So I feel like I might be guilty of "serial posting" the last few weeks; therefore, I'm posting a little early this week in hopes of facilitating a more conversational approach to our blog. What I thought I would do is post a question of the day that is based upon the readings for the week in order to have more of a discussion through our comment section. As we continue to read more over the weekend and into next week, hopefully we can shed more light on the questions that come up from the reading.
While reading this week, I've been trying to keep the questions posed in class in the back of my mind:
1. Who should develop curriculum and for what purpose?
2. How should it be developed?
Check the comments for the first question of the day!
After reading the first few chapters in W&S, I found the three different approaches for for creating curriculum really interesting. There's the Tyler Rationale, Schwab's Practical and Eclectic Approach, and Friere's Emancipation Approach.
ReplyDeleteFor today, let's look at Tyler's rationale.
The Tyler rationale seems to show up more often than not in curriculum development in our schools. We start by looking at overarching objectives, then we move into subjects and experiences that we are going to provide for our students. Afterwards, programs are created in which to carry out the objectives and experiences. Finally, we evaluate the curriculum. Tyler's rational is not a model that should be followed verbatim, yet this is normally how we approach curriculum decisions in our schools (Walker & Soltis, 2009, p. 58).
What do you think about this approach to curriculum development? Do you like the structure involved? Thinking back to the questions for the week, who do you think develops curriculum in this model and what is the purpose?
I thought it was interesting that W&S went through this whole process, challenging us to think of another way to develop curriculum - and then gave us an example (Freire) immediately after... though they do admit that even his has many commonalities with the Tyler Rationale.
DeleteAs for me - I am having a hard time coming up with something that is completely different than Tyler's "method." Makes sense, really, that we have objectives, try to figure out how to reach our objectives, and then measure how "successful" we were.
As for who develops curriculum, it seemed clear in Tyler's model that each school would develop curriculum for themselves. I see a lot of benefits to that idea, quite frankly, but know that it isn't always feasible.
DeleteI agree with you, Melissa. I think the Tyler rationale is really simple, practical, and seems to be useful. Time is such a major issue and this model seems to take less time than the others. I wonder, though, if it prescribes a model that inhibits our ability to think outside the box. I'm also curious as to whom this model benefits. Do students have a say in what is being taught? What about teachers? This model, to me, seems like it could incorporate those voices, but I'd assume that it rarely does.
DeleteI think there's room in Tyler's model for students to have a say - if each school is taking them into consideration as they create their philosophy, etc.
DeleteThe issue I had with Tyler is the emphasis on evaluation - on p 60, it says that "evaluation involves an appraisal of the student's actual behavior" - which begs the question (at least in my mind) - is that even possible? Does measuring an observed behavior give a good picture of what a student has learned?
Wow guys!
DeleteAs described, I think Tyler's rationale allows for all stakeholders to help shape curriculum, but as Melissa pointed out, the evaluation focus is on "behavior". I imagine that this would limit the amount of influence these stakeholders have. Further, it is my belief that a measure of observed behavior might lend an understanding of student learning, but this is only so when it isn't taken in isolation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the same vein as my first comment, what are your thoughts on the Schwab's model and the absence of theory in the creation of curriculum? It seems like it could be a good idea to focus on the practical and have a more deliberative process, but like W&S say, "the same kinds of quesitons that Tyler asks need to be addressed at some point in the dliberation (2009, p. 63).
ReplyDeleteThis model seems really foreign to me and my practice as a math teacher. So, what do you see as being some pros and cons of this type of curriculum development? Who would develop this type of curriculum in schools and who would benefit?
I don't know that this is totally foreign - don't we talk all the time about "what kids will need in the real world" - which is the height of practicality. If we aimed only for this, then most students would be finished with math at 8th grade, and then could take math-y courses they were interested in after that.... of course, with our discussion last week about Traditional v Progressive, we could debate on who chose those classes for students.
DeleteThat's a good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. I think that this could lead to some pretty amazing courses for students to take in mathematics. I guess it would require math teachers to be flexible in what subjects they teach and to be able/willing to branch out of their comfort zones in order to explore some interesting mathematics that students choose to explore. How amazing would it be to have students exploring the worlds of abstract algebra, calculus, analysis, knot theory, and topology because they had taken interest in really cool topics!
DeleteI feel like the big issue with Schwab's approach (which is also related to the part of Cacey's question that we've all sort of danced around) is 'who decides what is practical?' If I were universal educational dictator, I might say that all students should be exposed to calculus in high school because the transformative power of the infinitesimal on student thought and problem solving. Surely empowering students to "see" volumes as revolutions of curves about an axis or tangent lines as instantaneous rate of change causes meaningful shifts in student cognition that is certainly practical. Likewise it is easy for someone to justify that, due to practicality, that formal mathematical is only practical until you reach algebra (after all, no one has ever given me a system of linear equations to solve in the real world). At the end of the day "practicality" is not a cut-and-dry criterion.
DeleteThat's a great point. "Practicality" seems to be very subjective. What is practical to me may not be very practical to another.
DeleteFriere's emancipation approach seems really intriguing to me, but maybe that's because I've enjoyed studying Friere in the past. In any case, I liked the argument that both students and teachers can function in collaboration with one another in order to develop the possibility of something better (Walker & Soltis, 2009, p. 64).
ReplyDeleteTo me, this sounds wonderful, but in reality this does not seem to be a popular method for developing curriculum. While the payoff would be amazing, the amount of time it would take to have intentional and productive dialogue between students, teachers, administrators, and the other powers that be would be astronomical! What do you think? How would you see this type of curriculum development happing in an ideal world? What would be the benefits? What concerns do you have?
My concern here is that it seems like we are separating education for the "oppressed" and the "oppressors." While this may be beneficial, shouldn't we also "stimulate critical consciousness" (p 64) in those that may be considered "oppressors?"
DeleteI understand your concern, but I what I'm hearing Friere say is that he wants to create curriculum designed on the local level, working within the community, in order to empower those who are oppressed and free them from an oppressed life. At the same time, if stimulating critical consciousness is happening at these local levels for the oppressed, it would hopefully be happening in the oppressors localities as well. Therefore, there would be empowerment for the oppressed and realization of oppression from the oppressors. I think this might be thinking too idealistically, but maybe it could happen!
Delete