Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction-C&T 709

Standards: 1.1 Candidates demonstrate an understanding and are able to apply knowledge
and skills specific to
their discipline.

Final Paper

Philosophy of Curriculum

Holly Elwell

University of Kansas

Part One

Two months ago I couldnt have told you who Ralph Tyler was and I knew scant information

about Maria Montessoris work. A few weeks ago I compared and contrasted their different

philosophies.

Maria Montessori was an Italian physician and educator from 1870-1952. She believed in the

constructivist approach to learning. Children could and should learn on their own without

adult interference. She created sets of skill-based activities that children manipulated. This was

the first time children were thought of as independent learners. She is not without her

proponents who argue her philosophy is outdated and does not allow for imagination, free

play, and social interaction.

Ralph Tyler was a precursor to the scientific curriculum movement with his book, The Basic

Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in 1949. He introduced a model for educators to

follow:
 1. What are the schools objectives?

2. What instructional strategies will you use to further your objectives?

3. How will you organize your learning experiences?

4. How will the outcomes be evaluated?

He thought these questions were very important and needed to be asked when creating

curriculum.

These theorists have similarities in that they are passionate about their philosophy. They

both believed students learn best by doing. They both believed important information came

from observation of the student. Tyler thought that learners should be the source of the

objectives. A study of the learners themselves would seek to identify needed changes to

behavior patterns of the students which the educational institution should seek to produce

(Flinders & Thornton 1997). Maria saw the teacher as an observer of the child to discover what

his interests were. From the child itself he will learn how to perfect himself as an educator

(Flinders & Thornton 1997).

They differed in that Tyler believed in set objectives, which can be limiting in scope. He also

believed the objectives should be assessed. Montessoris objectives are much more open and

fluid in nature and she doesnt have a standardized assessment process. The objectives of the

Montessori School are to promote the intellectual, the social, the emotional and the physical

development of the child (The Philosophy of the Montessori School on Child Development) .

In studying different theorists for this course, Ralph Tylers theories made sense to me.

Afterall, how could teachers teach without objectives? This has come from years of being

expected to write objectives in every school I have ever worked. Then I read Elliot Eisners

work, Educational Objectives--Help or Hindrance. It made me wonder. . . why do we have to

have such specific objectives? Do we have to have objectives at all? If we dont have objectives,

what does curriculum look like? He makes many valid points about the limitations of
objectives. Educational objectives are typically derived from curriculum theory, which

assumes that it is possible to predict with a fair degree of accuracy what the objectives of

instruction will be. The dynamic and complex process of instruction yields outcomes far too

numerous to be specified in behavioral and content terms in advance (Flinders and Thornton

p. 111).

I want to push back against these expectations, but this is what good teachers are supposed

to do. I have long felt there was a disconnect between the objectives, what I was teaching, and

the assessment. I didnt know why I was struggling, but Eisner identified objectives

limitations. Expectations to use objectives is an assumption at most schools. I dont see how I

can stop using them, but maybe I can make them less specific and more open-ended. Maybe I

can relax a bit if the objectives dont have to tie exactly to the assessment.

I view Ralph Tyler as more of a traditionalist and less progressive than when I first read his

work. I still view Maria Montessori as progressive, but also wonder about some of the

drawbacks of her philosophy. Moderation is key. I continue to find her manipulation activities

worthwhile for children, but would want to see more sociodramatic play incorporated into her

practices. Is the Montessori method applicable to students after the age of eight? I have not

met any children who attended a Montessori school beyond this age level. Children of

Montessori seem to struggle with the transition to a traditional classroom.

Part Two

Several weeks ago, I discussed a curriculum issue and took a stance on politics in education,

specifically No Child Left Behind. Businesses and policymakers have been encroaching on the

business of schools since the 1920s. Kliebard coined the term, bureaucratic model

(Flinders & Thornton, 2013, p. 150). I think this has serious implications for education. Philip

K. Howard stated, "Successful teaching and good school cultures don't have a formula, but they
have a necessary condition: teachers and principals must feel free to act on their best

instincts....This is why we must bulldoze school bureaucracy." (The Atlantic, 2012).

Policy makers who have no experience in education are making poor decisions that affect

U.S. children. When NCLB became tied to monetary incentives and punishments it did a great

disservice to our students. With money comes corruption. When schools became liable for tests

scores and risked losing much needed funding, educators turned to teaching to the test and

sometimes outright cheating. This drive for results has led to a loss of the arts, recess, and a

push for reading and writing at younger and younger ages. Teachers have lost control and

become mere technicians as school districts adopt a more prescriptive curriculum.

In some districts, kitchen sets and other items for play have been removed from

kindergarten classrooms, no centers for learning are allowed either. This is considered wasted

time that could be spent for reading and writing. This goes against best practices. Research

offers a positive view of play as providing opportunities to build important cognitive and

linguistic skills needed by emergent readers and writers. This is because sociodramatic play

allows for practice of narrative structures, episodes, problem solving, character development,

writing, dictating, and recall. Literacy-enriched play centers provide support for literacy

learning by giving children the opportunity to engage in sociodramatic play. These include:

Materials for playing house, school, the office, grocery store, etc. In addition, providing

access to literacy tools and related supplies encourages children to make their own

signs, menus, messages, etc.

Problem-solving situations (related to play scenarios, which is later a component of a

sophisticated story)

Feedback from others (regarding interactions with peers, scenarios created, and
resolutions to conflicts) (Kamil, Handbook of Reading Research, 2000)
 I dont believe my stance on this issue has changed. If anything, it has become stronger. I

now have some research to back up my opinions. Some of the ideologies that back up my

beliefs would be The Four Rs--An Alternative to the Tyler Rational by William E. Doll Jr. Doll

pointed out that teachers should be digging deeper into curriculum and going beyond the

standards and objectives with his Four Rs. This is something that I believe reflective

practitioners do inadvertently, but all educators should be made more aware of these

techniques.

