guide mayrelate toa single course or subject area at a particular gradelevel(e.g.. ninth-grade English); all subjects at a particular grade level (e.g., ninth grade); a sequencein 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 ofstudy. However, most often a curriculum guide is a teaching aid with suggestions for instructionalstrategies and learning experiences, rather than a complete course ofstudy. In Figure 5.5, Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development,

169

170 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess you saw that the guides are created after the curriculum standards and curriculumobjectives are determined and the student summative assessment created so that resources to support instructional implementation can be included.

Curriculum Guide Formats Curriculumguidesare used in at least two ways. In less structured situations where teachers have

a great deal of flexibility in planning,a curriculum guide provides manysuggestionsto teachers who wish to useit. In that casethe curriculum guideis one source from whichteachers may derive ideasfor developing their own instructional units and lesson plans. In more structured situations

a curriculum guide specifies standardsor curriculum objectivesto be mastered within a grade or subject area. It mayprovide a sequenceof instruction of standardsor curriculum objectivesfor a time period orforwhich ones to cluster together. The guide mayidentify teaching resources and student learning experiences. Formative assessments mayalso be included. Depending upon the state, school district, school, and curriculum subject, a variety ofprint and nonprint resources may be available andreferred to as the curriculum guide, even if the guide has transitionedto a digital

resource. A curriculum guide may be written by a group or by an individual. In the lattercase,the guideis often reviewed andedited by otherspecialists and intended end users before it is disseminated within the schooldistrict. For those who write a curriculum guide, the process is almost as

important as the final document and resources. Thetask of constructing a guide forces the writers to clarify the intended learning outcomesthrough analysis of data and evidence, teacher and student resources needed, and to hypothesize the resources that will be most helpfulto teachers and instructionalleaders. Examination of curriculum guides from various schooldistricts will reveal a variety of for‘mats. Examplesofthe 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 Departmentof Education's CPALMS website (www.cpalms.org)is what officially may be called the curriculum guideforthe state. This interactive resourceis searchable forthe standard, subject, grade level, and otherfactors. Oncethe userfindsthe standard or subject

and grade level other resourcesare available that may be helpful. They includethe subject, strand, cluster, content complexity, grade, related courses (such as English for Speakers of other Languages

[ESL)), related resources(student learningcenters), lesson plans,and formative assessments. Other

teacherresources including tutorials

and videosfor professional learning are found onthesite.

Studentresourcesfor individual use, teacherdirected instructional differentiation,or for home use arealso available. From this brief description ofthe kinds ofresources available on the CPALMS

website you cansee that curriculum guidesavailable todayare light years awayfrom the printed volumesthat had minimal resources ofthe past.

Excerpts from a first grade languagearts 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 ofthe 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 amongstandardsand for clarification of misconceptions.In this example,

the cluster reveals linksto capitalization of the first word in a sentence or the word / and other first grade related standards. The original tutorial icon provides a tutorial toassist teachers in

deepening understanding ofthe standard and how it may be taught. The student resources are interactive tools for practicing the learning targets within the standard (Table 8.2, а-е).

Chapter 8 * Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards TABLE 8.2

Florida Standard LAFS.1.L.1.2

Demonstrate commandof the conventionsof English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing. a. Capitalize dates and names of people. b. Use end punctuation for sentences. c Use commasin dates and to separate single wordsin a series. d. Use conventional spelling for words with commonspelling 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: Conventionsof Standard English Date Adoptedor Revised: 12/10 Content Complexity Rating: Level 1: Recall Date ofLast Rating: 02/14 Status:State Board Approved Related Courses: English for Speakers of Other Languages, Language Arts Grade 1 LessonPlan 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, anyonein any state can access this website andits resources. Furthering examination of curriculum guides takes you to a schooldistrict level Instructional Management System (IMS). Elementsin curriculum guides during the 2016-2017 school year in Orange County Public Schools (OCPS), Florida included detailed digital resourcesthat

were more specific than at thestate level, indicating schooldistrict expectations. The primary

curriculum document, the Measurement Topic Plan (MTP)is digital and interactive. It begins

with the specific time frame (dates) expected forthis particular unit ofinstruction. The pacing guide providesspecific recommended time frames for units to assure that all students have the opportunity to learn all measured standards priorto assessment. Following the time frame are

theessential standards and learning targets. Achieving proficiency on one standard may require proficiency on previousor prerequisite standards, which OCPS labels as embedded standards. Within the MTPis a learning scale documentforteachers” use (not for student use) which

identifies the student work evidence recommendedfor evaluating students” progress towards

proficiencyonthe essentialstandard (Marzano, 2007; Taylor & Watson, 2013; Taylor, Watson,

& Nutta, 2014). Theintent ofidentifying evidence to expect (whatproficiency looks and sounds

like), is to assist teachers in developing common understandings of how proficiency looks.

An Additional Resources (AR) documentis also available and linked to the MTP. The AR

provides associated vocabulary, tutorials for using resources together and forteaching, inquiry to usetofoster student thinking, additional trade books, texts, passagesor texts ofdifferent genres,

171

172 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess and digital resources. There is also a modelinstructional 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. warnedthat curriculum guides could havea lack of specificity bystating, “It might be wondered how it is possible for states and localitiesto producelengthy curriculum guidesthat, forall their bulk, fail to define specific knowledgefor specific grade levels” (Hirsch, 1996, p. 28). Itis a good idea to have enough specificity that teachers have guidanceto support student success on account-

ability assessments. Curriculum developers following a comprehensive format would include the following components in a curriculum guide for a particular level ofa discipline which intend to

provide adequate specificity:

1. Standard orcurriculumobjective. The introduction includesthe standard orthe curriculum

goal, the subject and grade levelfor which the guide is designated, and any suggestionsthat might help users. Some statementshould be includedas to how the curriculum guiderelates

to prespecified statementsof 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 objectivesor learning targetsforthe particular grade

level of the subject. 4. Learning experiences. Learning experiences and instructional strategies that might be used bythe teacherwith students are usually included. 5. Evaluation techniques. Suggestions should be givento 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 nonprintresources.

Curriculum guidestend to offer the maximum flexibility to the teacher, who may choose

orreject any ofthe suggested learning experiences, evaluation techniques, or resources when student learning evidence supportssuch decisions. However, standards and approved curriculum goals are not optional in most school districts. The curriculum guideis broaderin scope than the unit plan and offers more alternatives.Instructional planning is discussed in Chapter 11. THE SEQUENCING FORMAT.

Somecurriculum developers preferto 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 togetherto be sure thatall students have

the opportunity to develop proficiencyin the same standards. In schools or school districts in whichstudentsare not performing as expected on accountability assessments, there may be monidistrict teams ofthe pacing ofinstruction according to the toring by school leaders or school calendar guide. Guides ofthis nature:

* specify content and gradelevel standardsorcurriculum goals in the sequence for teaching that is expected; and * relate the standard tospecifications and perhapsto assessments and outcomes. teachers may retain the opportunity for making decisions on when and how the In somecases, standards will be taught at each grade level and in others, teachers may not havethe authority to doso.

Chapter 8 + Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards

173

THE TEST-CODING FORMAT. Generally, curriculum guides at the school and schooldistrict level should be clearly linked to any assessments thatare 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 objectivesto be mastered bythe learners at each marking period of each grade level of a given discipline; and * coding or notation to schooldistrict, state, and nationalcriterion-referenced and/or norm-

referencedteststhatare required.

Thoughteachers may exercise choice of learning activities and supplementary resources, they are held accountable for student achievementat least annually. Locally developedtests or student proficiency ofthe standard or curriculum objective may common assessments to assess be administered atthe end of each unit or time period required.

The three formats (comprehensive, sequencing, and test coding) can, ofcourse, be combined

and expanded as would be recommended. No matter which formatis followed bya school district,

curriculum guidesshould be used and revised periodically most probably in a digital format. In the past curriculum guides may have been developed to satisfy accreditation orstate requirements, but now they are necessary for supporting teachers in guiding studentsto proficiency on standards and curriculum objectives. Keep in mind that even those guides thatare written by teachers, rather

than bycurriculum consultants, will be accepted onlyif teachers perceive the task as useful to them rather than as a responseto directives from superordinates (Fenwick, 1986).

Summary Curriculum goals or overarching ideas are derived

from a statement of philosophy, defined aimsof edu-

cation, and data onthe students’ needs (needs

asses:

ment), and their achievement. Curriculum goals are broad programmatic statementsof expected outcomes

without criteria of achievement. They apply to students as a group and are often interdisciplinary or

multidisciplinary.

Curriculum objectives or standardsare specific statements of outcomes with degree of mastery and conditionseither inferred or stipulated to be achieved

by students as a group in the school or school

district.

Curriculum goals and curriculumobjectives 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 bas

s for evaluating the curriculum;

and

* giving direction to the program.

Curriculum goals and curriculum objectives should be validated and put in orderofpriority by the school’s or school district’s collaborative teamafter

review by representativesofthe various constituen-

cies served. Curriculum developers and teachers should

engagein developing curriculumdocuments and artifacts that will be of use to teachers, instructional

coaches, and instructional leadersin their schooldis-

tricts. In this chapter curriculum guides and forma for usefulness were discussed. Curriculum guides should include instructional goal

structional

objectives, learning experiences, evaluation techniques, and resources.

174 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess In the creation of curriculum documents, both the process and documents are important.

Examplesofcurriculum materials can be acquired

from a variety of sources, particularly from interactive websites.

Application 1. In your context, research a familiar schooldis-

trict and identify a curriculum goal or standard

implementation guidelines and then enter responses.

with which schools canalign. Use the suggested

3. In yourcontext, analyze student performance

formatin this chapter andtransferthe curriculum

data ofa school of your choice. Makea transition from the school district goal to a curriculum

goal into curriculum objectives. 2. In your context, participate in SEA or LEAelectronic public input sessions regarding curriculum by reviewing proposed documentsofpolicy and

objective or standard to addressa 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 schooldistrict that is not

located in your area. Conducta side byside com-

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

parison of the guidesto determine similarities

Websites

jon and Curriculum Development: The Nation's Report Card: https://nces.ed.gov/nation sreporteard/

National Center for Education Stati:

nces.ed.gov/

ics (NCES): hups:/

Multimedia

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Moving forward with understanding bydesign: Examples of waysto implement understanding bydesign. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

100 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess The Taba Model of Curriculum Development

Hilda Taba wasa 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: Theoryand Practice, she stated consideration oflearning experiences becomes a majorstrategy in curriculum design (Taba, 1962, p. 13). Further, she suggested that

fr, © 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.

O Determine a structure.

Curriculum planners write a scope and

sequence for the unit, including a rationale.

© Revise and merge.

Considering student needsfirs,the units are adjusted so they meetall students" needs, the availability of resources, and

variations amongteaching styles within

the staff so that the curriculumis globally appropriate.

@ Practice experimental units.

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

© Createlearning units for each grade

level or subject area.

Tabasaw this stepaslinking theory

and practice. \

FIGURE53 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 9

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets

Learning Outcomes

PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION

After studying this chapter,

With the curriculum decisions made, leaders are readyto address instruction. Historically, instructional decision making has been the

you should be ableto:

1. Explain the relationships among curriculum goals or the overarch-

ing ideas and curriculum

objectivesor 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 learningtargets. 3. Write instructional goals

or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targetsfor

standards.

responsibility of individualteachers. However, as the expectation for instruction has become standardsand evidence based with account-

ability for student learning outcomes, planning has become more ofa 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 uponthe schooldistrict size and resources, curriculum guides mayinclude instructional plans, sequence ofstandards to

be learned, pacing guides, and recommended or required resources as reviewed in Chapter 8. Curriculum guides that have instructional plans may includethe standard, instructional goal oressential 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 alwaysa good idea

for collaborative teamsofteachers to work together with instructional coaches and administrators to make the instructional plan explicitly understood, agreed upon, and implemented in a consistent manner

acrossthose with the sameresponsibility.

In independentschools, charter schools, and education organiza-

tions instruction may continue to be an individual teacher responsibility or teachers may plan collaboratively with those whoteach the same course or grade, justasis desirable in other contexts. The challenge is

that even whenthere e.g.,

less

support, the samedecisions needto be made,

essential question, learning target, for evidence based instruction.

Planningfor instruction begins with identifyingthe instructional goals and instructional objectives. You may have heard ofinstructional goals referred toas essential questions andthe instructional objective called the learning target. If standardsare to be taught, theyhavealready been identified, whether CommonCore State Standardsor your state's

version ofstandards. The essential questionis the big idea suchas, “What makesa goodfriend?” or “Howdo organisms grow?” or “How

178

Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets can we measure the earth?” These essential questionsor big ideas emergefrom the target standard andthe students’ lived experiences, in their long-term memory, so thatthey can easily engage with and connectto the topic. Sometimes the essential question is used to developstudents’ interests or

remind them oftheir background knowledge that is needed to moveforward with the learningtarget. Learning targets or instructional objectives are short-term measurable objectives. They have specified expectations for learning outcomesthat 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 ⑳ — 5 = 15;20 — 5 = 15).

12:20 — 2 = 18:20 — 0 = 20;

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 measurablethe teacher expects studentsto 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 Ss,to add and subtractto 20. Many teachers will teach with the manipulatives representing 5 so that students develop the concept before practicing counting and subtracting

orally. Teachers can observeoral counting and subtracting, and seestudents as theyline up the 5s manipulatives. Since gettingto 20 can use various numerals the teacherwill develop learning targets for anotherday that include numerals other than 5.

Planning for instruction includes specifying instructional goals or essential ques-

tions and instructional objectives or learning targets (this chapter), selecting evidence based

approaches(Chapter 11), and determining the evaluation ofinstruction (Chapter 12). Toput the next taskin perspective, review the curriculum development steps addressed so far that pave the wayfor instructional planning. « Examine needsof students in general. « Examine needsofsociety. Clarify philosophy ofeducation. Identify curriculum goals (big idea may be aim, m on, or vision).

Identify curriculum objectives or standards.

* Determine needs ofstudents in the context by subject.

Plan to organize orreorganize curriculum.

INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS DEFINED Atthetop of the hierarchyintroduced in Chapter 8 and included in Table9.1, Illustration ofthe 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 standardsserve as sourcesforthe instructional goals or essential questions andinstructional

objectives orlearning targets. Aimsare

stated by prominent individuals and groups for national,

and sometimes even international, consideration. Curriculum goals or the overarching idea and curriculum objectives or standardsare formulated by SEA, LEA, and education organizations.

essential questions and instructional objectives orlearning targets are speciInstructional goals or fied by teamsof teachers, curriculum leadership teams, or individual teachers, depending upon the context. They appearin SEA and LEA curriculum documentsand online resources, such aspacing guides, curriculum guides, sample standards basedinstructional units, and other similar resources.

179

102 Part TI+ Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess

ummuro

O uoneneaq

uommas o wnmea

Snbupa vnmee jo uopajos eu

ー

ogmcas Jo uoneueuedui

B ummume jo

soandalqo ummus »

uonenynads

EI) ウJ

CL u

voneayads

sieo8 uopnnmu o

®NO J

sannsalgo

ruopnumu e uoneyneds

их

A こ pue AHに XA

voneaysads

ouuduossdo

aseyd feuonesado pue Зимчец saseyd 2uuuejg

pen

mnbupa wnmee o wmeps

Ух

ET swuapms jo spaaujo uoneypads,

“uoneanpa jo q Aydosopyd pue sure Jouuams

Suipnpur

anoge gopa

Burn]

saarens o vonaies

Y

ャs aunp

Juewdojanag wnjnaman) 10; ¡PO ento aus

algas o spoau jo vonenypads Auauuos poms о

-=A

vonesypads suuapms

Jemaned

2 spaaujo pal,

topos Jo spaaujo uoneypads,

Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 181 3. Generalized patterns of behaviorfail to indicate more specifically the content to which the behavior applies. Tyler identified illustrations of this type of objective: “to developcritical

thinking,” “to develop appreciation,” and “to develop social attitudes.”

4. Termsthat identify both the kind of behaviorto be developedin the student and the content orarea oflife in which this behavioris to operate. Tyler's examples are: “to write clear and

well-organized reportsofsocial studies projects” and “to develop an appreciation of the

modern novel.” (Tyler, 1949,pp. 4447) Behavioral Objectives

Whether to use behavioral objectives or notis a debate that raged among educatorsfor years.

Supportersof behavioral objectives argued that this approach to instruction:

* forces the teacherto be precise about what is to be accomplishe« * enablesthe teacher to communicateto students what they must achieve;

+ simplifies evaluation; + makes accountability possible; and + makessequencingeasier.

W. James Popham (1971), in support of behavioral objectives,wrote: Measurable instructional objectives are designed to counteract whatis to me the most serious deficit in American education today, namely, a preoccupation with the process without asse: ment of consequences . . There are at least three realmsin which measurable objectives have considerable potential dividends:in curriculum (what goals are selected): in instruction (howto accomplish those goals); and in evaluation (determining whether objectives ofthe instructional sequences have been realized) . .. It 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 opponentsof behavioral objectives held that writing behavioral objectives: * is a waste of time; * is dehumanizin;

+ restricts creativity; and * leads to trivial competencies. James D. Raths (1971) voicedhis opposition to behavioralobjectivesasfollows.

Consider the long-range implications a teacher and his students must accept onceit has been decided that all students are to acquire a specific instructional objective. The teacher's task becomesat oncedifficult and tedious. He must inform his students ofthe objectives to which they are expected to aspire; he must convince them of the relevance ofthis objective to their lives; he must give his students the opportunity to practice the behavior being taught; he must diagnose individual differences encountered by membersofhis group; he must make prescriptios signments based on his diagnosis and repeat the cycle again and again. Yet evenifall programs could be set up on the basis ofbehavioral objectives and evenifstrict training paradigms could be established to meetthe 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 ofinstruc-

tional objectives as too narrow, too sequential, and too focused on specific, and inappropriate, content. They noted the debt of instructional objectivesto behavioristic psychology and looked instead to changes evoked byconstructivist learning theories. John D. McNeil summarized these

changes:

as a movement to (1) higherlevels ofthinking as opposed to the mastery ofdiscrete tasks or skills; (2) a concern for coherence and relationship amongideas; (3) student-initiated activities and solutions instead ofrecitation 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 soundslike foreshadowing of the CCSS underpinningsofincreased levels of

thinking and complexityin studentlearning tasks. McNeil (2006) notedthatthe 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 otherissues in education,

decisions may have been based more on philosophyor preferencethan onresults ofresearch. Problems with Behavioral Objectives

While the proponents and opponents argued with each other,the behavioral objectives camp itself addedto 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 outall other methods. There was little experimental researchto support that the behavioral objectives approach resulted in higher student achievementthan with other approaches. It was learned that behavioral objectives can be usefulin preinstructionalstrategies (Hartley & Davies, 1976). Objectives work betterif they pertain to the particular instructionaltask. Objectives are more effective with certain kindsofinstructionthan with others and are use-

ful in accomplishing learning at higherlevelsof 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 withteachersfill-

ing in the blanksfor the students and contentthey were teaching. Given the the student will

in

minutes with a score of

ive objectives was primary concern. * Downplaying By implying that itis as easy towrite behavioral objectivesin the affective domain in the cognitive and psychomotor domains opponentsfelt challenged. Popham modified his view and advocated broader but still-measurable behavioral objec-

tives. Popham (2002) pointed to the danger ofencouraging teachers to write too-specific,

small-scope behavioral objectives because “theresulting piles of hyper specific instructional

objectives would so overwhelm teachersthat 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 Objectivesor LearningTargets Asspecial education cameto practice the use of measurable instructional objectivesthey were implementedfor each identified student. A reasoned approach in the practice ofidentify-

ing and writing bothinstructional goals and instructional objectives has considerable merit with those who write an individualized education plan (IEP)for each student with special needs. These

plansstate both goals and behavioral objectivesfor accomplishing the goals that studentsare to achievebythe end ofthe year.

The specification of instructional objectives simplified the selection ofinstructional 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

Toselect and write instructional goals and instructional objectives, it will be helpful to establish several guidelines to be followed. Considerthat instructional goals and instructional objectives: * relate to the already specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards; + identify the domainsof learning,the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor,as applicable; «+ align with the levels ofthinking and cognitive complexity indicated bythe standard or

curriculum objective; and

+ follow a few simplerules of writing. Educators should consider the mission and vision of all students being successful academically and plan fortheir achievement of the instructional goals and instructional object;

Accountability forall students” learning success and not percentagesofthem being successful,is a departure fromthe past useof instructional goals and instructional objectives. The conception ofintellectual ability is often limitedto cognitive language and mathemati-

calskills, often interpreted in terms ofa single intelligence. On the other hand, test results gen-

erate differential aptitudes in such areasas languageusage, verbal reasoning, numeracy,spatial relations, abstract reasoning, and memory (Checkley, 1997). Howard Gardner conceptualized

the existence ofsevenintelligences: 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 ofnaturalist intelligence, that is, the ability to

classify nature that Gardnerdescribed as “the ability torecognize 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 byPeter Salovey

and John D. Mayer. Building on Thomdike’s conception, Salovey and Mayer (1989-1990) viewed emotional intelligence, now referred to by some people subset ofsocial intelligence that involves the abilityto monitor one’s own and others” feelings and emotions, todiscriminate among themand tousethis informationto guide one's thinking and actions”

(1989-1990,p. 189).

You will also find in somediscussions of multiple intelligences a ninth intelligence, the concept ofexistential intelligence,a sel vity to spiritual and philosophical questionsabout humankind's

existence (Wilson, nd).

183

184

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

The concept of intelligences, in the plural, guides teachers to design instruction forall learnersto be successful. This skillfully designed instruction does not only relate or appealto those with strengthsthatare verbal and linguistic or mathematical, but supportsthe 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 relateto curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards. Unlesstheinstructional planner

participatedin draftingthe 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. Priorto the standards movement, a curriculum

goal for the fifth grade may have been something like: during the course of the year students will appreciably improvetheir skills in reading. Today, more than likely the samecurriculum goal wouldbe rewritten to say: all fifth-grade students will make one year's growth in reading. Fromthis general goal the following curriculum objective may have emerged in the past before

standards were adopted:bythe end of the eighth month, 75 percentofthe students will have increased

theirability to comprehend a selected set ofEnglish words by 25 percent. Now, the expectation would be thata reading standard forfifth grade would replacethe behaviorally stated curriculum objective. ‘Thefifth-grade standard maybe similar to: students understand how textfeatures aid comprehension of informationaltext. Unlike beforethe standards movement,there is no percentof proficiency nor a

percent ofstudents who are expected to be successful. While the curriculum objective was measur-

able, sois the standard. It is understoodthatall students will demonstrateproficiency independently. The formulation ofinstructional goals or essential questions bears a direct relationship to the

curriculum goals and curriculum objectivesor standards. Aninstructional 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 featureshelp comprehension of newinformational text? Instructional objectivesare written from the instructional goals oressential 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-gradelevel informationaltext passage and then writea three-

sentence summary of how two text featuresaided comprehension. Before NCLB objectives may have beenwritten as minimal competenciesand the expectation was that all students would not achieve proficiency. Those low expectationsare notthe case in the twenty-first centuryas standardsare the samefor all learnersandthey 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. Specificityin the expectation for student learning is the key, and notspecificity ofthe percent ofstudents who will achieve proficiency and notthe percent of content they will demonstrate. One hundred percentofall students

learningand achieving proficiency demonstrated independently is the intention ofthe standards Domains of Learning

One way ofviewing learning exists in the concepts ofthree domains: the cognitive,affective, and psychomotor. Within each domain are classification systems ranking instructional objectives in a hierarchical structure from lowest to highestlevel. The i

i

nd instructional objectives

may be specified forthree domains of learning, the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor,

as applicable. Guidelin

Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets COGNITIVE DOMAIN. Speaking for a committeeof college and university examiners, Benjamin

S. Bloom (Bloom,et al., 1956) definedthe cognitive domain as including objectivesthat “deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge andthe developmentof intellectualabilities andskills” (p. 7). Cognitive learning, which involves the mental processes, ranges from memorization to thinking and problemsolving. 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, ora degree of acceptanceor rejection” (p. 7). PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN. Robert J. Armstrong and colleagues (Armstong,et al., 1970.p.

22) definedthe psychomotor domain asincluding behaviors that “place primary emphasis on neuromuscular or physical skills and involvedifferentdegrees of physical dexterity” (p. 22). Sometimes referred to as perceptual-motorskills, psychomotor learningsinclude bodily movements and muscular coordination. Ordinarily, school districts assumeresponsibility for student achievementin 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 outsidethe profession forstressing cogni-

tive learning, you may encourage each teacherto identify and write instructional goals and objectives in all three domains, making allowancesfor the nature of the subject matter. For example, using perceptual motor experiences (e.g., movement,role play) can a sist learnersin 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 teachersto develop a student’s beliefin 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; a fective, cognitive, and environmental factors interact (Valentine, Du Bois, & Cooper, 2004).

