Ellison, C.

CT 709-Final Paper 1

Part I

Theorist John Dewey sought to shift the focus of education more to the student, instead of

the institution. He felt that the student should be the focus, and that the curriculum should be

based on student interest and choice. Dewey also argued for no student assessment; no level of

mastery needs to be demonstrated in order to move onto the next topic. In Deweys view,

teachers were to be facilitators to the students, to spark interest within the student. Deweys

effect can be seen in current education with learning centers, thematic units, and hands-on

instruction/manipulatives.

In comparison, Ralph Tyler used objectives to develop a rational approach to teach

subject matter to students. Tyler believed that students should show mastery before moving onto

the next topic. He also affirmed that assessment is a way to determine what is taught. Tylers

Four Principles of Education drive lesson planning in current education. Tylers theory also

lends itself nicely to the high-stakes testing currently adopted.

After studying these two theorists, my understanding has deepened. Both theorists have

helped to shape modern education, and one is not better than the other. My insight on Dewey has

increased tremendously, due in large part to an in-depth study of his contributions. In a nutshell,

Dewey proposed hands-on learning and student-interest curriculum. Simple and effective, yet

overlooked in societys demand for test scores. In fact, Dewey stated that Much of present

education fails because it neglects...school as a form of community life. It conceives the school

as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or

where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the

remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to doAs a

result, they do not become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 2

educative, (Dewey, p. 35). Ahead of his time, Dewey has pointed out a flaw in the educative

system that is present today Schools are so focused on test scores that we as educators are not

educating students for life; rather we are educating them for a test.

In my college education classes, we were drilled to provide as much hands-on learning as

possible. In districts, it is encouraged, but never really achieved. Districts push too much onto

educators (thus students) and no meaningful learning has occurred. We were drilled constantly

on this ideal, but it hasnt been until very recently that I discovered how important that truly is.

Educators (especially primary) tend to take for granted hands-on learning. Students sit too long

at a setting without moving, teachers constantly get asked, Why am I learning this? This will

never apply to my life? Deweys ideas, when brought again to the forefront, has demonstrated a

need that begs to be fixed. Dewey also stated that Education must be conceived as a continuing

reconstruction of experience; that the process and the goal of education are one and the same

thing. (Dewey, p. 37). If students learn by doing, then why is the doing part removed from

instruction?

With many states adopting Common Core standards, I find that students do not have a

working understanding of the material. There is so much included in the standards that should

and need to be incorporated, but students never have time to develop their working knowledge,

before the next topic is introduced. I know some district-approved textbooks use the spiral

approach, where they will hit on the same topic at a later point, but for that to be successful, it

implies that the student has had at least a basic understanding of the topic the first time it

appeared.

While I believe in student-interest driven curriculum, I also believe in a structured

curriculum. I am a list person. I get great satisfaction in marking something complete on a list.
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 3

In teaching, lists help drive my instruction. Lists include objectives. I use the objectives to

determine what should be taught, but I try to provide for lifes teachable moments, which cannot

be predetermined by objectives. Tyler wrote, Nevertheless, if an educational program is to be

planned and if efforts for continued improvement are to be made, it is very necessary to have

some conception of the goals that are being aimed at. (Tyler, p. 60). Objectives are necessary

for ensuring that all pertinent topics are covered educators need to be astute enough to know

when to allow flexibility within the objectives.

Part II

Current educational trends are focusing on testing. Testing is the new buzz word.

Testing, once a way to have students demonstrate mastery of a subject, is now used to determine

funding for schools and continuation of a teachers career. Students are sometimes assessed

more than they spend in actual instruction.

When teaching to the test, as is what is happening, students are given a narrowed version

of the content. It has become largely a teacher-centered experience, with teachers teaching to the

test. Teachers present information for the purpose that it will be included on the test. Students

are not given the opportunity to develop a working understanding of the material it is learned

for the test, and then later discarded. Wayne Au found that Content is increasingly taught in

isolated pieces and often learned only within the context of the tests themselves, (Au, p. 245).

I am still of the opinion that there is too much testing occurring in schools. Testing has

become the new teaching, and it does not effectively allow students to demonstrate knowledge.