In High-Stakes Testing and Curriculum Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis by Wayne Au,

the impression that resonated with me was the evidence that teachers are teaching to the test.

The tests have the predominant effect of narrowing curricular content to those subjects

included in the tests, resulting in the increased fragmentation of knowledge forms into bits and

pieces learned for the sake of the tests themselves and compelling teachers to use more lecture-

based, teacher-centered pedagogies (Flinders and Thornton p. 246). When will policy-makers

wake up and realize the damage being done to students? William Pinar was correct in asserting

curriculum was not concerned with intellectual content but with so called standards.

In What Does is Mean to Say a School Is Doing Well? by Elliot Eisner, he states a similar

sentiment that I did in my second response paper. Lets get rid of tests and see what happens.

Let us assume that we impose a moratorium on standardized testing for a five-year period.

What might we pay attention to in schools in order to say that a school is doing well? (Flinders

and Thornton p. 282) He offers questions schools could be asking themselves instead of the

uncompromising testing philosophy that has become the norm.

In Curriculum for the 21st Century, Nel Noddings states the case that our curriculum is

organized around courses that are focused on traditional disciplines. So regardless of a

students talents and interests they are forced into a class that may not suit them and for what
reason? Isnt there an alternative to traditional curriculum? How are we preparing our

students for the unknown? As Fisch and MeLeod put it in their Shift Happens video, We are

currently preparing students for jobs that dont yet exist . . . using technologies that havent

been invented . . . in order to solve problems we dont even know are problems yet.

Part Three

I believe even though some of my practices are rooted in the scientific curriculum making

field of theory, (in regards to objectives and assessing them) I would like to continue moving

towards the contemporary field. I am not sure this is possible with the obsessive focus on

standards and objectives. I think the most I can hope for is to provide a complementary

curriculum or to stretch the curriculum from the inside (Nel Noddings). I want to move in

this direction because I think it best fits what I am trying to accomplish in my classroom. I

dont want to be stuck in the past and considered a traditional teacher. I want to embrace

what is current and relevant for my students. I want to do as Nel Noddings asks and rethink

the traditional disciplines we teach. As teachers at my school, we have some actual control

because we have the opportunity to create our own units. This gives us the power to add

relevant content to our current curriculum. For example, in rethinking our social studies units

we could add more content that addresses social issues in the Philippines. We could involve

our students in service learning projects which would be authentic and tie the world to our

classroom.

I will be able to experiment with my new findings in the new school year beginning in

August. I hope to be able to be a voice of reason when my coworkers and I are writing a unit

and we become hung up on the verbiage of the standards. Taking this course and being

introduced to these different theorists has made me realize there is not one correct way to
approach curriculum. This has given me a sense of freedom that I did not have before. I was so

sure there was one research-based framework that was better than all others.

In the last two years we have officially adopted (no one asked us our opinion) the Common

Core Standards in English. We are expected to follow the standards and assess them. This does

not make much sense since we are an international school. I wonder what our teachers, who

are from around the world make of having to follow an American framework?

I find myself closely aligned to the many of the theories offered in section four of our reader.

I do believe we should get rid of high stakes testing. I think we should be more sensitive to the

uniqueness of our students. We should be inclusive of multiculturalism, gender, gays, lesbians,

and children with disabilities. These differences should be celebrated not merely tolerated.

There are useful ideas to take away from each of these various theorists. I dont think there

was one theorist in the book who expressed that teacher-centered pedagogy was preferable to

student-centered pedagogy. Ralph Tyler and Elliot Eisner are listed together under the same

section but have very different views. I have unknowingly been emulating the work of Tyler for

years, yet I strive to be similar to Eisner in belief.

I do find it challenging to render theory to practice. These theorists offer interesting ideas

and concepts, but many of them dont show actual examples of how teachers are supposed to

make these changes in their classroom. Not only are our hands tied because of state mandates,

it is also hard to visualize with actual lessons what is to take place day-to-day. I find this to be

the dilemma with many of the solutions offered to teachers. There is no bridge filling the gap

from theory to actual classroom application. The question most often uttered from teachers is,

But what does this look like in my classroom? When Eisner says objectives are a hindrance,

he gives his reasons why, but doesnt give alternatives to not writing objectives.
 The theories of William E. Doll could be applied in day-to-day teaching and learning. His

beliefs about richness could strengthen English lessons where we need to scratch the surface

for deeper meaning in literature. Contemplating rigor would help me keep in mind what is

relevant and stress students reflection on their learning.

Nel Noddings Curriculum for the 21st Century, especially her aims for a new occupational

world provided inspiration for me. I would like to create lessons with her aims imbedded in

the instruction, so students are learning useful life lessons and not just random information.

The most solid takeaway of this course is that there is no one correct way when it comes to

curriculum. Theorists will continue to debate and argue about this complex issue for years to

come.

References

E. (2008, December 28). Shift Happens. Retrieved July 07, 2016, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emx92kBKads

Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (1997). The curriculum studies reader. New York: Routledge.

Kamil, M. L. (2000). Handbook of reading research. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., & Mosenthal, P. (1984). Handbook of reading research. New York:

Longman.

The Philosophy of the Montessori School on Child Development. (n.d.). Retrieved July 07, 2016, from

http://www.montessorischoolofwindsor.com/philosophy-objectives.html

H. (2013, March 30). Curriculum Theorists - Maxine Greene William Pinar Elliot Eisner. Retrieved July 07,

2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh5kZZFkQ_U