Normally, the domainsoverlap; each possesses elements of the other, even when one is obvi-

ously dominant. Thus,itis oftendifficult to categorize learning asfalling precisely into one domain. Many learnings will obviously fall into single categories. If you discount the bitof affective pleasure a student mayfeel in knowing the right answer, the formula forfindingthe area of a triangle (1/2 base X height) is pretty much a cognitive experience. Doingsit ups, a psychomotorexercise, requiresvery little cognition and may evokeeither a positive or negative affective response. Faith

in other humanbeings s primarily an affective goal, secondarily cognitive, and usually not psy-

chomotor, unless specification is provided of a demonstration through observed action.

The widely practiced classification ofobjectives into three domains may be helpful in supporting teaches they create instructional plans. Instructional goals and instructional objectives should be identified to be aligned with the target standard orthe curriculum objective. It is

obvious that some learnings are more substantive, complex, and important than others. Note, for

example, the following learningtargets, all in the cognitive domain,to review thedifferences in

thinking and complexity.

* The student will namethefirst president ofthe United States. * The student will compare and contrast Washington's first inaugural addre:

ind that of a

twenty-first century U.S. president by their explicitly stated and inferred goals.

185

Chapter 5 + Modelsfor Curriculum System Development Examine data.

SEA, LEA, or Organization Develop curriculum objectives or standards.

Organize

Create specifications.

standards wmalynd horizontally.

Develop guides

If none,develop

curriculum objectives.

Design curriculum evaluation & student

Provide feedback and revise each process.

assessments.

Provideprofessional 2

learning.

rE curriculum system.

Evaluate

Gather ⑧

curriculum.

datalevidence.

FIGURE 5.5 Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development

© 2017 WilliamR. Gordon, Il 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 andreflect upon how the componentsare developed and implemented in your context, and the extent to which implementation in your con-

text is a systems approach. This model is uniqueasit is conceptualized as a system and includes specifications of the standards and therefore of the assessmentitems that have becomecritical in an era of standards based curriculum and standards based assessment.

Similarities and Differences Among Models The models discussed reveal both similarities and differencesin approaches to curriculumdevel-

opment. The models ofTyler, Taba, Oliva, and, Gordon and Tayloroutline certainsteps to be

taken in curriculum development. Tyler's model is deductive and the concept of sources and tands out in his model. Taba’s model is inductive and she advocated starting with spe-

and then building to a general design. Oliva's model is deductive and he recognized that cifics the needsof students’ communities are not always the same as the general needs ofstudents

throughout society. The most recently developed model, Gordon Taylor, is deductive and reflects à systemsapproach whichincludesall parts ofcurriculum orthose influencing curriculum devel-

opment, including assessment and accountability for student learning outcomes

Models are inevitably incomplete; they do not and cannot show every detail and every nuance ofa process as complicated as curriculum development. In one sense, the authors are pointing out key components and actionsto follow to provide con:

ncyto the process. To depict

every detail ofthe curriculumdevelopment process would require an exceedingly complex drawing or several models. One task in building a model for curriculum development is to determine

105

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 variousprint and nonprint sources students will determine the three mostsalient points.

+ Evaluation level. The student will evaluate Washington’s military leadership based upon the criteria ofsuccessful military strategies,loyalty ofsoldiers, and alignmentof 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 educatorsis that the

higherlevels oflearning should be stressed. The ability to think, for example, is fostered not

through low level recall of knowledgealone 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

changesin 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 taxonomytable with a Knowledge Dimension consisting offour typesof knowledge

and a Cognitive Process Dimension consisting ofsix 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 ofinformation. For many educators

the synthesis as Bloom originally wrote it, remainshelpful to consider while adding the creation

of new knowledge.

THE MARZANO-KENDALL TAXONOMY.

In a revision of Robert J. Marzanos 2001 Designing a

NewTaxonomyofEducational Objectives, Robert J. Marzano and John S. Kendall offered in 2007 anew taxonomy that combinessix levels of processing consisting of three systemsof thinking with three domainsof knowledge (pp. xi, 35-3). In their discussion of three systemsof thinking they described three types of memory (2007, pp. 35-36). Marzano and Kendall refrained from using degreesof difficulty to distinguish the variouslevelsin 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 attainmentofother levels, Webb created a systemin the field of math-

ematics that appeared in 1999. Sinceits appearance, DOK,with help from content-area experts in other fields and the CCSSO, has spread toother disciplines.

All the taxonomies noted were based on the original orrevised 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,usesthe Costa approach (www. artcostacentre.com/). Becoming familiar with these and other systems is helpful in developing

deeper understanding andin 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 areeasily measurable, once the academic languageis 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 objectivesin the affective domain, which consists of five major categories. Theaffective examples given arc labeled with thesefive categories. « Receiving (attending). The student will listen while others express their points of view. + Responding. The student will answer a call forvolunteersto plant a treein a public park. * Valuing. The student will express appreciation for the contributions ofethnic groupsother thanhis or her own to the development of our country. * Organization. The student will choose nutritious food overjunk food.

+ Characterization byvalue or value complex. The student will habitually abide by a set of legal and ethicalstandards. (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964)

The affective domain posesa difficult problem foreducators. Historically, parents and educators have viewed the school’s primary mission as cognitive learning. Affective learning has typically held a lesserposition. As mentioned elsewhere in thistext, the affective domainis still not accepted by some educators and parents asa legitimate focus ofthe school. On the other hand, there are educators who feel thataffective outcomes are more important to the individual and society than other outcomes.

The perceptual psychologist Arthur W. Combs (1962) stated thecase for affective education,tying it to the developmentof adequate personalities.

For many generations education has done an excellent job of imparting information. . Our greatest failuresare those connected with the problemsofhelping 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 too often on the narrowlyscientific 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, р. 200) Benjamin Bloom, Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus (1971) attested to the neglect

of instructionforaffective learning whenthey said:

Throughoutthe years American education has maintained that among its most important ideals is the development of suchattributesas interests, desirable attitudes, appreciation, values, commitment, and will power. … the typesof outcomes which in fact receive the highest priorities in our schools, to the detrimentof these affective goals, are verbal-conceptualin nature. (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 225) Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus(1971) identified several reasons for the neglect of

ive

learning. Our system of education is geared to producing people who can deal with the words,

concepts, and mathematical orscientific symbols so necessary for success in our technological society (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971 p. 225). Standardized tests used by the schools . . . laystress on intellectualtasks (Bloom, Hastings,

& Madaus, 1971, p. 226). Characteristicsofthis

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 Objectivesor LearningTargets planner. Affective curriculum and instructional objectives are both difficult to identify and

extremely difficult to measure. These difficulties constitute another reason why teacherstend to

shy away from the affective domain.

PsychomotorClassification Systems

The development and useof a classification system in the psychomotor domain have not been

given as much emphasis asin the cognitive and affective domains. Classification systems of the psychomotor domain do exist, but they seem notto 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 examplesandtheir categories. * * * «

Perception. The student will identify a woolenfabric byits feel. Set. The student will demonstrate how to hold the reins of a horse when cantering. Guidedresponse. 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) provideda clarifying description for each ofthe categoriesofthe

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 taxonomyfor classifying movement behaviorsoflearnersthatconsists of the following six clas-

sification 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

rimination

3.20Visual Discrimination 3.30 Auditory Discrimination 3.40Tactile Discrimination

3.50 Coordinated Abilities 4.00 Physical Abilities

4.10 Endurance

4.20Strength

189

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 systemsin the three domains serve as guidelines that can lead to more effective instruction. Theydirectattentionto the three major domainsoflearning and to the subdivisions ofeach.

WRITING INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Writinginstructional 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 outthe 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 needsand resourceshelp usin planning for them?” could lead to a multitude of instructionalobjectives. Examples ofinstructional objectives may be, “the studentwill identify three sourcesofenergy that are alternativesto 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 someschooldistricts instructional goals may notbe stated as suggestedin this text and may be

stated simplyas a topic. An exampleof a topic may be, The Organized Labor Movement. Implied in this topicis 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

ofstudents.” Although it is preferable for all plans to be committed to writing, it is possible to keep theinstructional goalsin mind and movedirectly to the writing ofinstructional objectives or learning targets. There are principals or schooldistrict leaders whorequire that the curriculum objective orstandard, instructional goal or essential question, and instructional objective or in moving toward proficiency. Therefore, it is

Three Elements of an Instructional Objective or Learning Target Mager (1975) recommended that three elements or components be includedin an instructional

objective:

* the behavior expected ofthe student; * the conditions under which the behavior is to be demonstrated; and

* the degree of mastery required. vriting In:

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 andthe student learning outcome.

A brief explanation followsrelated to developing the instructional objectives.

SPECIFYING BEHAVIOR AND LEARNING OUTCOMES. When specifying behavior choose as often as possible verbsthatare subject to measurement and observation, and the student learn-

ing outcomeexpected. The word “understand,” although a verb,is generally vague in an instruc-

tional objective becauseit is neither measurable nor observable. Consider, “Thestudent will understand his orherrights underthe first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Ifthis instructional objective remains as written, the teacher will need to

clarify the expectation for demonstrating understanding orthecriteria 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 amendmentsto the U.S. Constitution.” Note thatthe student learning outcome or evidence ofprogress 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 composea five-paragraph essay that addresses the rights in thefirst 10 amendmentsto the U.S. Constitution and will evaluate the importance of each right today, based on the criteria of essential, desirable, or notrelevant.” The instructional objective or learning target, therefore, includes the student learning outcome. It is helpfulif the outcomeis student work evidence and can inform instructional decisions that follow the particular learning task. If the outcomeis not student work evidence, then it will be

important that the teacher is clear with students on whatacceptable evidence of mastery looksor soundslike. Whatis thecriteria for being successful onthis instructional objective/learning target?

SPECIFYING CONDITIONS. The condition under which the learner demonstrates the behavior may be specified,if necessary. In the instructional objective, “Givena list of needsof this community, the student will rank them in orderof priority.” “Givena list of needsofthis community” is the condition under which the behavioris performed. It is a part ofthe objective. The condition

may also indicate the focus of the curriculum objective, such as comprehending informationaltext versus literary text in this example: students will describe how text featuresaid in comprehension of informational text. The instructional objective may be in the passage as in: select three text featuresthat aided your comprehension and describe how they helped.

SPECIFYING THE CRITERION. Theinstructional objective or learning target should include the

acceptable criterion of mas ry. Hattie (2009) refers to this criterion as success criteria which a iststhe teacher in being clear on the expected specific learning outcome and provides speciicity to the students, ifthe teacher communicatesthe success criteria (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta,

2014). For example, a French teacher might write the statement, “The student will translate the t the teacher norstudent with following sentences.” This statement is too broad and does not specificity. A better statement would be, “Translateat least five sentences from the French pas-

sage to English.”

In 1974, Robert H. Davis, Lawrence T. Alexander, and Stephen L. Yelon listed six condi-

tions and gave examplesofeach, which may be helpful today.

1. When mere OCCURRENCEofthe behavioris sufficient, describe the behavior. Example: The knot will be tied loosely as in the photograph. ⑪

192

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

2. When ACCURACYis important, provide a statement of acceptable range or deviation. Example: The answer mustbe correctto the nearest whole number. ③ If the number of ERRORSis important, state the number. Example: with a maximum of

one error. 4. If TIME or SPEEDis important, state the minimal level. Examples: within five seconds:

five units per minute.

5. If a KNOWN REFERENCEprovidesthe standard, state the reference. Example: Perform

the sequence ofsteps in the same orderas givenin the text. 6. If the CONSEQUENCESofthe behavior are important, describe them or provide a model. Example: Conductthe classso thatall 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 Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis

explain, restate, translate, trace

Synthesis (may be in Create)

design, develop, plan, compose,compile

Evaluation

assess, evaluate, judge, distinguish

Create(synthesize included)

Compose, compile, design

Verbs

identify, specify, state apply, solve, use, connect, relate analyze, compare, contrast,illustrate

Affective Domain (Krathwohl et al., 1964) Level

Verbs

Receiving

accept, demonstrate awareness,listen

Responding

comply with, engagein, volunteer

Valuing

prefer, appreciate, show concern

Organization

adhereto, defend

Characterization byvalue or value complex

empathize, be ethical, modify behavior

Psychomotor Domain (Simpson, 1972)

Level

Verbs

Perception

distinguish, identify, select

Set Mechanism

assume a position, demonstrate, show attempt,imitate, try make habitual, practice, repeat

Complex overt response

carry out, operate, perform

Adaptation

adapt, change, revise create, design,originate

Guided response

Origination

Gronlund, N. (2000). Howtowrite anduse instructionalobjectives (Appendices B and C). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

vriting In:

Chapter 9 + Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectivesor LearningTargets 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 neitherexist,

then teachers considerthetexts and expectationsfor results given by thestate, 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—thatis, the num-

ber of opportunities the student will be given and the numberof times he or she must succeed in demonstrating the behavior (p. 41). This point is an important one, thatstudents should demonstrate proficiency more than onetime, to be sure that their success is not accidental before they aretested on the criteria.

Generally,instructional objectives or learning targets should consist ofat least three com-

ponents: (a) the behavior,(b) the conditions, and (c) the criterion. Studentlearning outcomes or student work evidencealigns with the successcriteria.

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Instructional goals and instructional objectivesshould be validated and put in order ofpriority. Teachersshould know whether the instructional goals and instructionalobjectivesare appropriate and which are the more important. In practice, it is far simplerto validate and rank instructional goals and instructional objectives

than curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Instructional goals and instructional objectivesare not normally submitted with any regularity to external groupsforthis process, but may be prioritized with teachers teaching the same subject or grade level and with administrators. Validation

of thepriority will be dependent upon student progress towards mastery ofthe standardsandthe 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 ofinstructional goals and objectives are usually accomplished by referring tothe curriculum guides which reflect schooldistrict or school student data, along with data and evidence of your students’ progress. The authors ofthese

curriculum resources and guides serve as the persons who validate and set priorities. This method ofvalidating and ordering ofinstructional goals and instructional objectivesis the most common. However,if teachers and leaders step back, think, and ask about a logical

orderofinstruction, the sequence ofinstructional 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 oftheir 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 appropriateto the learners and which ones should be stressed, due to importanceas prerequisites for later learning orthat 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.

193

194

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Summary Instructional goals can be written as statements or

Classification systems are useful in reveal-

as essential questions. Instructional objectives may

ing the types oflearning encompassed in each

tions and instructional goals, are directly related to

instructional plans that meet the intended learning

be called learning targets and, like essential questhe previously specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards. Instructional goals provide direction for specifying instructional objec-

domain. Systemscan provide guidance in designing outcomes. Instructional goals are statements written in nonbehavioral terms without criteria of mastery.

tives or learning targets. The way these are verbalized today has changed from the historical expectation.

Apart from outcomesin theaffective domain, instructional objectives or learning targets should be writ-

The implementation of standards with the expecta-

ten in measurable and observable terms with success

tion ofproficiency of all students requiresa different approach. Learning outcomes may be identified in three

criteria.

major domains: the cognitive, the affective, and the

Instructional objectives should consist of three components: the behavior that learners will demonstrate, the conditions under which the behav-

the intellect; the affective, the locale of emotions,

proficiency.

psychomotor. The cognitive domain

the world of

beliefs, values, and attitudes; and the psychomotor, the territory of perceptual-motor skills.

ioris to be demonstrated, and the criterion to show

Application

1. Examine an instructional plan of a colleague or someone you supervise. To what extentare the

2. Investigate the expectations for specificity in your context. Are the learning targets written

essential questions clearly

forprincipals, teachers, or students? Are they

aligned with the related standard? Likewise, to whatextentis the instructional objective or learn-

specific enough that the student work evidence expected is clear so that a student can work towardsit?

instructional goals or

ing targetwritten similarly to the examples provided? How would you rewrite these artifacts?

Inquiry and Reflection ation system that 1. Think about the cl guides the writing of instructional goals, essen-

tial questions, instructional objectives, and/or learningtargets in your context. How deeply do those whocreate instructional plans understand

these systems and accurately implement them? As an instructional leader, develop a strategy

for enhancing understandingand fidelity in use.

ion systems 2. Evaluate which of the cla: best for improving student learning outcomes. How would you facilitate the use ofclassifica-

tion systemsto guideinstructional planning at the level ofrigor needed to improve student

learning outcome:

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof 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

Assessmentof studentlearning needs

Within 3 years

Continuously

Curriculum goals(big idea)

Within 2 years

Continuously

Instructional goals (essential question) Instructional objectives(learning target)

Every year Every year

Continuously Continuously

Organization and implementation of the curriculum

Within 5 years

Every year

Other components

Continuously

Continuously

Decisionsat any phase that have relevanceto the entire schoolorentire school district may

be presented to a broad scale audience for review and input through town hall meetings, webinars, and electronic surveysfor gathering responses. Throughout the process, decisions made by anyofthe subgroups would be presented eitherin person or via virtual meetings so that relationships amongthe 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 canbefollowedat anylevel or sector ofcurriculumplanning. Parts of the models may also be applied at the various levels and by entities that provide curriculum.Tt 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 ofthe Gordon Taylor Model

is expected, given accountability for learning outcomes, digital resourcesfor 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,ratherloosely and often interchangeably, to signify terminal expectations of education. Educatorsspeak ofoutcomes, aims, ends, purposes, functions, goals, and objectives. Although these terms may be used synonymously in every day conversations, it is helpful ifdistinctionsare 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 aimsofeducation are the very broad, general statements of the purposes of education: they are meant to give general direction to education throughoutthe country. Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis (2004) likened aims of education

to wishesfor “something desirable for people in generalthatis only possible for them to have because of something they learn” (p. 12).

Also, in this text curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, instructional goa instructional objectives are separate entities of special relevance to the local school ors district. Curriculum goals are defined as general, programmatic expectations without criteria

ofachievement or proficiency, whereas curriculum objectives or standards are specific,

196

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basicprinciples of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago 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 educationdefinitions. Retrieved from www.rda.aps.edu/RDA/Documents/Resources/ Webbs_DOK_Guide.pdf Wilson, L. O. (n.d.). The second principle. Retrievedfrom https://thesecondprinciple.com/

CHAPTER 1 0

In Chapter 9 you thought about how standards or curriculum

objectives lead to instructional goals and instructional objectives. Instructional goals are the big ideasorthe essential questions and instructional objectives are the short-term or maybe even daily learning targets. As you engage withthis chapter and think about yourinstructional 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, individualstate standards, accepted standards or benchmarks for a curriculum or subject area, school district,

schoolorganization,or school. Instruction is defined as manipu-

lation ofstudents’ learning environments to provide experiences so that they learn (Mayer, 2008). Learning is a change in a stu-

dent's attitude or what a student knows,does, orthinks as a result of experiences (Intentional Futures, 2015). In this text instruction

is student learning outcomefocused, regardless of the term usedfor

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.

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Evaluate instructional plansin relation to the scaffolded model of instruction.

2. Explain therelationship between the science of learning and science of instruction, and whyit is advantageousfor curriculum leaders and other instructional leaders to

have expertise in both. 3. Evaluate the extent to

which evidence based instructionis included in

an instructional plan.

4. Analyze the alignment ofinstruction (design

INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS Before an instructional plan can be developed, teachers determine

the sequence or model of instruction that theywill use. Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil (1980) defined a model of instruction as “a plan

and implementation) to the intended curriculum

outcome, standard or

learningtarget.

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 statementto be, “Models ofteachingarereally models oflearning” (p. 7). The model

or instructional sequencethat is adopted guidesthe choiceof strategies at particular points in studentlearning. For example, within the

sequence of instruction a teacher may choose to be more directive or less directive, use inquiry to guide student thinking, ordifferentiate

197

198

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

instruction based on individual student learning needs. Susan S. Ellis (1979) clarified the mean-

ing 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 whoquestion how individuals learn. Each model consists of a rationale, a series ofsteps (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 developmentofself-discipline or responsible participation in a group; some models stimulate inductive reasoning or theory-building: and others provide for mastery ofsubject matter. (Ellis, 1979, p. 275) Overtime many models of instruction or suggested sequences of instruction have been

developed byrespected 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 whenthey described some 19 models (pp. 65-315). Joyce and Weilwith Calhoun (2004) described 14 models grouped underfour categories ofsystems:(a)information-

processing, (b) social, (€) personal, and (d) behavioral.

Joyce and Weil (1980) viewed the search for the best model ofteaching as a fallacy and noted thatthe research did not champion one model overanother(p. 1). Some experts reject mod-

els thatcast the teacher in therole 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 theart offacilitating self-

organization by students and others. . They will need to have sufficiently broad cognitive

horizonsto be able to integrate new ideas and new information andto facilitate theirintroduction

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 ofour educationaltheories and prac-

tices makeit out to be.

. Pedagogy poses problems and dilemmasthat can neverbe settled or

resolved once and for all” (Ellsworth, 1997, p. 8). Proficiency in a variety of models orat least

strategies to be used within a selected model, may be more productive. Before the regular incorporation ofdigital 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 traditionsto be retained at the same time that different configurationsof time, space, methods, tools, and technology are incorporated. (Glickman, 1998, p. 39) Yet, later Glickman (2002) made clearthat teachers cannot becomebetterteachers ifthey repeatedly teach “the samelessons in the same manner” (p. 5). Most would agree thatif students do not achieve proficiency in a learning target then when reteaching, a different strategy and perhapsdifferent resources and additional time would be needed.

Scaffolded Instruction Model Much has been written in the attemptto 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

an elusive concept when we consider the complex task ofteaching” (p. vii). Rosenshine (1978, pp. 38-66) offered research on teachereffectiveness that supported direct instruction of whole groups,in contrastto individualized instruction, at leastfor 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 changesin studentlearning (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 changein their students’ achievement. With the definition ofteacher effectiveness in mind and current teacher evaluation systems, an instructional model that scaffolds students to independence for individual success on

assessments is supported in theliterature 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 ofsupporting students’

independent demonstration of proficiency onthe intended learning targetsor standards

by carefully movingstudents through a learning process from highly supported to less supported to independence. The scaffolded instructional modelprovidesfor variousstrategies appropriate to the content and the learners within the sequence ofinstruction.

The scaffolded instruction modelbegins with the teacher's introduction of the content and concepts by engaging students through inquiry or directinstructionto create a mental model ofthe intended learning. Mental modelsare 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 thatscience students have greater learning gains when guided inquiry is used instead ofalternate methods(Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012). Inquiry is alsohelpful in developing mathematics concepts, among other contentareas. Afterthe introduction teachers and students have shared practice in which the teacheris

modeling and students are sharing the reading or writing or solving problemswiththe teacher. Shared practiceis the precursorto guided practice which beginsat the pointthe teacher has checked for understanding, provided feedback, and believes that most students are ready to col-

laborate with oneor 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 orthink together and then share with one anotherpriorto the

teacher calling on pairs to share with the rest of the class. Reciprocal teaching incorporates several research basedstrategies (predict, ask questions, clarify, and summarize); asa result,the pairs or triads have enhanced learning. Ratherthan group learning, teachersfind that the value ofguided practice is when students collaborate to develop understanding with each student having a specific

responsibility (e... steps in problemsolving, measure, summarize, clarify) (Taylor, Watson, &

Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010; Taylor, 2007). In contrast, often in group work there are students who do not engageor one or two who do mostofthe work. Again, the teacher monitorsstudents’ work, checks for understanding, provides feedback, and notes student success.

Whenstudents are successful in guided practiceit is timefor students to work independently

to demonstrate proficiency on the learning target. Examples of independent practice are similar to those in guided practice exceptthat students donot collaborate. Examples include: student reads a passage andidentifies the literary elements or compares figurative language across two text student evaluates which method to usetosolve a particular type of equation: or a student generates potential solutions to a local environmentalor social crisis based on textual evidence.

199

200

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Asstudents work independently,teachers monitor their success providing feedback and correct-

ing misconceptions. When students are successful independently thenit is time for assessment

(Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010; Taylor, 2007). Success in independentpractice is importantasstudents’ proficiency in meeting the intendedlearning will take place individually and not in pairs, triads, or other configurationsof students. Throughoutthesteps in scaffolding students to independence, teachers may different

ate instruction with individuals or small groups. Differentiating instruction may take aslittle timeas a few minutes or may be for most of the guided practice and independent practice time,

depending uponthe students’ learning needs. Koedinger, Corbett, and Perfetti(2012) provide evidencethat students whoare 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 learningtarget. This guidancein 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 instruction model.

a visual to

assist with developing the mental model ofthe scaffolded

FIGURE 10.1

Level of support*

Scaffolded Instruction Model

Sequence ofinstruction

Introduction:

Guided & shared practice:

Build background knowledge

Understanding checks

Direct instruction & guided inquiry

Model, demonstrate

Develop vocabulary

Create mental model with video, simulation, visuals, interactive board, devices, virtual manipulatives

Pairs, small groups

Accuracy checks

Clarifications

Correctives Experiential with Interactive digitaltools

Independent practice: =

Individual work

Check fluency

Checkaccuracy

Clarifications

;

i sessment:

‘сечас

Generative response

Independence

Generative response Reflection Self assessment with voice & written feedback. *Thelevel ofsupport depends upon the difficultyofthe text/concepts and the abilty ofthe leamer to comprehend the text/concepts independently. Figure 10.1 is adapted from Figure 2.1 Scaffold Instruction Modelin Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., 8: Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards: Rigorousexpectationsfor all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Litlefield, p. 12.