When completing standardized tests constantly, there is no allowance of the human factor, the

single-most unique characteristic of our species. Standardized tests do not consider that a
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 4

student might be a lucky guesser, or that a student does not take tests well, or that a student

becomes click happy. How are these scenarios showing student mastery of a subject matter?

And we base teachers jobs on the ability of a student to click the correct answer?

Mortimer Adler, The Paideia Proposal, mentioned that The best education for the best

is the best education for all, (Adler, p. 185). He continued by writing A democratic society

must provide equal educational opportunity no only by giving to all its children the same

quantity of public education the same number of years in school but also by making sure to

give to all of them, all with no exceptions, the same quality of education, (p. 185). This

principle operates under the assumption that all students can learn. While I wholeheartedly agree

with this statement, this effortlessly applies to No Child Left Behind and the Common Core

standards of todays education. This viewpoint operates that all students learn in the exact same

way and demonstrate knowledge in the exact same way. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

With standardized testing, students click on a multiple-choice answer that has a 1 in 4

chance of being the correct answer. There is no higher level of thinking occurring. While tests

of this nature are easy to score, and take little (relative) time for completion, there is no benefit to

this style of learning. Assessments should be based on actual student knowledge hands-on

knowledge and student interest to determine understanding. It is amazing, even after a 100

years, that Deweys theory should still be considered and valued. I imagine Dewey would

shudder if he could see the turn that education has currently taken.

Performance-based assessments would fit the bill nicely. Students would be allowed to

choose how to display knowledge, gain a deeper understanding of the material, and experience

learning in a more natural manner. Such assessments should be the norm, rather than the

exception. Performance assessments would also serve to support Nel Noddings argument
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 5

against the Paideia Proposal Nowhere is there proper consideration of the persons who are, in

their essential freedom and infinite diversity, central and instrumental in their own education,

(Noddings, p. 194). Standardized testing causes students to be filled with the same information,

where they are expected to understand the information in the same manner, and display their

knowledge in the same manner. Performance assessments bring back the human element, makes

it personal for the students, and allows them to demonstrate their knowledge in their way.

Part III

My framework for my philosophy of curriculum pulls from a couple of different theorists

John Dewey, Ralph Tyler, and James Popham come to mind first. Hands-on learning (Dewey)

is the most meaningful learning a student can encounter. To guide students to discovery, there

should at least be a tentative outline of what should be covered (Tyler), and what the student

should be able to discover needs to be clear and be determinable if that outcome has been met

(Popham).

Both John Dewey and Maria Montessori have advocated since the beginning of their

career that students need to engage in hands-on learning, driven by their own interests. Students

engaged in hands-on learning internalize their learning, become responsible for their learning,

and in many cases, are eager to pursue their learning. Students have no interest in learning when

it is boring, irrelevant/busy work, or something they have no interest in whatsoever. For the

most part, this is the majority of my framework of curriculum.

Dewey writes, The true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor

literature, nor history, nor geography, but the childs own social activities, (Dewey, p. 36). Yes,

student interest should drive instruction. However, I believe that there are some aspects that
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 6

serve to balance out the student, that are sometimes less favorable. If we only encourage

students to pursue interests, then students may not be encouraged to master reading skills or

computational math skills. There are skill sets that all individuals need to possess, regardless of

interest. One can be the best in their occupation, but if are not well-rounded or balanced, then

they will never be able to call themselves proficient, because a skill set may be lacking.

In meeting the needs of a well-balanced, educated student, Tylers theories come into

play. All students need a fundamental education in Reading, Math, and other subject matters.

Study History to learn where we have been, and to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

Study Math to be able to handle money/accounts. The world functions on Math one must be

proficient in order to be successful. Study Reading because everything revolves around the

ability to understand written information.

