ACTIVITY 1 1. Read and study the curriculum definitions on this weblink:http://www.homeofbob.com/pedagogy/plan/curDev/defList.

htm
2. Sort out the definitions according to the following categories through a tabular presentation: A.Curriculum as a product - program, document, electronic media, or multimedia B.Curriculum as a program of study - usually courses offered, curriculum sequences of study in standards as benchmarks, gateways, C.Curriculum as intended learnings - goals, content, concepts, generalizations, outcomes D. Curriculum as experiences of the learner - activities, planned and unplanned. E. Hidden curriculum - what students learn that isn't planned - unless you plan for this - or is it possible?

Curriculum Definition Collection

A. Bestor (1956): The curriculum must consist essentially of disciplined study in five great areas: 1) command of mother tongue and the systematic study of grammar, literature, and writing. 2) mathematics, 3) sciences, 4) history, 5) foreign language. Albert Oliver (1977): curriculum is the educational program of the school and divided into four basic elements: 1) program of studies, 2) program of experiences, 3) program of service, 4) hidden curriculum. B. Othanel Smith (1957): A sequence of potential experiences is set up in the school for the purpose of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and acting. This set of experiences is referred to as the curriculum. Bell (1971): the offering of socially valued knowledge, skills, and attitudes made available to students through a variety of arrangements during the time they are at school, college, or university. Bobbit (1918): Curriculum is that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be. Caswell and Campbell (1935): curriculum is composed of all of the experiences children have under the guidance of the teacher." Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner (1988) "that reconstruction of knowledge and experience systematically developed under the auspices of the school (or university), to enable the learner to increase his or her control of knowledge and experience."

David G. Armstrong (1989): "is a master plan for selecting content and organizing learning experiences for the purpose of changing and developing learners' behaviors and insights." Decker Walker (1990): A curriculum consists of those matter: A. that teachers and students attend to together, B. that students, teachers, and others concerned generally recognize as important to study and learn, as indicated particularly by using them as a basis for judging the success of both school and scholar, C. the manner in which these matters are organized in relationship to one another, in relationship to the other elements in the immediate educational situation and in time and space. Duncan and Frymier (1967): a set of events, either proposed, occurring, or having occurred, which has the potential for reconstructing human experience. Goodman (1963): A set of abstractions from actual industries, arts, professions, and civic activities, and these abstraction are brought into the school-box and taught. Harnack (1968) The curriculum embodies all the teaching-learning experiences guided and directed by the school. Hass (1980): The curriculum is all of the experiences that individual learners have in a program of education whose purpose is to achieve broad goals and related specific objectives, which is planned in terms of a framework of theory and research or past and present professional practice. Hilda Taba (1962): "All curricula, no matter what their particular design, are composed of certain elements. A curriculum usually contains a statement of aims and of specific objectives; it indicates some selection and organization of content; it either implies or manifests certain patterns of learning and teaching, whether because the objectives demand them or because the content organization requires them. Finally, it includes a program of evaluation of the outcomes." Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell: "all the experiences children have under the guidance of teachers." J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis (1974): "We define curriculum as a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities to achieve broad goals and related specific objectives for an identifiable population served by a single school center for persons to be educated." Johnson (1967): Curriculum is a structural series of intended learning outcomes. Curriculum prescribes (or at least anticipates) the results of instruction. It does not prescribe the means... To be used in achieving the results. Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi (1989): curriculum is a goal or set of values, which are activated through a development process culminating in classroom experiences for students. The degree to which those experiences are a true representation of the envisioned goal or goals is a direct function of the effectiveness of the curriculum development efforts. Krug (1957): Curriculum consists of all the means of instruction used by the school to provide opportunities for student learning experiences leading to desired learning outcomes. Musgrave (1968): the contrived activity and experience- organized, focused, systematic- that

life, unaided, would not provide. P. Phenix (1962): The curriculum should consist entirely of knowledge which comes from the disciplines... Education should be conceived as a guided recapitulation of the process of inquiry which gave rise to the fruitful bodies of organized knowledge comprising the established disciplines. Peter F. Oliva (1989): "the program, a plan, content, and learning experiences." Ralph Tyler (1957): The curriculum is all of the learning of students which is planned by and directed by the school to attain its educational goals. Robert Hutchins (1936): The curriculum should consist of permanent studies-rules of grammar, reading, rhetoric and logic, and mathematics (for the elementary and secondary school), and the greatest books of the western world (beginning at the secondary level of schooling). Ronald C. Doll (1988): "the formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter attitudes, appreciations, and values under the auspices of that school." Ronald Doll (1970): The curriculum is now generally considered to be all of the experiences that learners have under the auspices of the school. Shaver and Berlak (1968): situations or activities arranged and brought into play by the teacher to effect student learning. Smith and Orlovsky (1978): the content pupils are expected to learn.