Chapter 10 + Evidence Based Instruction

No modelofinstruction 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 notedin 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 workin particular contexts. Generally, SOI is evidencebased instruc-

tional strategies, those for which thereis evidence and/or research that supports the use ofthe particular instructionalstrategies for improving studentlearning. 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 basedstrategies may be included

in the instructional model, just as notedin the examples.

Meta-analysis research differs fromindividual studies in thatit includes rigorous research

over timeand yieldsan effectsize across the includedstudies. Effectsize is generally thought to be in the acceptable range whenit is at least d = 40 with d = .60 beinglarge. As an example, reciprocalteaching, a collaborative instructionalstrategy, generally yields a very high effectsize of about d .74. À teacher who usesreciprocal 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 thiseffect size is high enough to implementthecollaborativestrategy often as described in theprevioussection. To select the SOI or evidence based instructional strategies that are best for teaching a

particular standard orlearningtarget, teachers are to knowtheir students and the appropriateness ofa particularstrategy for the context. Context includes the grade level, subject matter content, community, accountability expectations, and other environmental factors unique to each school

andclass. Consider homework as an example of contextualfactors 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 norin securing assistance ifneeded (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 counterthe 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 ofscaffolded instruction, that has the greatest chance of improvingstudent learning. In sharing the scaffolded instruction model, examples of SOI were provided:inquiry, creation ofa

mental model, think-pair-share, and reciprocalteaching.

SCIENCE OF LEARNING (SOL)

The ScienceofLearning (SOL) has been well researched and accepted by cognitive scientists (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Yet, Mayer (2008) identified that the science oflearning (SOL), or how students learn mostefficiently, is frequently divorced from the SOI orinstructional

201

112 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess The assumption was madethat these were common values held by a majority people of the society atthat particular time. On how many ofthese values would youstill find consensus? The specter of indoctrination has loomedso large that educatorsare 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 overthe years. In 1916, John Dewey described the functionsofeducation in a numberof ways,including its socialization ofthe child

and its facilitation ofpersonal growth. Putting these conceptsinto the form of aims ofeducation according to Dewey, the aimsof education are (a) to socialize students, therebytransforming 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 sociologicalsides to the processof education and viewed the schoolas primarily a social institution. Dewey(1929) elaborated onhis conception ofeducation as growth

when he observed, “Since in reality there is nothing to which growth is relative save moregrowth,

thereis 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 spoketo therole of education in our democratic societyin this way: “Education in a democracy, both within and without the school, should develop each individual the

knowledge, interests, ideals, habits, and powers whereby he will find his place and use that place to shape both himselfand

society toward even nobler ends” (p. 9).

The Educational Policies Commission (1937) ofthe National Education Association in 1937 related the aim of education to democracy asfollows.

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 ofprofessors from the fields of education and theliberalarts and sciencesto examine

the place of general (i.erequired, 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 becomean expert both in someparticular vocation or art and in the general art ofthe free man andthe citizen” (p. 54). To accomplish this à prescribed set of subjects,

aim, the Harvard Committee recommended

including English, science, mathematics, and the social studies, for

all secondary school students. Statements ofaims 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 changesare occurring in the world today, but there is a fundamental force contributing to all of them. That force is the expanding role accordedin modern life to the rational powersof man. By using these powers to increase his knowledge, man is attempting

Chapter 10 * Evidence Based Instruction

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 responsesrequiresthinking and then articulation of a response, thereforethe student is using higher cognitive processesthan if he or she hasthe opportunity to select or be cluedto 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 asthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005). This principle assists with reducing cognitive overload which may leadto reductionin student effort to learn.

Manageable cognitive load: When designing instruction focus on the intended learning target and do not addin other interesting or extraneous information. In applying manageable cognitive load to digital presentations, focus onthe target content and do not add extrancous text orvisuals asthey increase the cognitive load on working memory (Pass & Kester, 2006). A misconception is that instruction needsto entertain, which may detract from mastery ofthe

intended learning. Organizationeffects: Whenstudents actively and cognitively engage with content, such as organizing, synthesizing, evaluating, or summarizing the material,it is more likelythatthe intended learning will moveto long-term memory thanif the studentrereads (Bransford, et al., 2000).

Segmentation principle: In planning instruction breakthe intended learning into segments ed and makes sense for integrating new learning to and introduce them in an orderthati

previouslearning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Intentional Futures (2015) notesscienceof learningprinciples to improve literacy, in addition to those listed previously as examples (p.18). Asinstructional leaders know, literacyis

essential toall disciplines.

1. Worked examples—Provide examples of thelearning expectationto create a mental model. 2. Contiguity principle—Align words with associatedvisuals. 3. Modality principle—Present words orally first, rather than as printed text.

4. Redundancyprinciple—Provide explanation of visuals orally orin print, but not both at the same time.

5. Coherence principle—Leave out anything notdirectly addressing the learning targetto 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 representedin the introductionto create the mental model of the intended learning. Mostofthe principlesidentified by Intentional Futuresalso are intended

to create a mental model to support integrating learning for long-term memory andto reducecogindenitive load. Segmentation and feedback principles are evidentas studentsare scaffolded to pendence one step at a time. Deep questions and generation effect are represented with inquiry and guided practice

students work collaboratively. It would also be expected that deep questions

and generation effect are incorporated in independentpractice and assessment, aligned withthe target standards. Worked examples were included in introduction andinstructional differentiation.

Thereare implications for improving teaching effectiveness with digital tools and resources

with SOL principles. Any timethat instruction is being planned or designedit 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 alignmentwith the SOL principles will make learning moreefficient.

⑳

204

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

As ESSAis implemented there are implicationsfor software and digital resource designers and vendors to provide evidenceofeffectiveness. Some of the evidence may be in the SOL underpinnings of the design and the resulting data from implementation. Sources of Instructional Strategies

The choiceofstrategies may be limited at the onset by the standards and learning targets. The contentitself will determine appropriatenessof someinstructionalstrategiesover others. In mathematics, inquiry and visualization are very useful strategies, but the same strategies may not be as useful in learning a world language. Onthe other hand, when students use inquiry and generate questions and hypotheses their learning may advance in almostany content area and grade level. Most curriculum guides, whetherat the LEA, SEA, or organizationallevel (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate) suggest instructional strategies that curriculum leaders believe

are appropriate forthe 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 withoutfirst being sure that they

are evidence based or research based and demonstrate understandingoftherigorexpected 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 likeit or not, the curriculum in most American schools is not defined bycourses 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 sourcesof

its production,distribution, and reception. (Apple, 1998, р. 159)

Freire (1998) put what some might term a constructivist spin on his concern about the way textbooksare 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 ofsin... They are invited neither to imaginatively relive the story told in the book nor to gradually appropriate thesignificance ofthe text. (Freire, 1998, p. 31) Anothersourceof potentialinstructional strategies are the students themselves. When teachersinvite students to describe how they learn best, they will reveal information about whenthe

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

previouslearning and movementofintended learning to long-term memory. Toconclude instructional

strategies may emerge from a variety ofsubject-matter sourc

but for those whoareeffective teachers they will employ evidence based or research based instruc: tional strategies

fromrespected and vetted sources.

114 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess

AMERICA 2000. In September1989 at the University of Virginia, President George H. W. Bush and the National Governors’ Association developed a statementof six performance goals. The president presented this statementto 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 includedthe creation of 535 experimental schools (onein each congressional district) for the purpose of demonstrating effective curricula and instructionaltechniques; voluntary national examinations in English, mathematics, science, history, and geographyat the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades; and parental choice of school. The six performance goals to be reached bythe 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 competencyin challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensurethat all students learn to usetheir minds well, so they may be preparedfor responsible citizenship, furtherlearning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adultin 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 ofcitizenship. 6. Every school in the United States willbe free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (U.S. Department of Education, 1990) Theproposals 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 ofthese noble goals but doubted very

muchthatthey could be reached in the short timeto the year 2000. Educators expressed concern about

the lack offederal funding to implementthe 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 Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP)alreadyassessed student achievementin 37 states. Objecting to national assessments, some educators feared that national assessments could lead

toa nationalstandardized curriculum, which they found unacceptablein principle. The Congress moved to implement America 2000 by creating the National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Its duty wasto oversee developmentof(a) national standards,

beginning in thefive disciplines: English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. with the possibility of adding other disciplinesat a later date; and (b) a voluntary systemof 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 bythe University ofPittsburgh'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 notall curriculumtheorists subscribed to America 2000 canbe seen in the remarks of Henry A. Giroux (1993):

Under the guise of attempting to revitalize the languageof leadership and reform, these reports signify a dangerousattack on someofthe most fundamental aspects of democratic public life and the social, moral, and political obligations ofresponsible, critical citizens. (Giroux, 1993, p. 14)

206

Part IV * Curriculum Implementation

Style and method are used rather loosely in the literature, however methodsare 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 ownstyles.

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 standardsbased instruction and accountability for student learning hasover 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 preferredstyles,

the pragmatic approach is to design instruction based on the SOL and SOI, which hasevidence that in doing so most learners will be reached, regardless of preferred learning style. When teacherstake theinitiativeto differentiate instruction for individuals who have not reached proficiency

on a learningtarget, learning stylesare morecasily taken into account.

ORGANIZING INSTRUCTION FOR ALIGNMENT WITH STANDARDS Chapter 9 focused on the selection ofinstructional goals or essential questions and instructional

objectivesor learning targets forinstructional 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 ofunit plans and lessonplans are addressed in thissection.

Manyyears 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 suitedto the maturity and needs (personal and social) ofthe learners

all combined into a whole with internal integrity determined by immediate and ultimate goals™ (p- 329). Burton (1962) offered an outline fora unit plan, as follows. * Title. Attractive,brief, and unambiguous * The overview. Brief statementofthe nature and scope ofthe unit

« The teacher's objectives. Understandings(generalizations), attitudes, appreciations, special abilities,skills, behavior patterns, and facts

* The approach. A brief accountofthe most probable introduction * The student's aimor objective. The major objective the learners will develop or accept

+ The planning and working period. Learning activities with desired outcomesfor each learning task

« Evaluation techniques. How evidence will be gathered showing that the objectives have been achieved * Bibliographies. Books useful tothe teacher and books useful tothe learners

+ Audio-visual materials andother instructional aids with sources. (Burton, 1962, pp. 372-374) In contrast to Burton's (1962) conception of instructional planning, a more systematic stan-

dardsbased process servesteachers and students better with accountability for student learning.

Oncetheteacher orcollaborative teacher team knowsthe instructional model to be used and the standards orlearningtargetsto be learned, then standards based instructional planning or design-

ing can take place. More effective instruction is probably designed whenthose who teach the same

gradeor content collaboratively plan to garnerthe best thinking and knowledgeofeach teacher. Anystandardsbased instructional plan that reflects accountability forstudent learning generally will include these components, which are accompanied bybriefexplanations. Keepin mind that one or more standards may be incorporated in an instructional plan.

Chapter 10 * Evidence Based Instruction

* 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 measureprogress 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 standardsor learning targets

« Evidence based instructionalstrategies: SOL and SOI

+ Student learning tasks: Actionsresulting 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

Designingstandards based instruction is dependentuponteachers having deep understanding ofthe languageofthetarget standards and thetarget standard’s level ofrigor. In Chapter 9 various hierarchies of objectives and associated language wereshared. These academic language termsare presentin the standards and their understanding is critical to designing aligned instruction, student learning tasks, success criteria,

and assessments at the expected level ofrigor of

specific standards (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Emphasis on academic language within the CCSS and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is dueto 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 con-

cepts and ideas across texts (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014). Furthermore,research on

academic languageinstruction supportsthat teachers mention academic language but generally do notdirectly teachit, leaving students without facility in the languageto be encountered (DiCerbo, etal., 2014). Without alignmentof rigor and academic languageatthe level of the standard across the instructional plan components, when students have accountability assessments based onthe

standards they may not be as successfulasif they had learned from an aligned systematic plan that developedtheir academic language. If you think aboutrecent changes in mathematicsinstruction, you will recall thatstudents

areto havefacility 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 ofprecise language with the terms digits, numbers, and numerals. Further, students need to havefacility with the academic languagein the standards because the same academic

languageis presentin assessment directions and items alike (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014).

Readers may notice the use ofthe term success criteria in the componentslisted for standards based instruction. Success criteriais the evidence that a teacher will accept of proficiency and is determinedat the point when the learning targets and standardsare identified. How will the teacher and students know when proficiency is achieved? When teachersare clear on their learning intentions and these learning intentions are made clear to the students, thatis

à mental model ofthe expectation has beencreated, there is a 56 percent probability (d = .56)

that students will be able to meetthe learning intention in contast toifthe expectation was

not

clear (Hattie, 2009). By explicitly determining the success criteria and acceptable evidence

207

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 towardsthe outcome more easily and self-monitor progress (d = .64) (Hattie, 2009;

Taylor,et al, 2014).

After the learning targets and successcriteria are determined, the teachersare 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 selectthe evidence based instructional strategies and resources to incorporate. Last, draft instructionaldifferentiation for those students who need modifications of time, resources, and teacher-studentratio (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Noticethat differentiationis not

in the standard orlearningtarget as all students are to have the same expectations. Somestudents will demonstrate evidence ofproficiency with their work morerapidly than other students. Proficient students should be provided opportunities to go more deeply, to think at higherlevels, and to complete more complex learning tasks after demonstration of proficiency (Koedinger, et al.,

2012). Of importanceis that proficient students do notget more learning tasks, but different ones that challenge their thinking. Helpful tools for supporting accurate alignment ofinstructional 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 contributorto the development ofspecifications for CCSS andrelated

sments; therefore, her website has helpful resources also (karin-hess

.com). Onher website are aligned resources, including cognitive rigor matricesfor reading, Eng-

lish languagearts, social studies, mathematics, and other subjects thatassist with the creation of

student learning tasksincorporating academic languageat the level of rigorof thetargetstandard. You may havenoticed that no time frameforthe instructional plan is identified.If a pacing

guideis not provided bythe curriculum specialists oris not in the curriculum guide, then a pacing guideforall standardsto be learnedis needed forthe schoolyear 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 somegroupsofstudents who take less or more time to develop proficiencyontarget 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 ofa 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 outlineis: cite

textual evidence to support analysis of whatthe 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 expli tly as well inferences drawn from the text.

sential question or instructional goal: How doinferences emergefrom analyses ofquotes and other information within a single text?

* Instructional objectives or learning targets: (a) Identifyliterary elements stated in the text. (b) Write inference ofplot, supported by textual evidence. (Note thatthe lower levelthinking [explicit] of the standard is listed to be learned and demonstrated first and then the

higher-levelthinking [infer]).

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aimsof Education 117 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA)

In December of 2015, President Barack Obamasigned into law the Every Student SucceedsAct, which wasa reauthorization ofthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Thislargely bipartisan bill became effective in the 2017-2018 schoolyear. Key provisions of ESSAincluded: « promoting equity while upholding high standardsfor America's disadvantaged and highneed students;

« requiring all students in America to be prepared to succeed in college and careers; * requiring states to redirect fundsto reduce the achievement gap,to support lowachieving

schools, and to support high schools with high dropout rates;

+ accountability to parents, educators, and to the public while reducing the burdenoftesting onteachers and students; and

+ increasing access to high-quality preschools. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015)

Thefederal governmentplaysand will continue to play a fundamental role in identifying and promoting the aims of education in America. Aimsarerelated to nationalstandards and national

assessments which are addressed as appropriate throughoutthis text. You will note that the statements of aims of educationcited in this chapter vary from advocacy ofcognitive competencies alone to concern forthe development of cognitive,affective, and psychomotor competencies.

PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION

Greene (1973)defined philosophy as “a way offraming distinctive sorts ofquestions having to do with what is presupposed, perceived, intuited,believed, and known” (Greene, 1973, p. 7). Greene (1973) wrote,statements ofaims of education are positions taken that are based on a set of beliefs, a philosophy of education. Clearly,the authors ofthe illustrations of aims cited in the

precedingsection held certain assumptions abouteducation,society, and how people learn. An

aim of education, then, is a statement of beliefs central to the author's philosophical creed that is directedto the mission ofthe school or school district. Educational organizations (schooldis-

tricts, schools, professional organizations, and higher education institutions) generally formalize their philosophyas written beliefstatements and mission statements found ontheir publications and websites.

Four majorphilosophies of education have demandedtheattention of educators. Only two of these philosophiesappear to have largefollowingstoday. The four philosophies discussed in these pagesare reconsiructionism, progressivism, essentialism, and perennialism. These four schools of thought can be charted from the most liberal tothe most conservative as shown in Figure 6.1, Four Philosophies of Education. Reconstructionism at the farleft 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 byeducators,

neither reconstructionism nor perennialism has found widespread endorsement in the schools. Since reconstructionismand perennialismhave had less impact on the schools than the two other

philosophies, theyare discussed first and then the two more pervasive philosophies, essentialism

and progressivism,are discussed.

Although this textelaborates on philosophies of education, it is important to remember that

theystem from more general philosophiesof life. As J. Donald Butler (1968) commented,“aims

210

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

unless a studentis served by a recognized program with an Individual Education Plan (IEP)that states for accommodations to be made. The Educational Research Service (2009) offered reasonsto differentiate or personalize instruction for studentsto achieve the standards: meet needs

ofdiverse learners, meetlegal requirements; ethical teaching; andeffectiveness (Bratten, 2009, p. 3). For decades teachers have attempted to identify the most effective means of meeting the needs and interests of their students. Professionalliterature offers discussions and examples

ofways to personalize instruction (Ferguson, Ralph, & Meyer, 2001; Keefe & Jenkins, 2005).

Almostevery descriptionofeffective teaching includes somereference to recognizing and caring fordifferencesin student backgrounds,abilities, personalities, interests, and needs.

Technology enhanced personalized learning holds promise to achieve success with providing eachstudentexactly the support neededatthe pointofneed. Such digital tools adjust for progress madebyindividuallearners, assist with personalizing learning tasks,and provide appropriate support to each student with feedback for continuous improvement. Since the late 1990s, there have been numeroustechnological 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, orvirtual environments with audio and visual sup-

port (dual code). Well-designed digital resources have conceptual underpinningsof the SOL, dualcode, segmentation, Goldilocks, feedback, manageable cognitive load, etc., and add value by gathering data on students’ progressto assist the teacher with adjusting instruction. Speakers at the Personalized Learning Summit of February 2014 (Bobst, 2014), identified advantagesin using technologyto enable personalized learning for individual circumstances which included: digital

assessments and analysis of data; characteristics of portability and flexibility; and performance based demonstration ofproficiency. Without the use ofdigital resources complete individualization of learning experiencesis extremelychallenging for anyteacher. However, in some virtual schoolsor learning environments students may each work alone andat their own pace with thefacilitation of a teacher andreadily

available resources. The advancement oftechnology and digital tools encouragingthe developmentof novel and potentially ground-breaking personalization oflearning experiencesto aid learnersin achieving at their highest possible level and in an efficient manner. Personalized instruction in the virtual education environmenttakes on a different meaning and is discussed in Chapter 13.

Recognizing the difficulty ofattending to differences in the classroom,teachers continue

to search for and try out new techniques or modifications ofapproaches. In addition tothe SOL,

three general instructional approachesare included when discussions around personalization or differentiation ofinstructionarise. 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 ofeffectiveteaching. These three general techniquesare partially incorporated in the scaffolded instruction model. There are several practicesthat include the philosophy of serving individual

learner needs and three of the most common are summarized.

* Differentiated education. Otherwise known as differentiated classrooms and differenti-

ated 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 ofinstruction starts with the knowledge learners bring with them to the classroom and leads students

toconstruct new knowledge. Resembling project based learning, constructivism employs

Chapter 10 * Evidence Based Instruction

thought-provoking queries and learning tasks that motivate students by developing their self-efficacy,self-regulation, and control overtheir learning. Constructivist teachers provide many opportunities for students to processtheir 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, teachersassist studentsto progress incrementally toward achieving objectives

(Hogan & Pressley, 1997). This method is not to be confused with the scaffolded instruc-

tion modelin this text.

These approachesrepresent practices and dispositionsthat use a variety of waysto engage learnersin achieving proficiency on the standards and learning targets. Fundamental and com-

montoall three approachesare individualized instruction, intellectual engagement, the teacher as designerandfacilitator, and interaction amongthe teachers and students.

Collaborative Learning A considerable amountofresearch and experimentation transpired in the 1980s on cooperative learning, also referred to as collaborative learning. Robert E. Slavin (1989) acknowledgedthat the

concept of cooperative learning wasan old idea and went on to define it in the following manner: “Cooperative learning is form of classroom organization in which students work in small groups to help one anotherlearn academic material” (p. 129).

In advancing his noncoercive lead-managementcontrol theory in the classroom, William

Glasser (1992) supported cooperative learning, observing that “it is hard to visualize any quality schoolthatis not deeply involved in this method of instruction” (p. 163). Slavin (1980) noted a

keyelement of his concept of cooperative learning, group performance, when hesaid, “The term refers to classroom techniquesin which students work on learning activities in small groups and

receive rewardsas recognition based on their group's performance” (p. 315). Fran Lehr(1984)

commented on the composition of groups, defining cooperative learning as

“an instructionalsys-

tem that allows students of all achievementlevels and backgrounds to workin teamsto achieve

à common goal” (p. 458).

Related research bringsto the forefront argumentsaboutthe relative merits of competition,

cooperation, and individualizationin the classroom. Competition among individuals forthe teach-

er’s approval, praise, and grades; and other formsof recognition has beenà practice in schools.

Competition among students can produce negativeeffects, such asstifling 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 onthe effects of cooperation, competition, and individualized instruction in student achievement, and concluded that cooperative learning

resulted in more higher-level reasoning, more frequent generation ofnew ideas and solutions(i.e.,

process gain), and greatertransfer of what is learned within one situation to another (i.e., groupto-individualtransfer) than did competitive or individualistic learning (p. 203). Oneofthecriticisms of some cooperative learningliterature is that the researcher may also

be the developer ofa particular method. Objective research by someone who is not a principal investigator or owner ofthe strategy is desirable. Therefore, readers will wantto make note ofthe researcher when outcomes and conclusionsare reported on practicesand products.

Readers will note that notall concepts ofstudent collaboration include group grades, but do have individual accountability. Students in learning teams of no morethanfive take responsibili for specific portions ofthe learning task, and each is accountable to share whatis learned with

their group in a way that group members will comprehend. Groupsareto be restructured from

211

212

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

time to time dependingon the tasksto be accomplished. Robert J. Marzano, DebraJ. 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 notallow 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 studentsin a group take on cach role in the learning task so that cach has an opportunity to develop proficiency and be held accountable. In the scaffolded instruction model, the scaffold or support ofothers 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 whetherteaching is an art or science has been debated since the early 1980s when

research on effectiveness emerged. Foremost amongthose who view teaching as an art is Elliot

W. Eisner(1985), whose widely known work, The Educational Imagination: Onthe Design and

Evaluation ofSchool Programs,perceived the teacher asartist attunedto the qualitiesof life in the classroom and demonstrating “connoisseurship” (p.219). David Levine (1995) proposed the use of the expression “teacheras artist” to replace

“teacher as technician,” and “school as an experiment in democracy” in place of “schoolas fac-

tory”(p. 53). Levine (1995) held that teaching for democracy “is a complex undertaking beyond the ability of teacheras technician”(p. 54). Henry A. Giroux (1997) painted largerrole for teachers when he stated, “What classroom teachers can and mustdois work in their respective

roles to develop pedagogical theories and methods thatlinkself-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 commonsenseprinciples to the effectthat students learn moreif teachers expectthem to learn, focus onthe learningtarget, keep students on task, provide adequate practice, monitor performance, and care about whether

students succeed. The complexity ofteachingis readily evident in the roles expected ofthe teacher. Britzman (1991) commented: “Teaching is fundamentally a dialogicrelation, character-

ized by mutual dependency,social interaction and engagement, and attentionto the multiple exi-

genciesofthe 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) popular-

ized the merging of both concepts with publications of The Art and Science of Teaching and ClassroomInstruction that Works respectively. As mentioned in this chapter there are now multiple sources ofevidence based and research based approaches andstrategies that teachersare 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 momentdepending upon how students respond to the experience. Hunter (1984) suggested thatteaching is a series of decisions. Knowing when to decide to change or adjust instruction after reflection or in the

momentof teaching is both science and an art, an indicatorofteacherexpertise.