Tylers four fundamental questions guide instruction for the teacher. These four

questions are at the heart of most teachers lesson plans, and help make it possible to determine

what/how the material should be taught. Objectives come into play in this aspect what are

students needing to learn, how will they show that the objective has been met, and is student

understanding observable and measurable? Without objectives, The teacher may say in effect

that he aims to develop a well-educated person and that he is teaching English or social studies

or some other subject because it is essential to a well-rounded education. No doubt some

excellent educational work is being done by artistic teachershave an intuitive sense of what is

good teachingNeverthelessit is very necessary to have some conception of the goals that are

being aimed at, (Tyler, p. 60).

I believe that learning should be hands-on and based off of student interest, but there

should be an overlying structure to ensure that all pertinent education occurs, to balance out the
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 7

student. In addition, objectives are necessary. I love the structure of objectives, but feel that the

educator should have some flexibility within the objectives. Objectives should serve as a

guideline, encouraging students/educators, but allowing for teachable moments. In addition,

objectives need to be written in student-friendly terminology that is clear and measurable.

Pophams theory on objectives can be summarized that [Objectives} promote increased

clarity regarding educational intents, whereas vague and unmeasurable objectives yield

considerable ambiguity and, as a consequence, he possibility of many interpretations not only of

what the objective means but, perhaps more importantly, whether it has been accomplished,

(Popham, p. 96). Without objectives, it is increasingly difficult for me as an educator to

determine what has been taught, what still needs to be taught, and the level of understanding of

the students.

Now, with objectives being an essential part of my framework of curriculum, I am aware

of the balance that needs to be present. In todays high-stakes testing, objectives have become

associated with teaching to the test material that is covered because it will be included on the

test. My viewpoint of objectives is that they are rigidly flexible. Objectives are a plan of

action, guidelines. However, I am not so tied to them that I cannot slow down, allow for more

mastery, and for the unplanned teachable moments that occur. In addition, I dont want to

become so specific in objectives that no additional learning can occur.

Elliot Eisners biggest complaints against objectives include that it is possible to predict

what the outcomes of instruction will be, that subject matters place restraints on objectives, and

objectives overlook curiosity and creativity (p. 110-112). While this is true in many cases, if

educators used objectives as guidelines, instead of law, then these complaints would not be as
Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 8

prevalent. Also, co-curricular thematic units allow for student interest while covering multiple

subject matters.

These co-curricular thematic units can be found in Project Based Learning (PBLs). I am

a big advocate of such learning, because it has clearly defined objectives and outcomes, but is

student driven. Students choose /develop a question from a provided topic, and have flexibility

within their project to let their interests drive the project. Many different subject matters are

covered in one project. PBLs include all aspects of my curriculum framework.

My framework of curriculum includes opportunities for hands-on learning and is student-

interest driven. There are objectives and guiding questions that serve to build the model for

teaching, but these objectives are guidelines they are followed, but am allowed flexibility

within those guidelines. PBLs should be the predominant tool used in instruction. Much

learning can occur in such a setting, more so than traditional teaching methods. This ultimately

puts the students in charge of their learning, leaving the teacher in the role of facilitator. In

return, student learning is much more meaningful, engaging, and relevant to student lives,

rending the learning/understanding achieved that much more valuable.

Ellison, C. CT 709-Final Paper 9

References

Adler, M. The paideia proposal. (1982). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.). The curriculum

studies reader (4th ed. p. 183-186). New York: New York: Routledge.

Au, W. High-stakes testing and curriculum control. (2012). In D. Flinders &S. Thornton (Eds.).

The curriculum studies reader (4th ed. p. 235-251). New York: New York: Routledge.

Dewey, J. My pedagogic creed. (2013). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.). The curriculum

studies reader (4th ed. p.33-40). New York: New York: Routledge.

Eisner, E. Educational objectives help or hindrance. (1966). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton

(Eds.). The curriculum studies reader (4th ed. p. 109-115). New York: New York:

Routledge.

Noddings, N. The false promise of the Paideia. (1984). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.).

The curriculum studies reader (4th ed. p. 187-194). New York: New York: Routledge.

Popham, J. Objectives. (1970). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.). The curriculum studies

reader (4th ed. p. 95-108). New York: New York: Routledge.

Tyler, R. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. (2013). In D. Flinders & S. Thornton

(Eds.). The curriculum studies reader (4th ed. p. 59-68). New York: New York:

Routledge.