ACTIVITY 2 1. Read and study the curriculum schema of Johnson on this weblink: http://www.adprima.com/johnsonschema.htm 2. Based on the definitions you read and the schema of Johnson, state the nature of curriculum development.
The ADPRIMA site presents this curriculum schema as an example of serious thinking about curriculum that transcends the time in which it was written. In the schema, Mauritz Johnson provides one of the most elegant and powerful models for classifying information relative to both curriculum and instruction. His Schema for Curriculum was first presented in an article entitled "Definitions and Models in Curriculum Theory" in Educational Theory, 17 (April, 1967), 127-140. It is still perhaps one of the best taxonomies for classification of curriculum items. In a sense, it goes beyond curriculum and delves boldly into areas that are concerned with instruction, evaluation, and values. For those of you pursuing a doctoral degree, especially in the area of curriculum, this framework can be a valuable tool for deriving meaning from other sources. I came across it when I was just beginning my career in education. In the intervening years, it has proven an invaluable resource not only to me, but to many of the graduate students I have taught. I sincerely hope you find the schema below to be useful, thought provoking, and perhaps a catalyst for your own work in this field. Please send e-mail to Dr. Robert Kizlik if you have any questions.

The Schema

1. A curriculum is a structured series of intended learning outcomes. Corollary. Curriculum does not consist of planned learning experiences. Corollary. Curriculum is not a system but the output of one system and an input into another. 1.1 Learning outcomes consist of three classes: 1.11 Knowledge 1.111 Facts: items of verifiable information 1.112 Concepts: mental constructs epitomizing facts about particular referents 1.113 Generalizations: (including laws, principles, rules) statements of relationship among two or more concepts 1.12 Techniques (processes, skills, abilities) 1.121 Cognitive: methods of operating on knowledge intellectually 1.122 Psycho-motor: methods of manipulating the body and material things effectively with respect to purposes 1.13 Values (affects) 1.131 Norms: societal prescriptions and preferences regarding belief and conduct 1.132 Predilections: individual preferential dispositions (attitudes, interests, appreciations, aversions) 1.2 Whenever a curriculum is used in instruction, the intention (to achieve the outcomes) is implicit regardless of the curriculum's origin or sanction. 2. Selection is an essential aspect of curriculum formulation. 2.1 The source from which curriculum is selected is the available culture. Corollary. Societal problems and the needs and interests of children are not sources of curriculum. 2.11 Modern communication makes available cultural content that is not indigenous to the society in which the curriculum is formulated. 2.12 Some indigenous cultural content may be unavailable due to the secrecy of those in possession of it. 2.2 Cultural content available for curriculum is of two types: disciplinary and non-disciplinary. 2.21 The content embodied in organized disciplines is derived from systematic inquiry conducted within a framework of assumptions and procedures accepted by scholars competent to conduct such inquiry. 2.22 Non-disciplinary content is derived empirically from experience other than deliberate inquiry. 2.3 Various criteria may govern the selection of curriculum from available cultural content. 2.31 The only necessary, albeit insufficient, criterion for curriculum selection is that the content be teachable. 2.311 Teachability implies learnability, but the converse does not necessarily hold. 2.312 Cultural content is teachable if the learning of it by one person can be facilitated by direct or remote interaction with another person. 2.313 Teaching is the process by which one person interacts with another with the intention of influencing his learning. 2.313.1 There can be teaching where there is no learning. 2.313.2 There can be learning without teaching. 2.314 Learning is the process by which an individual invests cultural content with meaning, thereby becoming capable of acting differently toward that item, or another item, of cultural content. Corollary. Learning does not necessarily change behavior, but it changes the potential for behavior. 2.314.1 Learning can be detected only by contriving a situation in which a change in behavior can be manifested. 2.314.2 Learning is independent of any demonstration of its occurrence. 2.315 Cultural content is learnable if meaning can be perceived in it. 2.315.1 Cultural content has meaning for an individual to the extent that he recognizes appropriate rules by which his actions toward it may be governed. 2.315.2 Meanings may be symbolic, empiric, esthetic, ethic, synoetic, or synoptic. (Phenix, 1964.) 2.32 Ideology determines what additional criteria are imposed in curriculum selection. 2.321 A given society may demand that curriculum be selected in conformity with a specified set of political, social, economic, or moral values. 2.322 Curriculum content may be selected with regard to its utility in the social order or in the present or anticipated life situations of learners. 2.323 Curriculum content may be selected with regard to its significance in the structure of intellectual disciplines. 2.33 The basis of curriculum selection differs for training and for education. 2.331 Training is the process of preparing an individual to perform defined functions in a predictable situation. 2.332 Education is the process of equipping an individual to perform undefined functions in unpredictable situations. 2.333 The selection of curriculum content for training is based on an analysis of the specific functions to be performed and the specific situation in which they are to be performed.