Summary Designing standards and evidence based instruc-

thetarget as a mental model of the expectation has

tion is critical for implementation of curriculum to

been provided. Oncetheinstructional components are aligned

model of instruction or the system of how instruction proceedsis to be determined. In this text, the scaffolded instruction model is used as an example

at the rigorof the standard, students have an excel-

improvelearning. Beforeinstructionis designed,the

as it incorporates logical steps thatlead from high teacher support,to guided collaborative practice, to

independent practice that is needed priorto individual

lent opportunity for demonstrating proficiencyas

required. To assure alignment of the rigor of each component of an instructional design, teachers need

proficiency with the academic languageof the standards and how student work evidence reflects the

assessment. It is intended to focus on the develop-

mentof individualproficiency and reduce enabling by well meaningteachers.

specific academic language. Selecting strategies that are evidence and research supported, SOL and SOI, is importantas

Instructional plans are designed to achieve the success criteria or evidence a teacher believes

there are misconceptions abouteffectiveness of some instructional practices common in classrooms. As

is acceptable to demonstrate proficiency on the target standard. This model of student work evidence

instructional leaders, curriculum specialists, administrators, and teachers in schools are accountable for

assistsin clarifying the teacher's learning intention to the teacher and student alike. Suchclarity to both

improves the probability thatstudents will indeed hit

student success, you are encouragedto havefacility 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 improveevidence based practice with these two areasofresearch? 2. Select several of the instructional concepts on the followinglist, with associated authors’ last

namesin parenthesis, and investigate the effectiveness ofeach for improvingstudentlearning. a. Mastery learning (Hunter) b. Relationship between the teacher and stu-

dents (Hattie)

€. Differentiated instruction (Tomlinson) d. Scaffolded instruction (Taylor, et al.)

e. Group Investigation (Sharan) f. Jigsaw (Elliott Aronson, et al.) 8g. Jigsaw II (Slavin) h. Similarities and differences

(Marzano;

Dean, et al.)

i. Learning Together or Circles of Learning (Johnson and Johnson) j. Student Teams-Achievement

Division

(Robert E. Slavin) k. Team-Assisted Individualization (Slavin,

etal) 1. Teams-Games-Tournament (DeVries and

Slavin)

214

Part IV + Curriculum Implementation

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Examine an instructional plan to determinethe extentthatit is standards based andthat all the

componentsalign at the level of rigorof the standard. Whatevidence did you discoverofalign-

2. Generate misconceptions that teachers, curriculum specialists, and instructional leaders voice and practice related to standards based and evi-

dencebasedinstruction. How will you provide

mentorlack thereof? Using evidence from this

generative feedback for improving learning by

and othertexts, how would you revise the instruc-

correcting these misconceptions?

tional plan to reflect alignment of all components? 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 differentiatedclassroom, 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/824837/127586html

Suggested Reading

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligene s in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA.: ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2003). Methodsfor effective teaching (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cooper, J. M... (Ed.) (2003). Classroomteaching skills (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together andalone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualisticlearning (Sth ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Moore, К. D. (2007). Classroomteaching skills (6th ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Richardson, V. (2001). Handbook of research on teach-

ing (41h ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Rescarch 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 CurriculumDevelopment.

120 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess in the 1930s and 1940suntil 1957(the year ofSpumik), progressivism emerged for a short time

as the most popular educational philosophy. Its path was somewhat rocky, however, strewn asit 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 reclaimedits predominantposition.

However, since thelate 1990s thefostering ofstudent self-esteemhas been strongly emphasized,

contemporary essentialist critics of education would say, overemphasized. The aim of education according to essentialist tenetsis 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 societyto its

populace, the essentialistsseek to adjust men and womento society.

COGNITIVE GOALS. The goals of the essentialist are primarily cognitive and intellectual. is placed on subject Organized courses are the vehicles for transmitting the culture, and emphasis matter. The three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) and the academic subjects form the core of the essentialist curriculum. In one sense, the essentialisttailors the studentto the curriculum,

whereasthe progressivist tailors the curriculum to the student. The subject-mattercurriculum is an essentialist plan for curriculumorganization, and the techniques of Assign-Study-Recite-Testare the principal methods. Erudition, theabilityto reproducethat which has been learned, is highly valued, and educationis perceived as preparation for

somefuture 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 andall the areasofthe globe to whichit has been exported. Essentialistthinkingfits in well with centralized

administrative structures as represented in the European and most oftheir colonial ministries of education. The ministries, following essentialist concepts, can select, proffer, and control the contentstudentsare to learn. They can reward and promote the studentsin respectto their mastery of subject matter. They can screen students for the universities or continuance in secondary education on the basis ofstringent examinations thatcall for recapitulation of subject matter.

William C. Bagley, one ofthe foremost advocates ofessentialistic philosophy,strongly criticized the student-centered approach and urged teacherstofollow essentialistic principles.

Championing emphasis on the academic disciplines in the late 1950s and 1960s, James B. Conant ntialistic outlookin his major recommendationsin a series of reportsonthe junior revealed an and senior high school.

BEHAVIORISTIC PRINCIPLES. The essentialists found the principles ofthe bchavioristic school of psychologyto be particularly harmoniouswith their philosophical beliefs. V. T. Thayer(1960) called attentionto the urbanization of America and immigrationtaking place in the late 1800s and

the early 1900s in explaining the reasonfor the essentialists’ espousalof behavioristie principles: The changes in American society to which we have drawn attention affected education on all levels. But the contrast between programsof education, keyed, on the one hand,to the inner nature ofthe 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 ofthe young person, with the clear implication that nature was to be followed; whereaslife outside the school, in the home and community.in busin

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). Schoolsfor sale: Whyfree market po cies 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 knowabout 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. Alexan-

dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (Sth 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. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhoun E. (2004). Models ofteaching (th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Keefe, J. M., & Jenkins, J. М.(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 studentlearning. 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 ofculturally 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). Classroominstruction that works: Research-based

strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexan-

dria, VA: Associationfor 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. Mclntyre, D. J., & O'Hair, M. J. (1996). The reflective roles of the classroom teacher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). À region or proximal of learning model of study timeallocation. Journal of Memoryand Language, 52, 463-477. National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Commoncore state standards for English, language arts and literacyin history/social studies, science and technical subjects: Appendix A. Washington, DC: Authors. Pahler, H., Cepeda, J. T., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When doesfeedback facilitate learning of words? Journalof 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 ofpowerful environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 281-285. Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power oftesting 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 ofEducational 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 organ ion, p. 129. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sousa, D. A. (2001). Howthe brain learns: A classroom teacher's guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Chapter 10 * Evidence Based Instruction

Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning & memory: The brainin

action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities ofeffective 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 achievementtoday! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R.. & Nutta, I. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards:

217

Rigorous expectations forall 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). Howto differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating researchinto classroom practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

This page intentionallyleft blank

122 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess of the curriculum as compared with the contents of the child’s own experience. . Hence the

moral: ignore and minimize thechild'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 studyinto lessons: each lesson into specific facts and formulae.Let each child proceed step bystep to master each oneof these separate parts,and at last he will have covered theentire ground. … Problemsof instruction are problems ofprocuring texts giving logical parts and sequences, and ofpresenting these portionsin classin a similar definite and graded way. Subject matter furnishesthe end, and it determines method. The child is simply the immature being who is to be matured: he is the superficial being whois to be deepened:his is narrow experience which is to be widened.Its his toreceive, 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 studiesare subservient; theyare instrumentsvalued as they serve the needs ofgrowth. Personality, character,is more than subject matter. Not knowledgeor information, butself-realization,is

the goal. ... Moreover, subject matter never can be gotinto the child fromwithout. 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 asit reaches out and assimilates. Subject matter is but spiritual food. possible nutritive material. It cannot digest itself: it cannotof its ownaccord 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 becomea synonym for what is irksome, and a “lesson”identical with a task. (Dewey, 1902, pp. 7-14) Tothe progressivesthen, education is not a productto be learned, for example, facts and motor skills, but a processthat continuesaslong as one lives. To their way ofthinking a studentlearns best

whenactively experiencing his or her world, as opposed to passively absorbing preselected content.

If experiences in schoolare designed to meetthe needs and interestsof individual learners, it follows

that no single pattern of subject matter can be appropriateforall learners. Brameld (1971) explained this point ofview held by progressivists such as Dewey and Harold Rugg (1947):

The proper subject matter ofa curriculumis any experience thatis 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 ofcontent, no system ofcourses, no universal method ofteaching is

inappropriate. For, like experience itself, the needs and interests of individuals and groups vary fromplace to place, from time to time, from culture to culture. (Dewey & Rugg. 1947, p. 133)

The progressivist position thatthe student should undergo educative experiences in the here and now hasledtothe cliché-like indicators ofprogressive philosophy: “educationis life” and

“learning by doing.” The progressivists urged schools to provide for learners” individual differ-

ences

in the broadest sense of the term, encompassing cognitive, physical, emotional, spiritual,

social, language, economic, and cultural differences. In both thought and practice, progressivism

showsconcernforthe student, society, and subject matter, placing the student atthe centerof the

learning process, thus it is student-centered orlearner-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 thatthe learners are immature subjects of adult preceptors and administrators, but rather consider them partners in the educational process. Teachersinfluenced

by progressive thinking see themselves as counselors to students and facilitators of learning,

CHAPTER 1 ①

Learning Outcomes

ASSESSING INSTRUCTION

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENT PLANNING

1. Provide leadership for developing

theyalso collaboratively plan assessments for the grade or coursesthat

pre-assessments,

formative assessments, and summative

assessments.

2. Analyze the alignment of formative, summative, and accountability assessments with standards orinstructional

objectives and their

specifications, including directions and items.

3. Design test and evaluation itemsin the three domains

oflearning.

4. Contrast traditional assessment with performance based

assessment.

Just asteachers may collaboratively plan instruction, it is helpful if

are commonto them. This way the expectations are the sameand the

official accountability outcomes should reflect the ongoing teacher made assessmentresults. Evaluation of instruction could be expanded to read, evaluation

ofinstruction through the assessment of student learning. In one sense, evaluation of instructionis evaluation ofthe effectivenessof the instruc-

tor, but that is not the purpose of this text. From the perspective of developingthe curriculum, which includes the implementation ofthe

instruction, the question ofinstructional effectivenessis about alignment

of the components ofinstruction and assessment. If all are aligned atthe samelevel ofrigor using specifications ofthe standard orinstructional objective, and if the teacher's academic languageis consistent across these components, then the expectation would be that students demon-

strate moving towards proficiencyon the standard and objective(Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Alignmentas described ofthe standards” speci-

fications and testitems’ 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 professionallearning, feedback, and practice (Fives & Barnes, 2017). In anothersense, evaluation of instruction is a componentof the evaluation ofthe 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 enoughtime, appropriate resources, and/or instructional differentiation. Evaluation of

curriculum will be examined in the next chapter; however, it is easy

220

to see, that evaluation ofinstruction, teacher performance, and curriculum are intertwined.

Chapter 11 + Evaluation ofInstruction

Chapter 10 addressed instructionalplanning, followed by implementation, data gathering, and using datato inform adjustmentsto instruction. In this chapterthe focus is on using data to evaluateif the instructional goal and instructional objectives have moved studentsto proficiency.

ASSESSMENT

Evaluation. Assessment. Measurement. Testing. Accountability. These wordsare heard with great frequency in both public and professionalcircles. Specialists in measurement, evaluation, and data analysis are in great demanddueto 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 CCSSassessments, Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), and otherassessments are household words in the USA in much the same way the nonstandardized baccalaureate tests are in France. Ascarly as the late 1950s and early 1960s, William H. Whyte Jr. (1956), Martin Gross

(1962), and Banesh Hoffman(1962)wereall pointingto the dangers of masstesting. Whyte and

Gross were particularly concerned aboutpersonality testing, and Hoffmanwascritical oftypical standardized multiple-choice formattedtests. Currently, states busily engagestudentsin high-stakes testing or accountability assessments

that canresult in consequencesin the form of retention in grade oreven failureto graduate from high school. In somestates and schooldistricts the tests are high stakes because the results are

a part of teachers’ and administrators’ annual evaluations and may even be careerthreatening. Condemning test driven school reform, Monty Neill (2003), executive director ofthe National

Center for Fair and Open Testing, observed, “high-stakestesting .

undermines good schools

and prevents real improvement” (p. 45). However, the WestchesterInstitute for Human Services

Research (2003) found that high-stakes accountability reform can improve student achievement

and canhelp to narrow the achievementgap at a comparatively low financial impactas compared to current movementssuch as reducing classsize. The terms evaluation, assessment, measurement, testing, and accountability may evoke strong feelings; some for and someag: 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 viewassessments as measuring insignificant learningsand destructive to students’ self-concepts. On the other hand, if legislation effected by state and national representativesreflectsthe publics views,it may be concluded that the public supports continuing effortsrelated to assessment and accountability. Whateverthe perspective, it is abundantly clear that standardized a: ¡ment will remain.

Definition of Terms At this point, the meaning of the main terms usedin this chapterare clarified. These are evaluation, assessment, measurement, andtesting. Evaluation and assessment are used interchangeably in this text to denote the general process of appraisal. Measurement and testing are subsumed under the generalclassifications ofevaluation and assessment.

Measurementis the meansofdetermining the degreeof achievementof a particular com-

petency. Testing is the use ofinstruments for measuring achievement. Thus, measurement and testing are ways ofgathering evaluation and assessmentdata. However,there are means otherthan testing to assess student performance. When assessing a student's performanceof a competency,

221

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 ofinstruction 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 modelfor curriculum development, that Component IX on the selection of evaluation techniquesis divided into two parts: IX A, Preliminaryselection

ofevaluation techniques, and TX B, Final selection ofevaluation techniques.This separation was madeto conveythe understanding that planningofevaluation techniquestakes place both before andafter instruction. However, this dualistic separationis an oversimplificationas teachers should

alwaysbe 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 Developmentfor standards and evidence based instructional plan devel-

opment showsthe developmentof formative and summative evaluationatthe point the success criteria are determined. Thisis an importantdifferencein the models to providefor 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 alignmentofthe instructionalstrategies and studentlearning tasksto be selected.

Three Phases of Teacher Developed Evaluation

Whetherteachers plan instruction collaboratively with colleagues or not, the same encouragementto 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 samestandards orlearning targets have proficiency measured with the same $ ments. If this concept is applied, then comparisons among groups of students can be made,

student work samples examined, and teachers can assist one anotherin improving their teaching effectiveness.

Mostteachersincorporate three phases ofevaluation in one manneror 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 improvestudent learning outcomes and assessment of instruction is summative, demonstrating a students progress towards mastery of the intended learning outcome.

PREASSESSMENT. Preassessment possesses a dual nature. Walter Dick and Lou Carey (1985) described twotypes 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”

124 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess Writing unit plans is common practice amongteachers and continuesto bring together various standards or objectives to be learned. Thegestaltists pointed outthatthe learners achieve insight when they discern relationships

among elementsofa given situation. The gestaltists encourage inquiry to sharpen the skill of insight. Both the experimentalists and gestaltists agreethat the closer content to be mastered is to real life situations and thecloser problemsare to the previous experiencesof the learner, the morelikelihood thereis for successful mastery of the learning targets.

PERCEPTUAL PSYCHOLOGY. Of more recent vintage, perceptual psychology focused onthe devel-

opment of the learner's self-concept. The goal of the perceptualists is the development of the selfactualizing orfully functioning personality. AbrahamH. 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... actualization of these latent capacities and potentialities, “full functioning.”availabilityof the human and personal essence; and (b) minimal presence ofill 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 whofeel positive about themselves. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) listed “four characteristics of the perceptualfield

which alwaysseem to underlie the behavior oftruly adequate persons” (p. 51). These four char-

acteristics are: (a) a positive view ofthe self, (b) identification with others, (c) openness to experience and acceptance, and (d) possession ofa 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

developa positive conceptof themselves and to dealwith both their perceptions of the world and the world asit is. The perceptualist maintainsthatit is more important to know howthe learner

perceives the facts or their world than what the facts of a given situation are. The perceptualists

emphasize dealing with people’s perceptionsofthe world around them.

Anindividual's positive or negative feeling of adequacy or inadequacy can often be

attributed to other people's perceptions. Ifa studentistold by a parentthat he orshe is a weakling, the student may agree thatit is so. If a studentis told by teachers that he or she has an artistic

talent, the student may seekto develop thatability. If a student is told that he or she is a poor reader, lacksaptitude for mathematics, or is short on musical talent, the students may accept

these perceptions and internalize them. The studentis exemplifying then whatis referred to in the literature asthe self-fulfilling prophecy. Students may believe what adultsor authoritiestell them and act on those beliefs. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) described howthe self-conceptis

learnedin the following passage.

People learn who they are and what theyare 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 fromthe kinds ofexperiences 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 thesethings, not from being told so, but only through the experience ofbeing treatedas 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)

224

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

actions in the illustration?” Students selected from several choices. Howdo 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 noruse the academic language ofthe standard and

yet students were measured based on their knowledge ofthe 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, teachersintervene as needed so that differentiationtakesplace for morestudents to achieve proficiency and moreto 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 morefrequently students are tested and if they receive feedback about accuracies and inaccuracies, followed by correction of their misconceptions, thereis a high probability that they will learn more and perform well on the related summative

evaluation. Thisscience oflearning principle is named the testingeffect (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 orposttestis the assessmentthat takesplace 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 purposeis to find out whetherthe students have mastered or achieved proficiency onthe standardsor learning targets ofthe preceding instruction. The same precepts about development of formative assessments with alignment tothe 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 ofthe steps towardsproficiency students need to be retaught and who is ready to go beyond the standard. Readers may wonder aboutdifferentiating assessments for learners. Tomlinson and Moon (2013) advocate for differentiation ofinstruction 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 whichthey can doit the best. While this thinkingis logical, it may work best for non-accountability assessment objectives, or schools that do nottake 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 ofturmoil in a

particularregion ofthe world, that could be very motivating and an exceptional opportunity using the student's strengths. Onthe other hand,ifitemsrelatedto regions ofthe world in turmoil are included on an end ofcourse 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 differentiationis the time,instructionalstrategies, resources, and student-

teacher ratio and not the expectation: ndards, or learning targets. Having offered this caveat, if time permitsfor studentsto generate understanding using their strengths and then transfer the strengthsto using language in written form as may be found on accountability assessments, the

ble learning and demonstration of learning mayoccur.

Chapter 11 * Evaluation ofInstruction

NORM-REFERENCED MEASUREMENT AND CRITERION-REFERENCED MEASUREMENT Norm-Referenced Measurement Twodivergent concepts of measurement competeforthe attention ofinstructors. Norm-referenced measurement is the classic approach to assessment in which a student's performance on a test

is compared to the performance of otherstudents who tookthetest. Following this principle, standardized tests of achievementare administered and norms—standardsofperformance—are calculatedforvarious groups who took the tests. The scores made bystudents who subsequently take the tests are compared to those made by the population on whom the test was standardized or normed.

As an example, teachersfollowthe same principle if they measure the achievement of one

student against orin relationship to that ofotherstudentsin a class or course. As a general example ofthis approach to measurement, the teacher will administera test, calculate the scores, rank the scores fromhighest to lowest, find the middle score (the median, which becomes a C grade), and then grade all othertestsin relationship to that middle grade. In this nonstandardized situation,

studentsare ranked in relationship to performance of thatparticular group onthat particulartest. standard Standardized normed tests sort students, rather than measure each performance agai orcriteria to be achieved. Readers should not interpret thatthis practice of ranking students around the median in 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 otherapproach is there?” Criterion-referenced measurementis the alternative to norm-referenced measurement. In this approach,the performanceof studentsis compared to criteria or specifications that were established in the standards or instructional objectives/

ona criterion-referencedtest depends on demonstrated prolearning targets. À student's success ficiency and not on his or her performanceas related to othersin the class, course, grade, school, school district, or state. ments are criterion-referenced assessmentsas they are standards based. The CCSS as standards havespecificationsthat guide the development ofthe assessment items and should

also guide the developmentof the associated instruction. If you link instruction to assessment, then criterion-referenced assessmentis recommendedfor teacher made classroom assessments.

Amongthe practitioners of criterion-referenced measurementare the instructional-design These persons desire specialists and the schooldistrict, state, and national assessmentspecialists.

to know whether studentsachieve proficiency on specific standards. High-stakes accountability assessments are classic examples ofcriterion-referenced exams. The National Center for the

ImprovementofEducational 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, schooldistricts, and organizations. Comparison of the Two Types of Measurement Popham (2002) identified “the most fundamentaldifference” between norm-referenced me: mentand criterion-referenced measurementapproaches to educational measurementas the nature of the interpretation thatis used to make sense out of students’ test performance(pp. 110-111). With norm-referenced measurement, educators interpret a student’s performance inrelation to

225

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 becauseit hinges on the extent to which the criterion assessment domain represented bythetest, sectionsof the test, and items are achieved by the student. Onthesurface, norm-referencedtests look nodifferent from criterion-referencedtests. Popham (1973) saw differences in the constructionofitemsfor the two typesoftests as a matterofset:

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 variantscoresso that individual performance

be contrasted.

He disdainsitems which

are “too easy”or “too hard.” He avoids multiple choiceitems with fewalternativeresponses.

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.. . . Thecriterion-referenced item designeris guided by a different principle. His chief purpose is to make sure the itemaccurately 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 twoapproachesas shown in Table 11.1. One ofthe comparisons in the tableis level ofdifficulty of the items, which McMillan TABLE 11.1

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

Interpretation

Norm-Referenced

(Standards Based)

Score compared to the performances of

Score comparedto predetermined standards and criteria Percentagecorrect; descriptive performance standards

other students

Nature of Score

Difficulty ofTest Items

Criterion-Referenced

Percentile rank; standard scores; grading

curve

Usesaverageto difficult itemsto obtain

spread of scores; very easy and very difficult

Uses averageto easyitemsto result in a high percentage of correct answers

items notto be used

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 studentsto meet specified

Strengths Weaknesses

Results in more difficult assessments that challenge students Grades determined by comparisonto other students; some students are always at the bottom

learning target Matches student performance to

clearly definedlearning targets; lessens

competitiveness

Establishing clearly definedlearning targets; setting standards that indicate mastery

Source: From J. H. McMilla Classroomassessment: Principles practicesfor effective standards-basedinstruction (2007). Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Chapter 11 * Evaluation of Instruction

indicatesare easierin thecriterion-referenced itemsto show morestudents being successful. In the CCSS related assessments thisis notthe case. The items on these assessmentsare to the specifications ofthe standardsandthereforethe challenge is dependentuponthelevelof rigor of the standard, with nointent to makeitems easy. The model of curriculum,instruction, and assessmentin this text is for

alignmentof the learningintention/rigor and academiclanguageacrossall components ofthe system. Tn 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 ofstandardized tests in the schoolor the use of norm-referenced teacher-madetests for the purposes they can fulfill. It does eliminate the use of a norm-centered

approach to classroomtesting that permits teachers to adopt a misconceived philosophy ofthe normalcurveandto generate scoresthat reflect a normaldistribution of grades ranging from A through F onevery test. Such practice violates the philosophy of the normalcurve, which holds that traits are distributed at random throughoutthe general population and nosingleclassis a

random sampleof the general population. Therefore, to hold A grades to a mere handful, to assign

somestudents automatically Fs, to grant a certain percentage of Bs and Ds, and to assign about

two-thirds of a class to the so-called averageor C gradeis not a defensible practice. Becauseof 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 parentsinvite the kinds of comparisons that are made under a norm-referenced system. Amongthe proponents of norm-referencedtesting are standardized test makers, those who advocate competitive grading, those who havea needto screen orselect persons (for example, college admissions officers), those who draw up honorrolls, admission committees of honorary societies, and those who awardscholarships. Norm-referencedtesting is necessary when a limited

number of placesareto be filled from a pool ofapplicants in excess of the number of places and whenonlya limited numberofawardsare to be distributed among a group ofaspirants. Its purpose

is to discriminate among the results ofthe individuals.

Ifyou consider the analogy ofthe smiling or frowning face, the norm-referenced advocate frowns

whenall students pass an exam becauseit does notdiscriminate between high and low achievers. The criterion-referenced advocate wears a broad smile when all students pass an examor 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,theaffective, and the psychomotor. Although an instructional objective may possess elements of more than one domain, ordinarily it will exhibit the primary cha

of one

ofthe three domains. Given that instructional objectives may notfall 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 domainare best evaluated byactual performanceofthe skill being taught. For example, you wantstudentstobe able to swim100 yards without stopping, they are required to demonstrate the expertise. More criteria or specifications may be needed, suchas to swim 100 yards in x numberof minutes. To pass the test, students would haveto satisfy thatcriterion.

②②⑦

228

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

Teachers make some judgmental calls when students are askedto demonstrate perceptual-

motorskills. Form and grace might be consideredin the 100-yard swim as well as completion or

speed of completion. Evaluative judgments, usually with criteria based rubrics, are made when studentsare asked to demonstrate the ability to make a mobile in art class, to design a website in a web-designclass,to create a balanced menu in a nutritionclass, to model an overhead volleyball serve in a physical education class, or to administerartificial respiration in the first-aid course.

Beyondthe simple dichotomy, performance or nonperformance (pass fail, satisfactory unsatisfactory), ofa skill assessment lie such factorsas speed,originality, and quality. The teacher may choose to includethese criteria as part of the assessment process. When judgmental criteria are to be used, they should be communicated to the students in advanceto create clear learning

targets and a mental modelofsuccess.Theteacher will find it helpful to identify as many indicators ofthecriteria as possible. For example, in the case of the mobile made in art class,indicators

ofquality 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-motorskill, but thatis not the correct way to measure performance.

Ideally, psychomotorskills should be tested by actual performance. Because oflack oftime or facilities,it is not alwayspossiblefor every student to demonstrate every skill. For example, studentsin homearts are workingtogether and may have baked an apple pic. A final examination item might be, “List the steps you wouldtake in making an apple pie.” Although notsatisfactory from a pedagogical point of view, recounting steps demonstrates knowledge, but not application

nor performance.

TEST ITEMS OF THE PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN.

Here are examples oftest itemsfor each of the

seven major categories of the Simpson (1972) taxonomyof 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 havea perfect alignment betweenthe objectives and the test items. On the other hand, take the following psychomotorobjective: “Objective for high school physical education: The student will demonstrate skill in swimming.” Is this objective at the same timea test

item? This objective is broad, complex, and without stipulated degree ofmastery. Although it is an objective desired by the physical education instructor,it is difficult to convert intoa test item asit 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 ofInstruction

+ do thefreestyle; and + swim underwater the width of the pool. Theinstructor might limit appraisal ofthe students’ performance in theseskillsto satisfactory or

unsatisfactory.

Achievement in the cognitive domain is ordinarily demonstrated in school by student performance on writtentests 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 acrossthe six levels of the Bloom taxonomyof the cognitive domain, using variouskindsofitems. 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 orinstructional objective, but notat all six levels. For example, if the standardsaysto identify the main idea of text, then the standard and assessment would be at the knowledgelevel. On the other hand,ifthe standard said to analyze the text and determine the authors purpose, the instruction and assessment should beat 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 performanceass ent 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 conventionsof grammar. Thespecifications orcriteria for the standard

or objective determine the depth and breadth ofboth 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 CCSSrelated assessments students are expected to generate responsesand demonstrate thinking at Webb's Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels 3 and 4 thatrequire analysis, synthesis, and complex thought (Herman & Linn, 2014). Level 1 itemsrequire recall and com-

prehension andlevel 2 items are applications and analysis, such

to infer.

Thefollowing sample test items show ways that several objectives in the cognitive domain

(Bloom,et al., 1956) can be assessed. You maynotice that even though the examplesare within a

level on Bloom's taxonomy,there maybe pre-requisite knowledge,skills, or proficiency required suchas writing. 1. Knowledge(recall)

List three systemsofthe human body.

o み ト ぃ

ち

Whatis the capital ofyourstate? Completethe story sequence graphic organizer. Multiple Choice: 4 divided by '

229

230

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

2. Comprehension (understanding)

Summarize the author's point of view.

Accordingtothe first paragraph on page two, what is meant whena personsays,

“Now you've opened Pandora's box”?

Multiple Choice: A catamaranisa —

a. lynx

b. boat e. 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 offigurative language by Tennyson, supported by evidence from the poem.

Generate three methods for solving this word problem and distinguishattributes 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 ofdigital tools for communication has developed at a rapid

rate. In three sentences synthesizethehistory ofthe developmentof digitaltoolsfor

communication. 6. Evaluation

Evaluate the author's use of figurative language, based on the criteria of improving comprehension and developing interest. Evaluate the methodsfor comingto group de ons, based onefficiency and quality

ofdecisions. Judge the efficiency ofthe three methodsfor solving the equation that you generated,

basedoncriteria of accuracy and efficiency.

As you glance overthe sampleitems, be sure to notice the academic language in the

items

and the alignment to standards. You will most likely reflect that the most commonlevels of cog-

nition incorporated byteachers you observe are at the two lowest levels, although assessments have progressed to include moreitemsatthe application through evaluation levels. The mismatch in teacher made assessmentitems and the expectation of the standards can accountforless than acceptable performance on accountability assessments.

Note thatin the evaluation levelthere are criteria given upon which to evaluate (Taylor, Wa n, & Nutta, 2014). Also, it may beofinterest that items requiring written responsesare speci so thatthe students can meet the expectation and not guessat how much to write. The types oftestitems selected depend onthe standard asthe specifications generally provide clarity for how to measure proficiency. The type of item may also depend uponthe teacher's

128 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess leadto student learning and have soughtto producea standard product(pp. 16-17). She held that factory-model schools erectbarriers 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 educationis only one thatis tied to economic needs (but,

of course, onlyasthese needs are defined by the powerful)” (p. 5). Notingthat democratic ideals have long beenfeatured in schoolreform, Jean Anyon questionedtheir adequacy in the restructuring of urban schools. Anyon (1997) arguedthat “until the economic and political systems in which the cities are enmeshed are themselves transformed so they may be more democratic and productivefor urban residents, educational reformershavelittle

chance ofeffecting 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 professorsof curriculum, has expressed concern aboutthe hidden curriculum, the valuesthat are not directly taught but thatchildren nevertheless experience in school. These values include the rules studentslive by,their relationships

with peers and adults in the school, and the values embedded in the content of theirstudies. The reconceptualists argue for fundamental changes in curriculum and instruction. Some

view curriculum developmentas outdated andofferin 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 reconceptualtheorists:

Thereconceptualists tend to concern themselves with the internal and existential experience ofthe 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 1975that reconceptualists constituted 3 to 5 percentofall curriculum theorists.

Another 60 to 80 percent were what Pinarcalled traditionalists, whose primary mission is guidingpractitioners in the schools. The others were conceptual empiricists, whose interestslie in the behavioral sciences, of which the curriculum is one. Although percentages for each ofthese three groups may vary somewhat, observation ofthe current curriculum scene leadsto the conclusion thatthe “traditiona till constitutethelargest group,followed by the “conceptual empiricists,

with the “reconceptualists” composingthe smallest. Pinar, Reynolds, Stattery, and Taubman (1995) saw reconceptualization

asstill underemphasizedin traditional curriculumtextbooks (p. 17).

CRITICAL THEORY.

In discussing the reconceptualization ofthe 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 playsin sustaining thoseinjustices, for example, in “tracking, vocational education, special

education, and teacher education” (Giroux, 1993, p. 4). Nell Noddings (1995) explained, “From

232

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

apparent. Teachers can spot them and ifneeded, 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

thestudents helpful at home? Do they protect the environment? Dothey respect other people? Whocan tell for sure without observing the behavior? Students may profess to behave in certain

waysto please the teacheror others and then turn around and behave fardifferently outside

the classroom. Following the Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) taxonomy of the affective domain, review someaffective objectives that contain ways for evaluating achievement.

* Receiving. The student expresses an awareness offriction among various student groups in the school. Responding. The student volunteersto serve on a school culture committee in the school.

Valuing. Thestudentexpresses a desire to achieve a positive schoolculture. Organization. The student controls his or her temperin class. Characterization by Value or Value Complex. The student expresses and exemplifiesin his or her behavior a positive outlook onlife. (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964)

ASSESSMENT ITEMS OF THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN. The model of an agree or disagree attitude

inventory is a meansfrequently used to determine achievementof affective objectives. These types of questions reveal a basic problem in teaching foraffective learning. If the teacheror test maker has preconceived notionsof the correct responses, he or sheis operating in a vague zone

between achievementofaffective outcomes and indoctrination. Further, rememberthat students can and sometimes do respond to attitudinal questions asthey believe the teacher or test maker

wishesthem to respond,rather than asthey feel or perceive.

The attainmentofaffective objectives can be discerned by instruments such as opinionnaires

or attitude inventories, by observation ofthe behaviorofstudents,and by questionsor art work that ask studentstostate theirbeliefs, attitudes, and feelings about a giventopic. Perhaps, instead ofthinking of using instruments that seek to discover students” attitudes and values through an accumulation of items administered test-fashion, think more ofasking frequent value-laden questions and listeningto students’ responses. Instead ofleveling a continuous barrage of factual

questions, teachers can interject questions such as: How do you feel about believe about. . . ? Would you be interested in . . . ? Take a postion for or again:

What do you

PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT Students can demonstrate achievement both during and at the end of instruction through means

other than typical examinationsortests. For example, synthesisin the cognitive domain can be tested by means ofwriting paragraphs, completing graphic organizers, or many other ways depending uponthe specificationsofthe standard orthe learning target. Competencyin syntheg can alsobetested by written reports during the period of instruction or by papersat the

including testing the ability to speak, knowledge ofthe subject, and, in the case of group activities, the ability to work together. Alternative techniques ofevaluation other than examina-

s include studentlogs, reports, essays, notebooks, simulations, demonstrations, construction

activities, self-evaluation, and portfolios.

Chapter 11 * Evaluation ofInstruction

Manyteachers employ practices collectively known as performance, performance based, or authentic assessment, basically a personalized approach to demonstration of prespecified out-

comes. In discussing performance assessment Popham (2006, p. 243) distinguished betweenthe terms authentic assessment(real-life tasks) and alternative assessment (alternativesto traditional

paper-and-pencil testing at that time).

Some advocates of performancebased assessment would substitute authentic measures for

typical teacher-made and standardized tests. Others would supplementtraditional testing with

alternative techniques. Horace's Schoolas 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 “poorpredictors of how students will perform in othersettings” and “unable to provideinformation about whystudentsscore asthey do,” Linda Darling-Hammond(1995) criticized standardizedtestsfor not providing “information about how

children tackle different tasks or whatabilities they relyonin their problem-solving” (p. 7). An example of a widely practiced form ofalternative assessmentis the use of portfolios to

show evidenceofstudent accomplishmentby assembling samplesoftheir work.Portfolios may

contain creative writings,tests, artwork, reflective essays, notes on topics, and whatever other

materials portray achievement. Portfolios containing a generous samplingofstudents” work can reduce the pressure from testing. Portfolios, unlike standardized tests, are judged by qualitative

rather than quantitative means. Portfolios have the advantage ofbeing able to include evidence from all three domains and are

used regularly in the non-core subjects,like art, music, and dance.

Onthepositiveside, portfolios tie in directly with content studied in a class. They offer a means ofinforming parents and caregivers of the accomplishments of students. They provide an opportunity for studentsto assess their own performance. Further, they can evoke a feeling of pride on the part ofstudents whose portfolios are done well. On the negative side are the disadvantageof the lack ofreliability in grading and the time required forteachersto evaluate individual portfolios. Subjective and objective factors such as completeness, number ofitems, quality, neatness, attractiveness, effort, relevance, individuality, and creativity may enter evaluation. Like other productsthat reflect achievement, standards or cri-

teria should be set in a rubric or grading system thatis easy for studentsto understand and apply. Qualitati ment, often called holisti sment, has appealed to many

teachers in recent years. Teachers who assessstudents creative efforts such as essays and portfolios lookatthe productin its entirety, gaining impressions of quality while eschewing analyticaltreatment of grammar,style, spelling, syntax, and sentence structure. Teachers who as: holistically believe that analytical treatmentof a student's work discourages furthereffort on the student's part.

Performancebased principlesofassessment may affect not only homework and grading of student work but also the grading systemitself. Glasser (1992) would not place Cs, Ds, or Fs on a students permanent transcript, in effect, eliminating symbols of failure. A+, A, and B would attest to quality performance. Students who doless 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 theposition that “a single lettergrade or a percentage score is not a good wayto report achievement in any subject area, because it simply cannot present the level of detailed feedback necessaryforeffective learning”(p. 106). Describing analternative report card with no overall grade, Marzano (2000) admitted that “overall letter grades or percentage

233

234

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

scores are so ingrained in our society thatit is best not to do away with them atthis time” (p. 109). Instead, he recommended “aninterim step: à report card that includes scores on standards

along with overall grades” (Marzano, 2000, p. 109). The presenceof alternative assessment measuresis testimonyto conflicting conceptionsof evaluation and, indeed, ofschooling itself. Heated debate overtesting, coupled with controversy overthe setting of standards, centers around the issue of whetheror not to continueto 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 achieve-

ment. Using the data from assessmentsto inform instructional decisionsis the purpose for class-

room 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 effectivenessforthe standardsor objectives measured.

Even ifoverall 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 assessmentincreases, but the variance remains the same. In other words, morestudents are more successful but there continuesto be a wide variation in achievement with some

students not making expected progress towardsproficiency. Data analysis at the classroom level should focus on each individual making progress and not on the mean or general increase alone.

The goalis to raise the mean and reducethe varianceif in fact the achievement is to increase and close any achievementgaps that exist.

Maybethe instructional goals and objectives are too low:students may have been capable of achieving higher levels of thinking (Bloom, et al., 1956) or more complexthinking (Webb, 2007). Ifa test was administered,the test itself may not have been valid—maynot have measured

the standard or objective asit was written. The items may have beentoo low level or too high

level, or they may not have measured the essential objectives. At the implementation stage, the instructor may have omitted somecrucial points and therebyleft some objectives unachieved. The

results of evaluation provide evidence for making changesin theinstructional process if analyzed. Asteachers gather feedback on student progress, it is then beneficial to use for providing students feedback on their progress. When feedback on individualstudent performance and progressis used as an instructional strategy, Tomlinson and Moon (2013) refertoassessment as instruction. Furthermore,there is continual scientific evidencethat testing has positive effect on laterlearning and retrieval from long-term memory, when teachers orsoftware 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

(d

ssment asinstruction through feedback students develop metacognition

.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 closeto the studentlearning task, specific about what was done correctly and why the workis correct, what is incorrect and howto makeit correct (Pahler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005; Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). According to Wiliam (2011) feedback as described is much more motivational and helpful to improvelearning than any

Chapter 11 + Evaluation ofInstruction

grade or comment. Developingself-regulation among learnersthrough feedback,buildingtheir

confidence in their owndecision 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 sessionsfordiscussion ofthe progressall studentsare making towards proficiency in each classroom andto support each teacher's continued improvementin effectiveness (Taylor, 2010). Data and evidence analysis at the classroom level

is the precursorto cumulative data analysis at the grade or course level, the school level, and the schooldistrict level. Adjustments informed by the data and evidence at the classroom level improvethe larger cumulative data results. Once there is summative data, it is too late to make

adjustmentsin learning for a cohort of students. Susan Brookhart (2008) sums up thinking on feedback by pointing out that it plays an importantrole in serving students’ cognitive and motivational needs.If done right, “good feedback gives students information they need so they can understand where they arein their learning and whatto do next—the cognitive factor. Oncethey feel they understand whatto do and why, most students developa feeling that they have control over their own learning—the motivationalfac-

tor” (Brookhart, 2008,p. 2.).

AssessmentInitiatives Beyond the School SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT).

The Scholastic AchievementTest (SAT) helpsto

predict students” successin college. Established in 1947 bythe Educational Testing Service, more than 1.7 million students took the SAT in 2017 (College Board, 2017). Duetoits popularity, the SATis now used by over 6,000 membercolleges and universities worldwide in the admissions

process.

As of 2017, the essayis now optional and the scoring has returned to a 1600-point scale.

Depending on the admissionscriteria that are establishedatthe institution, the essay may be taken

into consideration foracceptance.

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

alternativeto the SAT,the ACT is widely accepted by four-year colleges and universities à administered globally to students who wantto attend college and universities in the USA. The

ACT hasa core philosophy aligned to a set of ACT College and Career Readiness Standards and to supportingstudents to be college and career ready. The number of high schoolseniors taking the ACT hassteadily increased and in 2016 it was almost 2.1 million or 64 percent ofthe graduating class

in the USA (ACT, 2(

s students by helping them to determine pro-

gramsof 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 ofthe 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 goalofthe establishment of NAEP was to monitor achievement in 10 learning areas and toassess change in achievement

235

236

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

overthe years. Information gathered from NAEP was then to be reviewed and used by policy-

makers to institute changein 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 administratorof 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 studentsare chosen to test from between 45to 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 andstate results is

issued to the public after each assessment. NAEP reports national scores of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Dataare reported by gender,race/ethnicity, region of the country, parents” highest level of education, type of school, type oflocation, andeligibility forfree/reduced-price school

lunch programs. In addition to reporting data on a nationwidebasis, NAEP conductsand reports state assessment data forthose states participatingin the program. Advocates of nationalassessmentsargue that national testing will require schools throughout the nation to examine their instructional techniques and curricula, particularly the basic disciplines, and totake action to correct deficiencies revealed by the results. This argument was behind the federal funding of the developmentof two CCSS assessmentsin the Raceto the Topinitiative. While somestates have based their accountability assessmenton the two models, there remains

no onenational assessmentthat all studentstake. Those who oppose national assessment argue that nationaltesting will result in a national, commoncurriculumthat cannot adequately provide fordifferencesthat exist among schools and amongstudents in various communities. Onebenefit that can be gained for curriculum developers and data analysts would be that they could make comparisons of theirlocal andstate assessmentdata against national norms. At this time, within schooldistrict comparisons and within state comparisons are possible on state accountability

assessments, but not necessarily on the NAEPnor othertests that students maytake. International Assessments

Sincethe Pilot Twelve-Country Study was conducted from 1959 to 1962, the United States has participated in international assessmentsof student achievement. The purpose ofthe Pilot TwelveCountry Study was to determine the feasibility of conducting a much larger-scale examination that would produceresults that could be used to improve instruction on a multinational basis. Conducted bythe International Associationforthe Evaluation of Educational Achievement(IEA),

the initial study hasled to an aggressive effort to gatherdata in a variety ofinstructional areasso that teaching and learning can be improved cross-culturally (NCES.gov.) s, information on the Third International Mathematic: Of the many internationala and Science Study (TIMSS) is shared dueto its comprehensive nature, its breadth of data collec-

tion, and its four-year cycle of implementation. Also, information is presented onthe Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) due to its cyclical nature,the large participation of countriesthroughout the world, and its emphasis on rea

TIMSS. The TIMSS has

served as the most comprehensivestudy ofits

kind since 1995, when

morethan ahalf million students were tested in 41 countries, including some 33,000 in public and

Chapter 6 + Philosophy and Aims of Education ⑬① EXAMPLES OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES

Scan the three examples of educational philosophies. One is based onthat ofa large urban school

district, Des Moines Public Schools, in Iowa (Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2), anotheris the statement of mission and beliefs of a school in a smaller community in Statesboro, Georgia, public schools (Table 6.3), andthethird is that of an online schoolin the Florida Virtual School (FLVS)

(Table 6.4). Increasingly common in addition to statementsof philosophy are statements of mission and specificationsof aims or goals and subgoals. In these examples, you will notice references to democratic concepts,to respect for the

individual, and to the necessity ofproviding programsto develop the student in all his or her

capacities. Although some may fault the style or prose ofa given philosophy, keepin mind the purposeof thestatement, to communicate to professionals and the public the beliefs held by the personnel of a school ora schoolsystem. A philosophy servesits purpose whensignificant beliefs are successfully communicated. From beliefs about education, schooling, learning, and society, specialists can proceed to subsequentsteps ofthe curriculum development process. Component I of the Oliva model for

curriculum developmentcalls for a statementof educational aims and philosophy. In respectto aims of education, curriculum specialists should:

* be aware that educational aimsare 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 andselect fromthosestatements,revisingasthey deemneces-

sary, the aims ofeducation that they find acceptable; and * draw up a statement ofeducational 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 respectto the philosophical dimension of Component I in the Oliva model, curriculum specialists should:

« identify major beliefs ofleading schools ofeducational philosophy + analyze statements of philosophy and identify the schools to which theybelong; 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 studentsforlife by challenging each oneto achieverigorous standards in academics,arts, andcareer preparation Belief Statement. Public education is imperative to support and sustain a diverse democratic

society. Tothis end, webelieve:

All students can and mustlearn. Schools must meetthe uniquelearning needs of each oftheir students.

The home,school, and community mustserve and support one another. Teaching andlearning require a healthy,safe, and orderly environment.

Resources and servicesare essential for effective instruction. All staff must continue to learn, and all schools must continue to improve.

238

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

The USA participates in several internationalstudies that assist policy makers in setting

goals, funding research, and funding targeted grant proposal opportunities for higher education

andschooldistricts. While the internationally testedstudentsin the USA perform competitively, manyinterpret the data within the context and philosophy ofschooling in the USA. Thatis, in the USA all students are expected to achieve and with that expectation those assessed are representative and not sortedpriorto assessment administration.Thisphilosophy of supporting all students to achieve at high levels may not beeither a philosophy nor a practice in other countries who

appear to perform well. The historical discussion that follows may provide other perspectives for understanding theinternational testing implications.

Historical and Contextual Perspectives Those whointerpret the data can fault the philosophy, the process, and the findings. They cansingle out positive or negative aspectsto 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 ofthe previously proclaimed America 2000 goal of having our students rank first in the world in mathematics and science.

Gerald W. Bracey (2002) cautioned against comparingresultsstudents made on assessments conducted by one organization with those of another organization’s assessment results. In particular, he singled out the National Assessmentfor Educational Progress, whosetest results he held to

be invalid and not according withtestresults ofother organizations. Giving examples, hestated:

American 9-year-oldsfinished second in the world in reading among 27 nations in Howin

the World DoStudents Read? [IEA study, 1991] Yet only 32% offourth-graders were judged proficient orbetter in the 2000 NAEP reading assessment. Similarly, American fourth-graders were third in the world on the TIMSSscience [1995], but only 13% were judged proficient or better on the 1996 NAEPscience 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 whereasthe scoresof 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 scoresof studentsin 12 ofthe nations declined in science, those of American eighth-graders rose

(Bracey, 2006, p. 156). In his first report on the condition ofpublic education, Bracey (1991) speaking of “the big lie aboutpublic education”—commented, “[international] comparisons have generated much heat,

butvery little light” (р. 113). Braceylater maintained there are difficulties in making comparisons. For example,in 2006,students from the USA ranked 24 out ofthe 30 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations in mathematics and 17 out of 30 in science. In

determiningthe ranking, Bracey points out that ourscoresare based on national average. The average does not paint the full picture, becausein the USAall students goto schoolandare tested; therefore they are included in data, and if the USA wereto report only highest-scoring students on the sciencetest, they would account for 25 percent ofthe highest studentsin the world followed by Japan with 13 percent (Bracey, 2009). International assessments reveal how difficult it is to make comparisonsof student achievement across cultures and to account for variations. Differences among nations that may affect scores include curricula,instructionalstrategies,political and social conditions, length ofschool

year, time allocated tostudiesin school and at home, proportion ofyoung people in school,

Chapter 11 + Evaluation ofInstruction

239

numberof students perteacher, motivation of students, dedication ofparents to education, and traditions. ‘Whether from international or other assessments, test scores do signalstrengths and weak-

nesses. Theyprovide data upon which to triangulate with other evidencesfor hypothesizing next

steps and priorities for curriculum development. Summary

In thepast, evaluating instruction was generally per-

exam, or end of course exam. Formative and summa-

ceived to take place at the end of the instructional process. With standards based curriculum, the stan-

an individual or teamsof teachers, or byan educa-

dardsandtheir 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 evaluationsatthe time they identify their successcriteria for the standard or learning target. With a system of standards orinstructional objectives that develop from grade to grade and course to course, teachers have someinsight into the proficiencies students have

when they begin the school year. This assumption

tive assessments may be developed commercially, by tional 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 stu-

dent’s achievementis 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-referencedtests are used to determine whether students achieved the

is based on stability of the students, teachers, and administrators within the school and may not hold

objectivesthat were specified in advance. The majorpurpose of evaluating instruction is

true in contexts with high mobility of these populations. Preassessments that are easy to administer to

to determine whetheror not students accomplished

determinestudents prior knowledge are helpful to inform instructional decision making.

Evaluationthat takes place during the process

of instructionis referred to as formative or monitor-

ing and provides important evidence and data for

reteaching, accelerating, and/or providing additional

learning experiences through various modes. Summative evaluationis evaluation that comes at the end of instruction, as representedin a final examination, unit

the objectives.Instructorsshould keep in mind that there are numerous techniques otherthan 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 ofevidence

and data,teachers revise instruction, resources, time,

and pedagogy. Evaluation is perceived as a continuousprocess.

Application

and language within the assessment? How will

ments. Examine 1. Gather several formative a: theclarity of written directions and alignment of the items to the target standard or instructional

data to determine at which learning point indi-

tional leader, how will you assure that the stan-

vidual students had misconceptions and were derailed?

the assessment instructions, rigor demonstrated,

2. Interview several teachers and ask them to show their classroom data and how they have adjusted

objective to which they relate. As an instruc-

dardsor instructional objectives are aligned with

you assure that teachers know how to analyze the

240

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

instructional decisions and/or differentiated instruction based on the data and evidence. How did these data change ornot changeas a result

ofthe 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

2. Asan instructional leader, how do youinfluence

assessment and how each canbe used to enhance

appropriate development and implementation of

extent in yourstate, school district, or school

assessments, followed by use of assessment data to inform instructionaldecisions?

learning. Which are incorporated and to what accountability system for student learning?

Additional Resources

Invest Videos of Model Classrooms and Coaching: www. lipscomb.edu/ayers/invest/ These resources are excellent models ofteaching, leading, and ofcoachingin various classrooms, gradelevels, 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 assessmentstrategies Jor everyclassroom: An ASCDaction 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 TheNations Report Card—National Assessment of Educational Progress: http://nationsreportcardgov

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., 4 Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomyfor learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision ofBloom's taxonomyof educational objectives New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retentionof 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). Taxonomyof educational objectives: Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKa Bookhart, 5. M. (2008). Howto give effective feedbackto your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2009). Educational testing and measurement: Classroomapplication andpractice (9th ed.). Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Chapter 11 + Evaluation ofInstruction

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

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 oftest development (Chapter 8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

References

ACT (2016). The condition ofcollege and career readiness 2016. Retrieved from act.org Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) et al. (1956). Taxonomyof educational objectives: The classificationofeducational 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 12* Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 135-140. doi:10.1177/003172170208400209 Bracey. G. W. (2006). The 16“ 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* Bracey reporton the condition ofpublic education. doi:10.1177/003172170208400209 Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Howto give effectivefeedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. (2008). Finding balance:

Assessmentin 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 ofschools 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 naive assessment constructors” strategies foritem selection. JournalofTeacher 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 tyrannyof testing. New York, NY: Crowell-Collier. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Maasia, B. B. (1964).

Taxonomyofeducationalobjectives, the classification of educationalgoals: Handbook II, affective domain.

White Plains, NY: Longmans.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroomgrading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-

riculum Development.

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the

classroom. European Journal ofCognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 494-513. Mullis,I. V. S. (2012). Profiles ofachievement across reading, mathematics andscience at 4th grade. Boston, MA:

Boston College.Retrieved 1.11.17 from rimssan.dpirls

-bc.edu National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Whar is NAEP? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neill, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Lead-

ership, 60(5), 45.

Ogle, D. (February, 1986). K-W-L: A teaching modelthat

developsactivereading in expositorytext. The Reading

Teacher, 36), 564-570. Pahler, H., Cepeda,J. T., Wixted,J. T., & Rohrer, D.(2005). When doesfeedback facilitate learning of words? Jour-

nal ofExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, &

Cognition, 31, 3-8.

Popham, W. J. (1973). Evaluating instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroomassessment: Whatteachers need to know. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

242

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessmentfor educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Resnick. D. P: (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. ReviewofResearch 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 classificationof educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the Americanhigh school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Snow, C.. & O'Conner, C. (2013). Close reading and far reaching classroomdiscussion: Fostering vital connec-

brieffrom the literacyresearch 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 andscience study. We ington DC:National Centerfor Education Statistics. Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leading learning: Change student achievementtoday! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading,

teaching, and learning the commoncore standards:

Rigorous expectationsfor all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield. TIMMSand 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 TIMMSand 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. DepartmentofEducation. (2003). The conditionofeducation 2003. National Centerfor Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003073.pdf. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Howin the world do students read? Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Webb, N. L. (2007).Issuesrelated to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7-25. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embeddedformative assessment. Indianapolis, IN: Solution Tree. WestchesterInstitute for Human Research. (2003). High stakestesting. 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 1 ②

PURPOSES AND PROBLEMS OF CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Curriculum evaluation’s purpose is to ascertain the alignment ofthe curriculum with the aims,mission, vision, goals, objectives, and policies in a schooldistrict, school, or education organization. Addition-

ally, there may be times when an individual school would invest in curriculum evaluation in the same manneras a school district or school

organization might. Depending onthe target of the evaluation, data and evidence gathering may include teachers, administrators, stu-

dents,stakeholders, schoolpersonnel, and/or experts in variousfields,

including curriculum.

Instructional evaluation discussed in Chapter11, is an assessment of (a) students’ achievement, (b) the instructor's performance,

and (c) theeffectiveness of an approach or methodology. Curriculum evaluation includes instructional evaluation and transcends beyond

the purposesof instructionalevaluation into assessment of the curricular programsandrelated areas. Years ago, Albert I. Oliver(1965) listed five areas of concern thatcall for evaluation. “The five Ps,” as he termed them, are program, provisions, procedures, products,

and processes (p. 306). AnotherP that should be added is for policy, as policies represent the official statementsofthe organization and

are the foundation upon which decisions are made. Results orstudent 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, acknowledgementof achievements, and providing a basis for effecting that improvement. Evaluation Challenges

Education is vulnerable to criticism because ofineffective decision making or decision making based on faulty data, due to the lack of con-

sistently high quality and objective evaluations. Implementations of

curriculum, including standards based curriculum thatis included in accountability systems, should be evaluated to determine the extent to which the curriculum implementation has improved studentlearning.

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 ofcurriculum evaluation

using publicly available resources.

244

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

Asking, “Who is leaning, under which circumstances, and to what extent?”drivesthe evaluation deeper than a single resultforthe aggregated population. Does the mean increase and the variance narrow? Examples of digging more deeply may include disaggregating data to determine effectiven and return oninvestment (ROI) of innovations implemented in your schooldistrict orschool, such as: * interdisciplinary teacher collaboration;

« integrated curricula among disciplines;

+ nongraded student progression; * standards based instruction and assessment;

+ inductive or deductive reasoning; + personalized learning;

* commonteacher made assessments;

* student collaboration; and

+ one-to-one (1:1) (onedigital deviceper student and instructionalstaff member) initiatives. It is not uncommonfor conclusions reached aboutthe success of educational innovations

to have been based on very limited orinvalid evidence, data gathering, or analysis. The lack of systematic evaluation may be attributed to a numberofcauses. Careful evaluation can be very complicated.It requires expertise on the part ofthe evaluatorsand, therefore, preparation in evaluation andresearch. 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 seemsto be a painful process, everyone

avoids

it unless absolutely necessary.

2. The anxiety symptom—Anxiety stems primarily from the ambiguities ofthe 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 thatthereis little pointin 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 methodologicalspecialists in educational research, continue to give bad adviceto practitioners.

7. The no-significant-difference symptom—Evaluation is so often incapable of uncovering anysignificant information. 8. The missing-elements symptom—[There] is a lack ofcertain crucial elements needed if evaluation is to makesignificant forward strides. The most obvious element is the lack of adequate theory. (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971, pp. 4-9)

TheOliva Modelfor Curriculum Development in Chapter 5 was conceptualized as consisting

of four components as presentedin Figure 12.1, Components ofthe Oliva Model for Curriculum

Developmentwith Feedback Loop, included curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, organization and implementation ofthe curriculum, and evaluationofthe curriculum. A feedbackline connects

the evaluation component with the goals component, making the modelcyclicalin nature. However, the expectation for evaluation to maximize impact is that feedback is ongoing to inform revision ofthe aims, goals, and objectives ofboth curriculum and instruction along with

professional learning and instructional implementation as found in the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development. The components ofthe 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

Components of the Oliva

Model for Curriculum Development with Feedback

Loop

Curriculum Evaluation

FIGURE 12.2

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 ofthe curriculum with its componentsof the instruction, student learning tasks, feedback, classroom and monitoring assessments, and then informed differentiated instruction and intervention. See Figure 12.2 for

the conception ofcontinuousdata and evidence informed improvements in all curriculum system components to support positive changes in teacher effectiveness and student learningin 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 rapidlyto inform curricular and instructional decisions in the curriculum development and implementation(instruc-

tional) 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 ofcurriculum is not something done solely at the end of a program's implemen-

tation, but is instead a process thattakes place before, during, and at the end of the implementa-

tion. It should be ongoing, meaning that a designee should have responsibility for oversight and notjust a designee identified when a formal time limited evaluation is required for a specific

purpose.such as accreditationor an award application. Curriculum evaluation begins with policies and should alwaysbe informingthe curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, as well as theinstructional goals, instructional objectives, implementationfidelity, resources, professional learning, and otherpertinent components. EVALUATION Comparison of Instructional and Curriculum Evaluation Instructors and curriculum planners may believe that assessing the achievementofinstructional objectives constitutes curriculum evaluation. Thus,if students achieve the cognitive,affective,

and psychomotorlearning targets, the curriculum is considered effective. This position causesthe 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 wiseto evaluate the curriculum for instructional evaluation may reveal that students are achieving the instruc-

tional objectives; consequently, unless you evaluate the curriculum, the standardsor curriculum

objectives, you may find you are effectively teaching unimportant or misconceived topics. The primary purposeof curriculum evaluation is to determine whether the curriculum goals and curriculum objectivesare beingcarried out with fidelity or as intended. Yet, you also want to discover if the curriculumis the right curriculum and ifthe instructional implementationis

aligned with achieving the desired outcomes for specific students. You may want to investigate if the resourcesused are the mosteffective and efficientforthe intendedlearners: thatis, dothey

support individuals and groups to maximize their achievement in a reasonable timeframe? Do graduates experience success after graduation and are they college and careerready? To what extent do you follow up with graduates during thefirst 5 or 10 yearsafter graduation? Although you may havecollege acceptance rates, you may want to add college persistence rates to your curriculum evaluation. And,are the curricular programs cost-effective orare 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 instructioninitiatives accomplishing the expectations and at what cost? As instructionalleaders charged with improving

studentlearning and maximizing benefit from the scarce resources, human, fiscal, and temporal, these questions can yield helpful data and evidence.

Chapter 12 * Evaluation ofthe Curriculum

Comparison of Evaluation and Research

Evaluation is the process of making judgments;research is the process ofgathering data to make those judgments. Wheneverdata are gathered to answerquestions, 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 booksthe school media center has perstudent and the

checkout rate per student. As an example of more complex research ask if students with learning

disabilities

perform more effectively when theyare in self-contained classes or whenthey are

placed in an inclusion model? Most ambitiousof all are longitudinalstudies 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 Centerfor Education Statistics, n.

Thefield of evaluationoftencalls forthe services of specialists in evaluation and research.

Somelarge school districts employ personnelto direct, conduct, and supervise curriculum evalu-

ation fortheir school districts. These researchers and evaluators bring to the task a degree of

expertise not shared by many educators and curriculum planners. Schooldistricts that do not hire their own evaluation personnelinvite outside consultants, perhapsfrom a local university or organization such as McREL Internationalthat specializes in research and providing services to

school districts, including curriculum evaluation and help with curriculum problems. In fact, 15

regionalresearch 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, mostevaluative studies are conducted bythe local curriculum specialists,instructional leaders, and teachers. Even in large schooldistricts that employ curriculum evaluators, many curriculum evaluation tasks are performed in collaboration with teachers, instructional

leaders, and curriculum planners. If localresourcesare employedfor evaluation purposesin 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 andscientific research reports on individual implementations,as well as widely dissemi-

nated and implemented commercial products. Examples of suchreports include online tutoring

for mathematics and algebra, and reading intervention. Anothersite that may be valuable is the National Center for Educational Research (NCES)

(http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/) which provides resourcesfor assisting with research and evaluation methodologies, data presentation for various audiences, and grant opportunities that may be ofinterest.

Whetheryouare engaging outside consultants or have internal evaluators, consider developing

an understandingofevaluation models and processesaligned with standardsofevaluation 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 processesto be followed. Asin the case of models ofinstruction and of curriculum development, evaluation models differ in detail and in the points that their creators include for various evalu-

ation purposes.

Those whodirect curriculum evaluations, whether from inside or outsidethe school district,

should possess a high level ofexpertise and be well groundedin curriculum, instruction research, and a: ment. They are to be familiar with accepted approaches to research and evaluation

247

136 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess 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. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press. Hutchins. R. M. (1963). Oneducation. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Kliebard, H. (1998). Theeffort to reconstruct the modern American curriculum. In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, andpossibilities (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: Assocation 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, R P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, andissues (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.E, Reynolds, W.M.. Slattery, P., & Taubman. P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum (17th ed.), New York, NY: P. Lang.

Rickover, H. G. (1962). Educationfor all children: What we can learn from England. Washington. DC: U.S. Govemment 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 wantit? In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.), The Curriculum:Problems, politics, and possibilities (2nd ed.). (pp. 66-67). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculumdevelopment: 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). Nationalgoals foreducation. 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 hutp://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. E. & 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 aboutcurriculum:Critical inquiries (p. 100). New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Chapter 12 + Evaluation of the Curriculum

Curriculum planners determine whether the programmatic (i.e., curricular objectives or standards) objectives have been achieved. If the curriculum objectivesor 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 objectivesstill merit pursuing and, if so, the measuresto use and/or how to revisethem. ASSESSMENT OF GUIDING EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION AND

ORGANIZATION. Certain principles are inherent in constructing and organizing the curriculum aspresented in Chapter2. In one sense,these principlesare characteristics of curriculum construction and organization. In anothersense, they are continuing challengesfor curriculum developers. Supplementing assessmentofthe 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 problemsof curriculum construction and organiza-

tion: scope, relevance, balance, integration, sequence, continuity,articulation, and transferability.

These persistent principles raise questionsto include in an evaluation. An evaluation process cognizant of these principles provides answersto such question. « Is thescope of the curriculum adequate and realistic? * Is the curriculum relevant? * Is there balancein the curriculum?

* Is curriculum integration desirable?

«Is the curriculum properly sequenced within a course/year and across courses/years? * Is there continuity of programsfrom year to year? * Arecurricula well-articulated betweenlevels? + Are learnings transferable?

To answer questionssuch as these, curriculum specialists should understand the underlying principles. The assessment of principles of curriculum construction and evaluationcalls not only for gathering of considerable data, but also for informedreflection onthe part of the evaluators, which invites collaboration with stakeholdersin the curriculum implementation and development proces:

Comprehensive Model

The foregoing basic model focuses on specific aspects ofthe curriculum: accomplishment of

the curriculum objectives or standards and the presence orabsence ofselected 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 ofthe specific program segments. At this stage, data from the National Asse: can prove helpful. For example, if NAEP mentof Educational Progress (NAEP), for instance, data revealed that more nine-year-olds in urban areas

in one part ofthe countryare proficient

in reading compared to children in comparable urban areas elsewhere in the country, intensive examination ofthe reading program of the particular school district would be important.

249

250

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

SAT and ACT scores will provideclues 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. Atthis stage the evaluation instruments of the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) maybe used to gather empirical data about specific areas of study and other segmentsof the program. This set ofstandardsis 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 contentthey teach and the amountof time spent on each topic. Advocating calendar-based curriculum mapping as a means of integrating the curriculum and assessment, Heidi Hayes Jacobs(1997) likened à curriculum mapto:

a school’s manuscript. It tells the story of the operational curriculum. With this mapin 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 herteaching over the course ofa year as moreeffective than lists of goals, objectives,skills, and concepts prepared by usual curriculum committees.In a later work Jacobs (2004) explained, “Primarily, mapping enables

teachersto identify gaps, redundancies, and misalignments in the curriculum andinstructional program and to foster dialog among teachers abouttheir work”(p. vi).

Curriculum planners design summative measuresto determine whether the curriculum goals

and curriculum objectives or standardsof 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 searchin the school’s data system would reveal whether this objective had been realized. As is the case

when evaluating instruction, sometimesthe instructional objec-

tive itself is the evaluation item. Onthe other hand, if it is desired to know whethera fourth-grade

class whose members were not at gradelevel proficiency in mathematics at the endof the previous yearincreased in proficiency at the end of the fourth grade, comparison oftwo consecutive years ofachievement data would be necessary. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES.

The practice ofinstituting professional learning

communities into schools has becomeà popular wayof encouraging collaboration among teachers focused on what students should learn, do learn, and then how to improve their learning after assessment. To reduceteacherisolation thatis present in many educational environments, Robert Eaker, Richard Dufour, and Rebecca Dufour (2002) offer a conceptualframework in which to operate based on three major themes solid foundation consisting of collaboratively developed and widely shared mission, sion, values, and goals, 2. collaborative teamsthat work interdependently to achieve commongoals, and 1. à

3. a focus on results as evidenced by a commitmentto continuous improvement. (Eaker, Dufour & Dufour, 2002, p. 3)

Chapter 12 * Evaluation of the Curriculum

Professional learning communities provide a means in which educators can drive curriculum initiatives, create common assessments, evaluate student data and evidence (student work sam-

ples), and then adjust curriculum orinstructionto improveteacher pedagogy (Eaker, Dufour, & Dufour, 2002). By workingasa collaborative team with a common focus, they can determine:

What do wewant themto 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 conceptof the professional learning community resonates well with educators but it

does receivecriticism. Many leaders state they expect collaboration butin fact do not provide the necessary frameworkfor collaboration to takeplace. Fundamentalto the learning community conceptis the creation oftimeforthe professionals to meet and to collaborate, with accountability

fordoingso. Diminishing budgets,lack of understanding of the core conceptsof the framework,

staffattrition, and tight scheduling options all contribute to the challengesin establishing effective professional learning communities.

EVALUATION OF THE TOTAL PROGRAM. The functioning ofthe curriculum as a whole should be evaluated. The curriculum planners wantto learn whether the goals and objectivesof 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) wenton 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-sitevisits, the auditor or consultantseeks to determine how well programsare functioning and whether they are costeffective. English pointed out that the curriculumaudit is both a process and a product in that the auditor engagesin collecting and analyzing data and prepares a report

delineating the results. Standardsapplied by English to a schooldistrict's curriculum audit include alignment of policy with personnel, program, resources, objectives,schooldistrict assessments, and program improvements. Today, systematic summative evaluation maybe referred to as a

curriculum audit. J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and ArthurJ. Lewis (1981) recommended forma-

tive evaluation of the program ofeducation as a totality by means of “judgments of competent

persons, research data on human needs, recommendations of study groups.”They recommended

summative evaluation ofthe educational programthrough“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. Empiri-

cal and qualitative data and evidence are gathered to determineif curriculumobjectives and stan-

dards have been accomplished. School and school district data are analyzed. Follow upstudies revealthe success orlack of success of graduates. Finally, surveys may ask teachers, parents, students, and othersto evaluate the curriculum from their perspectives. Keep in mind that guidance

onthe development ofvalid and reliable surveys and waysofachieving high rates ofparticipation can be found in resources, such as Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009). PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE EVALUATION.

Theprogram evaluationprocess,

sources and analysis proceduresofthe curriculum"'s effectiveness

including data

should be continuously assessed

251

252

Part V + Evaluation ofEffectiveness

and agreed uponpriorto the beginning of any evaluation. Judgments about how evaluation will be conducted should be made before an innovation or changeis put intopractice. The techniques for ongoing evaluation and final evaluation should be carefully planned and followed. Sometimesit is beneficial to enlist the services of an evaluation specialist to review the

evaluation techniques proposed by the curriculum planners. Instrumentsto be used should be vettedregarding reliability and validity. Is the evaluation program comprehensive, covering all the dimensionsofthe 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 considerthe expectation of authenticity in responsesso that data gathered is dependable, then participants need their identities protected, which may require an external evaluator. Online surveytools allow for anonymity for participants, which is helpful in getting authentic responsesandincreased participation rates. An external expert should review the proposed research techniques to determine whetherthey meetthe standardsofacceptable research

and protection of those involved, per ethical guidelinesfor research with people and potentially

vulnerable populations, such as children. Whendata are ultimately gathered, the planners may need to request the help of evaluation specialists to runstatistical tests and interpret the data. It must now be determined whetherall the

variables have been considered and appropriately controlled, and whether the evaluation measures are designedto assess the appropriate objectives. For example, a cognitivetest of Americanhistory will not assess student performance ofcitizenship skills. Selecting rules of grammar on an

objective assessment does not guarantee skill in writing, norspeaking with acceptable grammar.

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) has thousands oftests available for review and use, so it

may be a good resource for you when planning evaluation. As a companion, the Buros Institute provides reviewsofinstrumentsthat you may be considering. The ETS and Buros Institute websites

are found at the end ofthis 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,

buton the evaluation processes by which they were reached. The following section provides one model of evaluation.

The CIPP Model ThePhi 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 (Stuffle-

beam, et al., 1971). Reference was made in Chapter 4 to two of the majorfeatures of the CIPP

model: stages of decision making and types ofdecisions required in education.

Comprehensivein nature, the model reveals types of evaluation, types of decision making settings, types of decisions, and types of change. Evaluation wasdefined in the following way, “Evaluationis the process ofdelineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives,” Stufflebeam(as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 129). Meaning for

each of the parts ofthe definition follow.

1. Process. A continuing and cyclical activity subsuming many methods and involving a number ofsteps or operations.

2. Delineating. Focusing information requirements tobe served byevaluationthrough such steps as specifying, defining, and explicating.

Chapter 12 + Evaluation of the Curriculum

3. Obtaining. Making available through such processes ascollecting, organizing, and analyzing, and through such formal means asstatistics and measurement. 4. Providing.

Fitting together into systemsor subsystemsthat best serve the needs or pur-

posesof the evaluation. 5. Useful. Appropriate to predeterminedcriteria evolved throughthe interaction of the evaluator and theclient.

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 derivedthere from and informationthat relates criteriato each entity being judged. 8. Decision alternatives. A set of optional responsesto a specified decision question. (Stufflebeamascited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 129)

“Theevaluation process includes the three main stepsof delineating, obtaining, and providing. These steps provide the basis for a methodologyof 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 purposeis to provide à rationale for determination ofobjectives” (Stufflebeam ascited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, р. 136). At this pointin the model, curriculum planner-evaluators define the environmentof the curriculum and determine unmetneeds and reasons why the needs are not being met. Goals and

objectives are specified on the basis of context evaluation.

Input evaluation hasasits purpose “to provide information for determining how to utilize resources to achieve project objectives” (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, р. 136). Theresources ofthe schooldistrict and variousdesignsfor carrying outthe curriculum are

considered.At this stage, the planner-evaluators decide onthe research proceduresto be used. In 1970, Stufflebeam observed, “Methods for input evaluation are lacking in education. The preva-

lent practices include committee deliberations, appeal to the professionalliterature, the employ-

mentofconsultants, and pilot experimental projects” (Stufflebeam ascited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 137). As notedearlierin this chapter, with the advent ofaccessible databases,there are a numberofresources that provide forinvestigation ofvetted resources by school district personnel. Process evaluation is the provision of periodic feedback while the curriculum is being implemented. Stufflebeam (ascited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971) noted, “Process evaluation has

three main objectives, thefirstis to detect or predict defects in the procedural design orits imple-

mentation during the implementationstages, the secondis toprovide information for programmed decisions, and the third is to maintain a record of the procedure asit 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 thatrelate more to fidelity of a model, rather thanits effectivenes: Michael Scriven (1994; 1967) described three types of process research: nondifferential

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 ofcausal claims is referred to by some educators as action research. This

253

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

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 orderof 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 needsof both students and society are evidentin the following examplesof statements ofaims and philosophy:

* to develop linguistic, technological, and cultural literacy; * to develop communication skills; * to developtheability to think; * to promote concern forprotecting the environment; * to develop a well-rounded individual;

* to develop skills for competingin a global economy; and * to developrespectfor others. Statementsof aims and philosophy point to commonneedsof students and society and set a

general framework within which a schoolor schooldistrict will function. In formulating curriculum

goals and objectives for a particular school or schooldistrict, curriculum developers give their attention to five sources as shown by Components I and II ofthe Oliva Modelfor Curriculum

Developmentin Chapter 5, Figure 5.4: (1) the needsof students in general, (2) the needs ofsociety,

(3) the needsof the particular students, (4) the needsof the particular community, and (5) the needs

derived from the subject matter. You can expand on the needsof both students and society in a greaterlevel of detail than is shownin the modelfor curriculum developmentbyclassifying the needs of students and society into two broad categories, levels, and types, thereby emphasizing points that curriculum plannersshould 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 needsas determined

by the SEA, LEA,or organization. Specifications for curriculum standards and objectives are

developed. Organization ofthe resulting curriculum is determined and a feedback loopestablished

to assure ongoing revisions, as necessary.

A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME To expand onthe needs of both students and society, considerthe four-part classification scheme which defines:

* needs of studentsby level;

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

Before analyzing cach category, think about how the needs ofthe student cannot be completely divorced from thoseofsociety, orvice versa. The needsofone are intimately linked to those ofthe other. True, the twosets 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

are often in harmony. An individual's desire to amass

ofthe person and the needsofsociety

wealth, ifcarried out legally andfairly, is

compatible with a democratic, productive society. The wealth may benefit societyin the form

⑬⑨

255 Chapter 12 * Evaluation ofthe Curriculum

nompep uoumueusdu

ギz aun⑤

lepo uonenlena ddp YL

“чотÁq poruniday ‘9E7 ‘d ‘4909094 ‘A +1 ‘11 ‘ost“Fergie voistoap pub voupmpa> ¡PUONDINP (1L61) “IT 19 tTaqaLUMS у [РД Ол

suoispap aupeu

suospap Buumonns

256

Part V + Evaluation of Effectiveness

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION

The use of any evaluation model will be moreeffective and properif 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 fourattributes of an evaluation: utility, feasi-

bility, propriety, and accuracy. This committee proposedsevenutility standards“to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs ofintended users” (p. 23). Theyofferedthree 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 forthe welfare ofthose involvedin the evaluation, as

well as thoseaffected byits results” (Sanders, 1994, p. 81). Twelve accuracystandards were suggested “to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and conveytechnically adequate information about thefeatures that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated” (Sanders, 1994, p. 125). Essentially, the intentis 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 case, the school district (Yarborough, Shulh, Hopson, & Carruthers, 2011; Stake, 2004). in this With the evaluation of the curriculum, The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Developmentand the Gordon Taylor Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improve-

mentare most appropriate for today’s standards based environment dueto the holistic approach with feedback loops allowingfor quick decisionsto make improvements to cach component. Data and evidenceson instructional outcomesare gathered as thesystem is implemented. Instructional outcomes are a part of the curriculum system of evaluation and thought of as instructional evalu-

ation. 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 accessto valid and reliable data and consistent monitoring, today’s educators, stakeholders, and studentsare betterserved. This approach to curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation professionalizesthe work ofall 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 context, input, process, and product. Among the

are gathered and judgments made for the purpose of

typesof research are action, descriptive, historical, and

to curriculum development. Evaluation is perceived as a process of making judgments, whereas research is perceived as the process ofgathering data as bases for judgments.

engagein both formative (process or progress) evalua-

improving a system. Thorough evaluationis essential

Curriculum planners engage in various types of evaluation and research, Among the typesof evaluation

experimental. In another vein, curriculum planners

tion and in summative (outcome or product) evaluation.

Two models of curriculumevaluation, assess:

ment ment of curriculum objectives and as of guiding principles of curriculum organization and construction, and a comprehensive model of

Chapter 12 + Evaluation of the Curriculum

curriculumevaluation (the CIPP model) were dis-

cussed. 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

257

upon standards improves the evaluation process. Attention should be given to standardsof utility, fea-

sibility, propriety, accuracy, and accountability (Yar-

borough,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

used independently or in conjunction with each other.

Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development

Curriculum evaluators from both inside and

and the Gordon Taylor Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improvementare holistic and nimble for continuous improvements that can be

outside schooldistricts may be engaged to conduct

evaluations. Much of the burdenfor curriculumevaluation falls on teachers as they work in the area of

curriculum development. Following a setof agreed

‘made by educators throughthe 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 ofeffectiveness ofa 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

your context of ROIthat mayinclude perteacher and perstudent expense and results. Think about

influence meaningful and valid evaluation of curriculum? What steps will you take to make this assurance?

before asthe hinge point for an acceptable ROL

gram evaluation of curriculum. Draft a model for

How much is too much and how much is too little an investment and for whom?

2. ROIisa logical concept to be includedin pro-

how manystudents being more successful than

Websites

Curriculum Systems Management, Inc. (Consultations, reports, research with the purpose ofimproving 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.cd.gov

Educational Testing Service Test Collection (ETS). (More than 20,000 tests and tools): www.ets.or/tests_products McRELInternational: http:/www.mcrel.org/

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

freedom of speech and expression (Roosevelt, 1941). The American student has commoninterests

to those of otherstudents from all over the world, as well as fundamental human needsthat the curriculum should address.

National Atthe nationallevel, efforts are madeto assess the general needsof students in American society through statements of aims of education. Students throughout the USA have needto: think, be

literate in English, prepare to becollege and career ready, and to have broad general knowledge. Some ofthe national needs that might be identified are ones held in common with all nations.

For example, few would arguethatliteracy in a nation’s official languageis not essentialto the development and growth ofany nation. In thatsenseliteracyis 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 wateror with overexposureto the elements. To become aware of nationwide needs of students, the curriculum planners should be up to date in understandingrelatedresearch and literature andit is helpful to be networked nationally with

other curriculum developers. The curriculum planner should recognize changing needs ofstudents.

For example,students use digital tools and resourcesto 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 curriculumstandards across the USA. However, asin past decades there remain somestate and regional needs, particularly for those who as adults remain in the same community in which they attended prekindergartenthrough twelfth grades.

With readily available national achievement data, such as data provided from results of ment of Education Progress (NAEP), some of the USA's curriculum needs the National A:

can be identified. As an example, disparities among student subgroupsbyrace, 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 pointto 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.

Whereaspreparing for a career is a common need ofall studentsin the USA,preparing for specific

careers may be more appropriate in a particular community, state, or region. General knowledge

andspecialized preparation in certainfields, such as health care, auto mechanics, digital design, anddata analytics, may be applied throughout the country. However, states orregions may require students to be equipped with specific knowledge and skillsfor geographic specific specializations. Hospitality industry jobs may be more prevalentin the Sunbelt region, duetothe tourism industry. Likewise, a high concentration ofagricultural science careers may exist in the Midwest due to

national agribusiness enterprises. Environmentally sensitive states, like Florida, may have a high

needfor environmental engineers, water management specialists, and varying types of biologists, including marinebiologists specific as those whostudy and protectsea turtle nesting. Community

The curriculum developerstudies

the community served by the school or school district and

investigates the student needsin this particular community. Students growing up in a mining town in West Virginia have some demands that differ from those ofstudents living among the

141

Chapter 12 + Evaluation of the Curriculum

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

259

(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 guidefor evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

This page intentionallyleft blank

Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

Chapter 13

Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction

261

CHAPTER 1 3

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explore how variousliteracies impact the education environment. 2. Relate the components of

the onlinelearning envi-

ronmentto youravailable

This chapter offers research based concepts and solutions that have

promise for improving efficiency andeffectiveness of curriculum systems by making technological adaptations at various points in the curriculum system orto the system as a whole. Technological tools, coupled withstronginstructionalpractices using quality content alignedto standards with learning outcomes,can provide opportunities for enhanced studentlearning now and in the future.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

of successful blended

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 any-

those in a particular environment.

timeis a reality in all but the most remote locations. Devicesthat are connectedto the Internet, referred to as the Internet of Things (IOT), continue to drive consumerdesire to access information at any time

resources.

3. Evaluate alignment

learning programs with

4. Apply the quality stan-

dards 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 enhancethe educational environment and improvestudentlearning

outcomes.

7. Apply Netiquette to faculty,staff,student,

and administrator. communications. 262

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 improvementsin student learning as teachers will need ongoing professional learning to adjust their instruction, based on soundresearch to leverage the power of technology (Zheng,

Warschauer, Lin, & Chang,2016). However, with quality professional learning experiencesteachers can embed technology in teaching, learning, and assessmentfor improvedresults (Kivunja, 2014).

Global Competition Asthe students’ world continuesto shrink and global competitiveness

dominates the workplace,curriculum leaders should considerthe changing learning environment that technology cancreate along with the rate of changein technologyitself. Technology innovationsturn over every

five or so years and are accelerating to turn over even more rapidly. The

144 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess Found betweenindividual needs and societal demands, developmentaltasks do notfall neatly

into the schemes developed in this chapterfor classifying the needs ofstudents and the needs of society. These tasks are, in effect, personal-social needs that arise at a particular stage oflife and that must be metat 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 usefulnessof the concept of developmentaltasksin the following way. In adolescence,students learn to be independent and assume responsibilityfor themselves. There are two reasons why the concept ofdevelopmental tasks is useful to educators. First,it helps in discovering and stating the purposesof education in the schools. Education may be conceived as the effort ofsociety, through the school, tohelp 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 societyrequires, and the selfis ready to achieve a certain task,the teachable moment has come. Efforts atteaching which would have beenlargely wasted if they had

come earlier, give gratifying results when they come at the reachable moment, when the task should be learned. (Havighurst, 1948, p. 8) Curriculum plannersfashion whatis referred to as the scope and sequence ofinstruction or a scope and sequencechart. This chart assigns standardsor content to be learned at each gradelevel aligned with learners” academic growth and development. Today, it is recognized that develop‘mental appropriateness is important and curriculum provideslearning experiences thatare suitable for the age and academic background oflearners. In contrast to the original intent of scope and sequence documents, they are more than reflections of developmental appropriateness and are intendedto assist teachersin aligned reasonable time framesforinstruction with the school year

calendar and assessmentcalendar. Most probably, they include specified times and opportunities for re-teaching orreviewing critical content and skills. Addressing thefit between the curriculum and the needs of learners, George S. Morrison extended the needs oflearners 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 termsofcultural diversity; and gender,in terms of avoiding discriminatory content or practice (Morrison, 1993). Readersare to be aware that all of

Morrison's four types ofappropriateness relate to practices that could be considered discriminatory or evenillegal if not addressed properly. NEEDS OF SOCIETY: LEVELS

The curriculum developernot only examinesthe needsofstudents in relationto society, but also the needsofsociety in relation to students. These two levels of needs sometimes converge,

diverge, or mirror each other. Whenthe needs of students are thefocal point, the perspective may differ from that accorded in studying the needs ofsociety. In analyzing the needsofsociety, the curriculum developer will bring a particular set ofskills to the task. Grounding in the behavioral

sciences is especially important to the analysis ofthe needsof the individual, whereas a back-

ground in the social sciencesis pivotal to the analysis ofthe needsofsociety. Asin the case of ng students’ needs,two simple taxonomiesof the needs ofsociety have been coi st, as to level, and second, astotype. Thelevels ofneeds of society from the broadesttothe narrowestareclassified: human, international, national, state, community,

andneighborhood.

264 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development Literacies

Asyou are aware,the workplace is changing and so should the classroom. Using the samedigital tools as business and industry, teachers can reach outto students in nontraditional manners. It is not uncommonforteachers to use websites, social media, blogs, and interactive forums to connect with their students and to connect with the far reaches ofthe world (Sloan, 2009). An example

of using social media as a forum to promote discussion would be when a teacher establishes a “hashtag”, à type of metadata tag used in social media,for students to post commentsregarding a

moviethat was assigned during a lesson. Theuse of social media can provide new opportunities for student engagement.

If you recall, in Chapter 7, the 27" CenturyLearner wasdefined by Tony Wagner. You could take Wagner's rationale onestep further by expanding on the 27% CenturyLearner to include 21° CenturyLiteracies. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)(2013) defined 21“ Century Literaciesbystating groups of people have always shared communicative and cultural practices

which have resulted in literacy.Literacy changes associety and technology change. The demands that accompanythese changes makeit 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 ofliterate environments, the twenty-first century demandsthata literate person possess a wide range ofabilities 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

problemscollaboratively and strengthen independent thought. + Design and share informationfor global communities to meet a variety of purposes. + Manage, analyze andsynthesize multiple streamsof simultaneousinformation.

* 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 thatis neither profes-

sionally produced nor properly researched orcited by authorsor editors. Students and teachers should becomecritical consumers of information and should be able to scrutinize the content

and make appropriate decisions about the worth ofthe materialthey are reading or downloading foruse. Althoughthis text advocatesfor preparing studentsto be college and career ready, perhaps

thinkof future curriculum systemsto prepare all graduatesto be digitally ready to engage in

lifelonglearningthat will go beyond a traditional postsecondary education at a technical school, college, or university. With the information and learning curve steeperthanit everhas 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 task . Global engagement and

development ofsolutions 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 kindsofexpertise. The opportunitiesfor educators and students

are endless as new technologies emerge.

Chapter 13 + Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 265 Innovation

Online courses, blendedlearning, personalized learning, and mobile learning are trends in which teachers and administrators may meetthe vision of the twenty-first century classroom. Consequently, many educators integrate technology into instructionto enhance learning outcomes through a variety ofdigital learningtools. In 2016, The Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies (CALPT), categorized digital learning tools underfour areas: (a) instructional, (b) content development, (c) social, and (d) personal. Further, CALPT (2016) provided examples

oftools that were trending in each of four areas:

Instructional—Learning ManagementSystems (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 map-

ping. (http://c41pt.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, 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

conceptinto your context. In online education, given the rapid pace of changesin technology, itis often difficultto identify whatis innovative and whatis current practice. Likewise, it can

be challengingto discern the innovative ideas, concepts,or practicesthatare short-lived and without merit. The U.S. Department of Education (2004) warned that the education industry hasa long history of promoting fads and schemes that turned outto be, attheleast, ineffectual, and at the worst, harmful to children. Leaders are encouragedto examine the research behind innovations and the research on their implementations as decisions for purchase, use, and evaluation are considered.

Hype Cycles

Hype cyclesare used to help thosein industry to predict technologicalfads versus those with potentialfor a return on investment (ROI). The useof 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 thatdirectly relates to the education industryis 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 createssignificant interest around a newtechnologythatis not proven or does notexi

Peakofinflated expectations—Success stories and failures are publicized. Few companies engage with the new technology; however, many do not. Troughof disillusionment—Failure to producethe newtechnology culls out companies. Investors only continue to support providersif their products

excitementofthe new technology dwindles.

sfy early adopters. The

266 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development Slope of enlightenment—The new technology becomes broadly understood and its ben-

efits are seen by someenterprises as beneficial. Technology providers produce additional

generationsof 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-cyclejsp)

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 ontheir hype cycle for education: Innovation trigger—Blockchain in education, smart machine education applications, vir-

tual 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 BYODstrategy. Hypecycles can be important toolsif used when making decisions on implementing technologies new to your organization. Take for example school XYZ that was presented in Chapter 4 ofthis text. The curriculumteam was tasked with determining how to implementa 1:1 initiative and a BYOD initiative, which included a mobile learning platform and wireless as a service

component. In analyzing Figure 13. ,

you will note that BYOD andthe 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 refinetheir plan. However, wireless asa service is becoming more understood across the industry. Byusing a hype cycle, the curriculum teamcan determine the risk associated with implementing these technol-

ogyrelated projects by reflecting onindustry trends. Therefore, curriculum teamscan evaluate potential initiatives and determine risk when making key decisionsrelated to adoptions, adaptations, and purchases.

DIGITAL LEARNING (ONLINE LEARNING)

Theterm digital learning is used synonymously with eLearning, online learning, virtual learning, distance learning, and a variety ofother terms. However, for the purposesof this text, the term digital learning is defined as the use ofdigital tools, content, and instruction concurrently to give studentstheability to learn without barriersof time, place, path, and/or pace. s technology continues to improve, teacher, parent, and student interest continues to se in online cour: 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 ofproviders such

as public schooldistricts, charter schools, university systems, state virtual schools, consortium

Chapter 13 + Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 267

зиошиозучо yo adojs

ド イn

ト 30 жа

れ

suonenadxa

pg④iuy Saums

Amudqg uoowmpo Зиппшоэ элазару wawssasse jeu sis sees susopejd uoneanpa paseq-Au1aduiod

wucpmd②oon

ovens aimpnasoxg

aouaseudajer snoqoy

«ео paruauane/Aueas ¡ema suozeaq (pooranig

uoneanpa ur suonediydde

ョn suoneoydde чодеэпра wwpauueus

uompnpswumppoe uyuoul

nesierd 2.10/20 219/0590 @ smadol uanaou Y smet0l as e smet⑥a て ⑥ SET ULSSA) О) :uopdope wwossujeus 03 SIDA, トベ 9107 Anfj0 sy

ss nmorwdo sunopejd Bujuseo| onndepy чопешее)

auawofeueu ep sey tmD namuepns&

uoneanpa и езер Big s0oquer-3 amdepy E

WD univ È sodopepumo⑥

SPJEPUEIS Aiqeiado.uarui erep [euoneu.au! IS

яеачорэлзолэми иэчО) saojnlesdonysap jenuix poisoH sdorag neve peuonransu|

peas Suse) "ep ypurasas jo voneniasaud ¡end 9195 © SP SSRI, | 38.90. ones

sauoydiews usa (Gop

wuowinuw suoneoydde

SE:D/DH PNOID Hooapea ownraola

Vonensiujupe sees

9L0Z Uonenpa 104 3A) adAu

suauue⑤ EL aunod

268 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

based schools, blended programs, and private schools. In general, the findingsshowed thatonline courses: * allow rural and urbanstudents accessto expanded educational opportunities beyond those that brick-and-mortar schools can provide;

* provide access to highly qualified teachers in areas where highlyqualified teachers are not available; * allow students with challenging schedules accessto flexible scheduling;

« accommodate at-risk students, elite athletes and performers, dropouts, migrant youth, pregnant or incarcerated students, and students who are homebound dueto illness orinjury,

allowing them to continuetheir education outside the classroom;

+ provide credit recovery programsfor failing students and/or those who have dropped out

of school, allowing them to graduate; + help struggling students performing below grade levelto begincatching up through blended learning, tailoring lessonsto the student, and providing on-demand online tutoring; « facilitate the teaching of technology skills by requiring technologyliteracy 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) Organizationsthat enter the online arena should determine which type (or types) of online

program(s) they will provide. Greg Vanourek (2006) reportedthat thereare 10 common dimensions presentin all online programs. Thefive most importantdimensions 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, INACOLstates that four of the five dimensions presented by Vanourek are noteworthy when considering the type of program to provide.

* Comprehensiveness—Whethera school offers a full set of coursesor if it provides courses to supplement those of other schools

* Reach—Whetherpolicy implications related to transferability are offered at a school district

+ Delivery—Whetherstudents andteachers are working in an asynchronous(i.e., not working in real time) mannerorin a synchronous(workingin real time) environment

* Type of Instruction—whether the instruction is provided face-to-face orin a blended or hybrid environment. (Wicks, 2010,p. 19)

Learning Management System

A widely followed organizationalpractice is to use a software package, or Learning Management System (LMS), to provide the frameworkfor the teacher to manage the course anddeliver the content. This software packageis usually developed bya third party duetoits complexity and application; however, some ofthe 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; semble and deliver learning contentrapidly;

Chapter 13 + Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 269 + consolidatetraining initiatives on a scalable web-based platform: + support portability and standards; and

« personalize content and enable knowledge reuse. (Ellis, 2009, p. 2) An LMS allowsteachersto distribute and collect completed assignments, post classroom schedules, providetests 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 asteacherprofessionallearning which can be prescriptive based on individualor group needs and applied automatically through the LMSto the end user (Ellis, 2009, p. 3). Content access, integration, development, and the ability for the LMSto adhere to educational standardsshould be analyzedclosely bystakeholders before purchasing or developing an LMS program (Ellis, 2009, p. 4). The LMS is front facing to students forit provides the look and feel of the content and instruction. Forteachers, it is the backbone of comprehensive digital learning. Time and effort

should be givenby organization leadersin determining which LMSapplication fitsthe organization's curriculum system data-informed needs.

Instructor Role:

al Learning

The instructor’s role in the online environmentis in many ways similarto that ofthe traditional

classroom teacher. As with any classroom,providing support and building relationships with the studentsarecritical aspectsfor student success. Teachersare expected to communicate regularly, give feedback, grade assignments, provide interventions, and take attendance, as well as other traditionalteacherfunctions (Watson, et al., 2010, p. 17). Online teachers face unique challenges related to their instructional environment. In some

online environments teachersare expected to push the information out and become managers of studentlearning by focusing on the student's time-managementskills or by becoming facilitators

of coursework. In others, teachers use blended learning practices as thedelivery model. Content or courses may be designed by individual teachers.

However, due to the highly

technicalaspectof creating an online course,teamsof highly specialized professionalsin the areas of instructionaldesign, 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 ofCurriculum System Development, should be applied. The Gordon Taylor Model is

a deductive model which demonstrates a systems approach to stan-

dardsbasedpractice, with a feedback loop, which is recommendedin this time of accountability.

Even with the most advanced technological tools the curriculum and instruction matter. As

noted throughout thistext, the curriculum system is the main vehicle that createsstudent engagementand is at the core ofstudent learning.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING In Chapter 10 of thistext, differentiated instruction waspresentedas an instructional practice that meets the individual needs ofthe learner. Additionally, differentiated education wasdiscussed as

multiple pathwaysfor student learning in a classroom environment which promotethinking 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 providersas it encompasses both differentiated instruction and differentiated education. In this text, personalized learning,

at any time or place to

270 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development high quality instruction, curriculum, and support by focusing onthe individualstudent's learning, engagement, and mastery of content. The Center for Digital Education (www.centerdigitaled.com) found that 90 percent of

the schooldistricts surveyed reportedthat digital resources were already being used or were plannedto be used for personalized learning (Ray, Laufenberg, & Bjerede, 2016). While clearly digital and technological advancementsare a priority for school districts in the USA and readily available, guidance continuesto 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 learningpaths; developing flexible learning environments that demonstrate knowledge and skills; focusing college and career ready skills and CommonCoreState Standards; providing new opportunities for teachers; and the use oftechnology to complement teacherlead instruction. (Rand Corporation, 2014, p. 5) Digital Promise Global (n.d.) in Making Learning Personal for All: Research and the Prom-

ise ofPersonalized Learning recommendsthat regardless ofthe 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 adapttothe learner's needs;

voice and ownership of the work needs (p. 2). Advocacy forthe learning sciencesorscience of

learning (as noted in Chapter 10) needsto be explicit in personalized learning. Learning needs of the expansive variability of students can be efficiently provided for withthe learning sciencesor science of learning. Such learningsciences based tools adapt to variability in the learner and learner's progress in four categories offactors: 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 ofresearch in

this areato ascertain which approaches, learning science principles, and tools are most efficient and effective for particular students underindividual circumstances.

Thoseinterested 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 helpfulin digital decision making related to cur-

ricular 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.

Thereare many promising opportunities for personalized leaning; however,instructional leadersand curriculum specialists must be cognizant ofchallenges associated with its implementation. In 2014, Sean Cavanaugh (2014) reported that schools and schooldistricts

struggle with the

holistic approach to personalized learning, studentdata 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 ofpersonalized learningis increasing in school districts across the country. Instructionalleaders seeking to initiate a blended learning environmentshould considerits nuancesand implications priorto application. Heather Staker and Michael Horn (2012), from the Innosight

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

* environmental,

defense, health, and cultural norms.

curriculum team studying the needsof 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 ofthose found in theliterature. 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 societyin the past; however,

thesehistorical 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 throughoutthe yearsto identify societal needs or demands underthe rubrics of social processes, social functions, life activities, and social institutions.

Needs may be dual in nature, such as understanding economicsrelates to personal and societal

needs. Curriculum specialists whoseek to delineate social processes or functionsdo so to identify

individual needsthat have social origins. It might be arguedthat all personalneeds, except purely

biological ones, are social in origin. Long ago, Robert S. Zais credited Herbert Spencerfor the

beginning ofthe practice ofstudying society empirically (1976, p. 301).

The 1934 Virginia State Curriculum Program was identified as one of the better-known attemptsto organize a curriculum aroundlife processes (Taba, 1962). O. 1. Frederick and Lucile J.

Farquear reportedthe following nine areas of human activity that thestate of Virginia incorporated into the curriculum of the schools:

« protecting life and health; + gettinga living; + making a home; + expressing religious impulses; * satisfying the desire for beauty;

+ * + «

securing education; cooperatingin 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 CurriculumBuild-

ing washighly regarded for its social functions approach. The Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction listed the following social functionsin its guide for a core curriculum at the

juniorhigh school level:

* to keepthe population healthy; * to provide physical protection and guarantee against war: * to conserve and wisely utilize natural resource: * to provide opportunity for people to makea living:

* to rear and educate the young; * to provide wholesome and adequaterecreation; * to enable the population to satisfy aesthetic and spiritual values;

149

272 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development the learning process. To make the bestuse of the blendedlearning environment, Ruth Reynard (2007) pointsoutthat technology should be:

integrated into the actual course design and usedfor instruction, ratherthan simplyused to

deliver and distribute content. It is vital that teachers are given timeto 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 opportunitiesfor increased flexibility, access and convenience, and student engagement, but it also presents challenges. It not only requiresteachers 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 teachersin blended learning environmentsis to use technologyto enhance instruction instead of using it to inform instruction. Furthermore, students can perceive assignmentsas not meaningful if the technology is used as supplementalto 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 notincorporated some form of mobile

technology intoits 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. Fordefinition purposesofthis text, mobile learning can be defined as using wireless digital tools to afford individuals learning opportunitiesat 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 ofsocial media and the use of Web

2.0 user-generated or cloud computing applications have made mobile learninga viable option for educators to capture educational opportunities for students (Park, 2011). Web 2.0 tools are

conceptualized asthose that allow nonprogrammers to contribute content (O'Reilly, 2005). Consequently, as demand grows from students and parents to implement mobile technologyinto classrooms,administrators and teachers are taxed with finding waysto incorporate themin a safe and meaningful mannertoresult in improved or moreefficientlearning. In 2005, a report from the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts

(NESTA)described key factors that educators, technologydevelopers, and curriculum developers should consider whenfacilitating the successful implementation of mobile technologiesinto

classroom settings. + Context.

Many users wish to remain anonymous. Surfing the web to gather and utilize

contextual information may clash with their desire. Secure accessto the Internet must be

considered to prevent exposure to third parties.

* Mobility. The ability for the studentto access the Internet anytime during class time may compete with the teacher's lessonorthe curriculum.

+ Learner over time.

Tools must be developed for the recording and organization of

mobile learning experienc:

« Informality.

Students may choose to abandoncertain technologiesif their social net-

works are attacked.

+ Ownership.

Students want to use their own personal devices, which creates standardization

issues and controlissuesfor the institution. (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 4)

Chapter 13 + Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 273 A reader may wonder ifthere are practicalapplications (apps)that support improvementin student leaming and thatare accessibleto teachers and students ontheir mobile devices. The app

design industry booming so the purchase or download of appsto be used should be vetted by a knowledgeable source, such as a professional organization. Higherlevel disciplinary literacy has become more essential with the implementation of CCSSandrigorous standardized assessments.

Byusing appsteachersfind that students develop greater self efficacyin student sciencelearning through their confidence in using the device and the app (Castek & Beach, 2013). Theresearch-

ers 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 appsfor collaboration, multimodallearning, and shared productivity with improvement in

studentscience learning (Castek & Beach, 2013, p. 555).

Withthe rapidly increasing use of Web 2.0 students are creating and contributing to wikis

and blogs.In 2009, it was estimated that 38 percentofteachers 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 timea changeis madein these environmentsdata are col-

lected, allowingresearchers 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 thatstudents in non-Title I schools had wikis that were active longerthan 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 seethatthere remains muchto learn to

leveragethe 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 promotevarioustwenty-first century literacies, such as collaboration, composition in multiple or global environments,and increased informationliteracy. 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 producersare to considerall implications

includ-

ing time, costs, and ROIassociated with providing mobile learning for students using mobile devices.

Computer Based Assessments As discussed in Chapter 9, the expectation forinstruction has become thatit is standardsand 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 gatherdata onindividual performance quickly, educators are better positioned to provide meaningful adjusted instruction. Of course,as noted in previous chapters the caveat is thatthe curriculum system is aligned (standards, instruction, learning tasks, student work outcomes, and assessments).

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 deter-

mined quickly with appropriate r ⑧ how each student is performing accordingto schooldistrict standardsbased expectations and then

reteach, regroup todifferentiate, personalize with digitaltool

$

274 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development In addition to schooldistrict developed formative and monitoring assessments, teams of teachers who have the sameteaching responsibility may create common assessments administered

via technology (Ray, Laufenberg, & Bjerede, 2016). These commonassessmentsare only valid if in fact they are aligned to targetstandards,and using the academiclanguageof those standards andtarget content. Valid teacher made assessments can quickly provide teachers with feedback for making adjustmentsto their instruction and to differentiate and/or personalize just as with schooldistrict assessment data.

One consideration in using computer based assessmentsis the students’ familiarity with the technologyitself. If students are not proficient in using technology for learning and assessment,

thenthe assessment may measure the facility students have with the device, ratherthan progress towards mastery on target standards. In other words, if students are learning withouttechnologicaltools and then moveto a testing location where devices are provided for assessment, student

lack of comfort and expertise in using the devices may negatively impactresults, making results

invalid for the intended purpose.

With the flow of knowledge speeding up, the design and implementation of curricular

innovationshasto speed up similarly. Feedback is rapid, even overnight, requiring agility to make curriculum system adjustments immediately, or sooner. A current challenge is that manydigital systems gatherdata ondaily student performance, but few teachers or instructional leaders continually analyze these data atthe samerate to make the immediate changesthatthese data suggest would improve learning and prepare studentsfor the worklife 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 educatorsbecauseit provides a free, non-copyrighted, resource forteachers and students to build

upon, while increasing equity in access to instructional plans, tools, and content. What makes OERsattractive is that the resourcesare free from copyrightrestrictions, so resources can be remixed or redistributed by anyone. The legal aspects of using OER contentis directly related to how the creator deems the content available. OER serves another substantial purpose becauseit increases access to materials for educatorsfrom all overthe world. According to the Hewlett Foundation (2017), OER can

play an importantrolein education, especially in developing countries, becauseit is free and can be accesseddigitally from all parts ofthe world. Challenges doexistif OER content and media are used by teachersand students. Teachers”

skill level todetermine the integrity of material and whetherits application will align with the expectations ofthe standards oftheir course should be considered. Additionally, OER material should not be used by curriculum developers in the for-profit arena dueto potential integrity issues and otherpropriety 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 driverin all aspects of digital learning. In 2010, Digital Citizenship or Netiquette was defined in the National Education Technology Plan (NETP)

Chapter 13 + Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 275 theability to evaluate and use technologies appropriately, behavein socially acceptable ways

within online communities, and develop a healthy understanding of issuessurrounding online privacy and safety. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)

Further, in 2017, the NETP recommendedthat 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 suchas: + how students will engage with each otherin 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 schooldistrict and school level personnel to consider unintended consequences of policies that are too strict or not thoroughly

vetted through a varietyof stakeholders. Furthermore, responsible use, consequences, and policies and procedures should beidentified and writtenclearly in stakeholder’ primary homelanguage (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 79). The federal governmentplays à role in funding infrastructure and curriculum initiatives which promotesafe 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 schoolsthatreceive federal funds to implementfilters that block students’ access

to contentthat 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 schoolis required to provide certain privacy protections for those education records that it maintains. In additionto federal laws, the National Telecommunications and Information Administra-

tion (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 promotesafe responsible use ofthe 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 forinstructionalleaders and curriculumspecialists to

consider. Promoting Netiquette throughdigital medialiteracy and Internet safety, education can play an importantrole in safeguarding the use ofdigital media in schools and warrants consideration.By

creating a positive digital footprint, students can enjoythe benefits ofdigital curriculum andins tion without facing potential negative repercussions throughout theirlives. Accepted educati practices, coupled with safe Internet practices and professionalethics, can promptstudents to make choicesthat will allow them to enjoythe educational advantages and benefitsofthedigital learning.

276 Part VI + Looking Forward in Curriculum Development summary It is widely recognized that access to technology in

the education environment hasincreased 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 ofliteracies. In defining new literacies, the

instructionalleaders and curriculum teams should consider when facilitating blended and mobile learn-

ing in the classroom setting werediscussed.

Common dimensions that are presentin online

programs were examined. Of the common dimen-

sions, four critical aspects should be considered

content delivered online is very different from content which is presented in print. These differences create demand for educatorsand students to become critical consumersofinformation.

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

In this chapter, innovation andthe use of hype

standards and learning outcomes was recommended.

cycles to determine which education technology is

Online assessments using technology in this

applicable in the user's context were introduced.

Components of personalized learning including

time of accountability were recognized. Additionally, the importance of providing opportunitiesfor educa-

blended and mobile learning were investigated. How

tors and studentsto learn how to function both ethi-

ter schools, university systems,state virtual schools,

safe learning environments, and key components

consortium based schools, blended programs, and

stakeholders should consider when creating online opportunities for students were provided.

online experiences are being made available by a variety ofproviders, including schooldistricts, charprivate schools were acknowledged. Key factors

cally andsafely in the digital world was presented. Resources available to assist educatorsin creating

Application

1. Considerthe technologyresourcesin your context. Use Figure 13.1, the Gartner Hype Cycle

2. Review multiple OERresources for integrity and

alignmentto standardsin your context. Present

for Education to determineits current status in

findings and discuss with colleagues in your

the education arena. Create a potential roadmap

context to develop capacity in discerning what is good content.

to present to decision makers in your context on suggestions to move yourorganization forward. Include potential costs and ROI ifavailable.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Choose three technology tools in your context.

Hypothesize the future development, imple-

mentation, 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 makesuggestionsfor 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 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

Strand 6: Writing to Inform/Communicating Ideas through Informational Texts (WI), and

Strand 7: Writing Persuasively/Communicating Opinions, Critiques, & Arguments (WP). (Hess, 2011, р. 5) An example of a sixth grade Strand 3 RL is: cite textual evidence to support analysis of what thetextsays explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 36).

From theninth and tenth grade levelStrand 3 RL you cansee that the complexity has increased to: cite strong and thoroughtextual evidence to support analysis of whatthe text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 38). This comparison ofthe

samestrand atthe sixth grade and ninth/tenth grade shows how the complexity increases with

thegradelevel. The purposeof the discussion of needsup 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 threesets 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 assessmentis a process for identifying programmatic needs that must be addressed by curriculumplanners. Fenwick W. English and

Roger A. Kaufman (1975) offered several interpretations of the term needs assessment. This

earlier work published bythe Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development rem:

a thorough description ofa process that schooldistricts engaged in at that time, before the plethora of data were readily available. English and Kaufman described needs assessmentas a process in which a school can define its mission and goals and can be measured using defined outcomes.

By using a needs assessmentas a logical problem-solving tool, gaps can be identified, prioritized,

and addressed to obtain desired results.

The objectives ofa needs assessment are twofold: (a) to identify needs ofthe learners not being metbythe existing curriculum, and (b) to form a basis forrevising the curriculum in such a

wayas to fulfill as many unmetneedsas possible. Conducting a needs assessmentis not a single, one-time operation, but a continuing and periodic activity. Some curriculum developersperceive a needs assessmentasa task to be accomplished at the beginning of an extensive study ofthe curriculum,such as maytake place when applying for accreditation. Since the needs ofstudents, society, and the subject matter change over the years and since no curriculumhasreacheda state of perfection in which it ministers to the educational needs of all students, a thorough needs assess-

ment 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 annuala:

ments required by the SEA or LEA, exami-

nation should be continual with revisions emanating from the data and evidenceidentified needs.

English and Kaufman (1975), years before data were easily accessible, pointed out that most

schooldistricts required six monthsto two years to completea full-scale need:

sment. In con-

trast, today a needs assessmentis not time-specific such that it takes place only at the beginning

ofa comprehensive study ofthe curriculum.Instead, a needs assessment is a continuing activity

thattakes place (a) before specification ofcurricular goals and standards, (b) afteridentification ofcurricular goals and standards, (c) after evaluation of instruction, and (d) after evaluation ofthe

curriculum (Wiles & Bondi, 2011). Notall schooldistricts conductfull-scale needs

ssments.

153

280

Credits

Reprinted with permission of Phi Delta Kappa Inter-

national, www.pdkintl.org., All rights reserved.

From The HumanSide 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 Policyfor All Students. Published by U.S. Department of Education. From Educational Evaluation and Decision Making by Daniel L. Stufflebeamet al. Copyright © 1971 by Phi Delta Kappa International. Michigan Department of Education (2015). State Board Adopts Strategic Goals to Make Michigan a Top 10 Edu-

cation State in 10 Years. From http://www.michigan gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29939-370853--,00.html.

From Gartner, Hype Cyclefor Education. Published by Gartner, Inc. Reprinted by the permission ofGartner, Inc. From Cardinal Principles ofSecondary Education: Commission onthe Reorganization ofSecondary Education. Published by United States Office ofEducation. U.S. Department of Education.

From The Child and the Curriculumby J Dewey. Published by Dewey, John. From Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Published by United States Departmentof Education.

Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, Statesboro, Georgia, Mission Statement and Our Beliefs, web-

site: szes-bess-ga.schoolloop.com/ems/page_view?d =x8pid=8vpid=1283580802403, accessed February 7. 2011. Reprinted by permission. McMillan, James., Classroom Assessment: Prin-

ciples and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction, 4th ed. © 2007. Reprinted by permiss-

sion of Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Suddle River, NJ.

From Transforming Classroom Grading by R I Marzano. Published by The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, © 2000. Reprinted

by permission of McRel.

21st Century Schools, 20th Century Classroomvs. the 21st Century Classroom. Website: 21stcentu-

ryschools.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: Theoryand 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 Modelin Taylor, Wat-

son & Nutta (2014). Leading, Teaching and Learning the commoncore standards: Rigorous Expectations

U.S. Departmentof Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics. (n.d.). Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved

forall students. RowmanLittlefield.

January 15, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/

T. Taylor. All rights reserved. Do not repro-

0c02003.html.

duce without express written permission from

From “Structures in Learning” by J S Bruner in Today's Education, Vol. 52, Issue 3. Published by Vintage Books, © 1963.

© 2017 William R. Gordon, II and Rosemarye

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

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

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

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

D

Foshay, Arthur W., 2 Franklin, Benjamin, 22, 25 Frederick, O. L. 149 Freire, Paulo, 204 Froebel, Friedrich, 120, 185 Frymier, Jack R., 55 Fullan, Michael G., 55

Daniel L., 244 Darling-Hammond,Linda, 127, 233 Davies, 1. K., 182

Bloom, Benjamin S., 64, 185-188,

Davis, Robert H., 191, 193

G Gagné, Robert M., 4

B

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 $.35 Bruner, JeromeS., 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

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.. 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

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., 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

Chapter 7 * Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

learners’ resultsin a dysfunctional curriculum” (p. 82). Consequently, a needs assessment must

be carried beyondthe 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 nationallevels. Necessary data include background information about the community,

thestudent body, andthe staff. Curriculum plannerswill need information on programsoffered, studentperformance in those programs, and availablefacilities. 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

datasourceson attendanceofteachers and students, disciplinary infractions and resulting time outofclass or school, teachergiven grade distributions, and numbers ofstudents who repeat a course or grade. Data may be obtained from sitesat the school, school district, state, and/or national levels.

National resourcesites, such as the National Center for Educational Statistics (nces.ed.gov) has a multitude ofdata on various topics, e.g., achievement, facility, student subgroups,that can be usefulin providing a national contextforsituating local and state data. Quantified data alone are not enough. As administrators observe teachers and code the

observed behaviors and ratingsusingtheir digital devices, these data points are compiled and can provide a picture of the effectiveness of a curriculum acrossa grade, subject, school, or schools.

Such trend data and evidences can also provide insight into the teachers’ understanding ofthe standardsor learning targets from day to day. Are the teachers teaching atthe level ofrigor 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 studentsare learning and which ones are not and under whatconditions? In closing the achievement gap among student subgroups, the question of who is learning and achieving atthe level of proficiency and who is not,is of primary importance. Keep in mind that other important evidences lie in the alignment ofthe instructional resources, teacher made assessments, and accountability assessment with the curriculum to

forma curriculum system (Taylor, 2010; 2007; 2002; 1999). Examining alignment will provide evidencethat there is an aligned curriculum system or that there is notan aligned system which needsattention. Similarly, English described a process for collecting data in a school through examination of appropriate policies, documents, and practices, which he referred toas 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 asprioritiesfor curriculum development. All of these data and evidences should be put togetherin a coherent fashion, most probably in a digital andsearchable format, so that they can be analyzed, and decisionsregarding 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

ociation,often in conjunction with materials produced bytheir state department of education and the National Study ofSchool Evaluation (2006).

155

Name Index 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,

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

153, 180, 181, 235

7 V Vanourek, Greg, 268

Zais, Robert S., 56, 149 Zechiel, A. N., 99, 126

283

SUBJECT INDEX A

Additional Resources (AR) document, 171-172 Affective domain behaviorally oriented verbs for, 192 classification systems for, 188-189

Autocratic leaders, 86 Axioms change in people, 27 collaborative endeavor, 27-29

comprehensiveprocess, 30-31

concurrent changes, 25-26 continuousprocess, 30 curriculum as product ofits time, 22-25 decision-making process, 29-30 explanation of, 21 inevitability ofchange, 21-22 startingfrom existing curriculum, 32 systematic development, 31-32

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 Scienceof Teaching

andClassroomInstruction that Works, 212 Articulation, 41-43 Assessment. Seealso 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, 23 Authoritarian leadership, 86 284

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 Bloomtaxonomy, 186-187, 229 Boston Latin School, 119 Brain based instruction, 205 Bureau of LaborStatis 145, 146 C

Cardinal Principles ofSecondary Education (Commission on the Reorganization ofSecondary 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 Camegie Corporation, 65 Centre for Leaming and Performance Technologies (CALPT), 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 systemsfor, 186-187 evaluation in, 229-231 explanation of, 185, 186 Collaborative curriculumteam, 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 ofstudy. 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 conceptionsof, 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 interpretationsof, 3-4 objectives/standards, 6-7 as product ofits time, 22-25 professional licensure and, 3 purposeof, 6 spiral, 41 Curriculum committees/councils, educational philosophy and, 129 Curriculum construction. See also Curriculum development;

Curriculum planning articulation, 41-43 assessmentof guiding principles. 249 balance in, 36-37 concepts of, 32-44 continuity in, 41 integration in, 37-39 relevanceof, 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 classroomlevel, 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 ofstudents and, 140 levels of, 50-60 professional books, 64-65 relevance, 35-36 school district level, 57 school level, 55-57 nique blend and,

sequence, 39-40 specialists role in, 75-76 statelevel, 57-59 students’ role in, 78-79

systematic, 31-32

talentvariables, 71-72 teachers role in, 76-77

team, grade and department level, 54

transferability, 43-44

UnitedStates 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 anddifferences

among, 105-106

Taba,95, 100

Tyler, 95-99

variations in, 94-95 Curriculum documentsand artifacts, 169 Curriculumevaluation, 19, 243

explanation of, 53

instructional evaluation vs., 246 models of, 244-246, 249-255 at nationallevel, 63 problemsrelated to, 243-246 research vs., 247 standardsfor, 256 Curriculum goals, 179 of, 164 characteristics

constructing statements of, 164 explanationof, 161 historical perspective, 167-169 individual school, 163-164

instructional goals and, 184 validating and determining priority of, 165-167 Curriculumguides components in, 172 examination of, 170-171 explanation of, 169-170 Florida Standard LAFS.1.L. ⑫ 170,171

sequencing format for, 172 specificity of, 172

test-coding formatfor, 173

286 Subject Index Curriculum implementation, 18-19, 53 Curriculum improvement, 19 Curriculumintegration, 37-39 Curriculum leaders bureaucratic/autocratic approach, 85-86 collegial/democratic approach, 85-86 communication skills for, 87-90 task and relationshiporiented 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 Curriculumrevision, 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 categoriesof needs and, 138-139 in curriculum development, 29-30 in curriculumplanning,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 sequenceof, 49-50 skills for, 81-82 teachers’ role in, 76-77

Democratic leadership, 86

Department level planning, 54

Departmentof 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 Domainsof learning behaviorally oriented verbsfor, 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 SchoolPrograms, 212 Educational needs, 143

Educational philosophies essentialism as, 117, 119-121 examplesof, 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

158 Part III + Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System DevelopmentProcess National Study of School Evaluation. (1997). Improvement:

Focusing on student performance. Schaumburg, IL: National Study of School Evaluation. Rose, D. H.. 4: Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.

Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rose, D. H. 8: Meyer, A. (Eds). (2006). A practical reader in universaldesign 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 Education, 75(4), 90-113. doi:10.1207/ s15327930pje7504_5 Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process ofeducation. 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 assess-

ment: À 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, В. (2012). Urban education: A model for leadership and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Havighurst, R. J. (1948). Developmentaltasks and education. Chicago,IL: University ofChicago 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 Centerfor the Improvement ofEducational 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 CurriculumDevelopment. Morrison, G. $.(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). Commoncore state standards for

English language arts & literacyin history/social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A.

Washington, DC: Authors. National Studyof 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 offoreign 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. Serranoу. Priest, 487 P. 2 1241 5 Cal. (1971).

Stratemeyer, F. B., Forkner, H. L., McKim, M. G., & Pas-

sow, A. H. (1957). Developing a curriculum for modern living (2ed.). New York, NY: Bureau ofPublications,

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 systemthat gets results for theolder, reluctant reader. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 85-87. Taylor, R. (1999, December). Missing pieces, aligned curriculum, instruction and assessment. Schools in the Middle, 94), 14-16.

288 Subject Index KIPP private foundation, 65 Knowledgeis PowerProgram, 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 ManagementSystem (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 3 Multiple intelligence: 183 N National A:

ment 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 ofTeachers 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, 6266 National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE), 155, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 275

A Nationat 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 Needs data collection and, 155 implementationof, 163-164 perceived needs approach, 154-155 stepsfor, 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 componentsof, 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

Partialtruths, 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, ofstudents, 142-143 Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) physics, 65 Planning. See Curriculum planning Portfolios, Practition

Subject Index 289 Pretest and posttest technique, 223

Research, evaluation vs., 247

Processevaluation, 253 Productevaluation, 254 Professional associations international, 66-67 national, 64

s

Principals, 73

state, 58

Professional learning communities, 250-251 Professionallicensure, 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

splitin, 123 Psychomotor domain

behaviorallyoriented verbs for, 192 evaluationin, 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

Responsible Use Policies (RUPs), 275 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

curriculumobjectives/standards, 152-154 Schools assessmentinitiatives beyond, 235-236 curriculum development in, 55-57 curriculum goals and objectives of, 163-164 differences amongfaculty 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 effe , 202

generation effect, 203 Goldilocks principle, 203 instructional strategies, sources of, 204

style based instruction, 205-206 manageable cognitive loa , 203 ion effects, 203

segmentation principle, 203 Scientific creationism, 59 Scientific method. 123 Scope. of curriculumconstruction, 32-34 Segmentationprinciple, 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 SmartBriefon 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 Standardizedtests, background of, 221 State Departments of Education (SDOE) curriculum developmentin, 57-59 function of, 58 State Educational Agencies (SEAs) curriculumdevelopmentin, 57-59 function of, 58 State education departments curriculumdevelopmentin, 57-59 curriculumobjective tandards, 152, 153 function of, 58

290 Subject Index State governments education departments in, 57-59 legislative curriculummaking in, 58-59 needsfor, 147 State professional associations, 58 Statesboro Public Schools, 132 Student-centered approach, 120 Students

curriculum developmentrole 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 Teachereffectiveness, defined, 199 Teachers curriculum developmentby, 53, 76-77

empowerment of, 27, 76,77 technology use by, 268, 269 Teaching, as art or science, 212-213 Team curriculum planningin, 54 dynamics, 82-83 informal, 82 members, role played by, 83 productive team characteri 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 sourcein, 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 Depariment 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 Wholetruths, 20

Wisconsin State Department of

Public Instruction, 149-150 World Council for Curriculumand Instruction, 66 World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, 66 World language study, 145 as sequenced structure, 15

Written communication, 89-90. See also Communication

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 ofeducation and curricu-

lum goals and curriculum

objectives.

HIERARCHY OF CURRICULUM SYSTEM COMPONENTS In Chapter 6 you encountered the terms“aimsof education,”

“curricu-

lumgoals,” “curriculum objectives,” “instructional goals, and “instruc-

tional objectives” as used in this text. If you recall, Table 1.1 in

Chapter 1 was presented to providethe curriculum developer a cross-

walk of terminology fromtraditional based academiclanguageto stan-

dards based academic language which denotes shifts in academic terminology dueto the national movementto standards. Additionally,

a hierarchy ofpurposesof education fromthe broadest to the narrow-

3. Distinguish betweencurriculum goals and objec-

est was discussed. The hierarchy is essential both to this chapter on

tives and instructional

a visualof the hierarchy and the crosswalk of terminology for the curriculum developer to use in conceptualizing the development of the

goals and instructional

objectives.

4. Write curriculum goals and curriculum

objectives.

curriculumgoals and curriculum objectives and to Chapter 10 which

presents instructional goals and instructional objectives. Figure 8.1 is

curriculum system.

Aims, Goals, and Objectives

The practitioner who secksto carryout curriculum development following principlesestablished 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 ofeducation are broad purposes such as, all students will

be college and careerready. The distinction drawn between aims of

education and curriculum goalsis one ofgenerality. The example

noted, all students will be college and career ready is general and no

single programor school can accomplishthese extremely broad purposes. A school can contributeto preparing studentsto be college and career ready in PreK-12 since those broad areas develop over many years oflearning. A specific school, whetherelementary, middle, or high school, may also adopt as the mission to prepare all students to 160

becollege and careerready. Following, the schooldistrict orschool’s