2.334 The selection of curriculum content for education is based on its having the widest possible significance and greatest possible explanatory power. 2.34 The selection of some curriculum items necessitates the selection of related items. 2.341 A set of closely related items is a curriculum cluster. 2.342 A curriculum cluster may consist of one type or mixed types of curriculum items. 3. Structure is an essential characteristic of curriculum. 3.1 Curriculum structure reveals orderings that are mandatory for instruction. 3.11 The ordering of some curriculum items is indifferent. 3.12 The ordering of some curriculum clusters determines the gross ordering of constituent items, but not their internal order. 3.13 Some curriculum clusters are ordered internally. 3.14 Curriculum ordering disregards instructional temporal spacing (grade or age placement). 3.2 Curriculum structure reveals taxonomic (hierarchical) relationships, whether or not order of items is significant. 4. Curriculum guides instruction. 4.1 Instruction is the interaction between a teaching agent and one or more individuals intending to learn. 4.2 Instruction engages intended learners in activities with cultural content. 4.21 The teaching agent influences the activities of those intending to learn. 4.22 The range of appropriate instructional activities is limited by the type of curriculum item. 4.23 Instructional content includes both curricular and instrumental content. 4.231 Curricular content is that cultural content explicitly intended to be learned. 4.232 Instrumental content is optional cultural content introduced into the instructional situation, not to be learned but to facilitate the intended learning. 4.24 Instructional planning consists of the selection and ordering of instructional activities and instrumental content on the basis of curriculum. 4.25 A learning experience is the subjective concomitant of activities with instructional content on the part of an individual engaging in them. 4.3 Instruction is episodic. 4.31 An instructional episode consists of a series of teaching cycles relevant to one or more curriculum items. 4.311 A teaching cycle involves perception, diagnosis, and action or reaction by a teaching agent and intended learners. 4.312 Teaching cycles are initiated by structuring or soliciting moves. 4.313 Teaching cycles include reflexive response or reaction movers. 4.314 Actions and reactions in teaching cycles are linguistic, performative, or expressive. 4.32 Several instructional episodes may relate to the same curriculum item, just as a given instructional episode may relate to a number of curriculum items. 5. Curriculum evaluation involves validation of both selection and structure. 5.1 Empirical evidence based on instruction can identify structural errors and omissions in selection. 5.2 Judgmental and consensual methods are required to validate priorities and identify superfluities in selection. 6. Curriculum is the criterion for instructional evaluation. 6.1 The effectiveness of instruction is represented by the extent to which actual outcomes correspond with intended outcomes. 6.2 Comparisons among instructional plans and among instructors using the same instructional plan can be made only in terms of a given curriculum. Earn one of the most current and relevant degrees offered in the area of Education. Complete your degree in as little as 2 years. Click here for details.

ACTIVITY 3 1. Read and study the weblinks provided and make a short but meaningful descriptions of the following curriculum processes: A .Curriculum integration http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1469587/curriculum_integration_verses_critical.ht ml?cat=4 http://www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/CurriculumIntegration/intro.html http://education.alberta.ca/media/656618/curr.pdf B.Curriculum mapping http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/virtualwkshp/curriculum_mapping.shtml http://www.curriculummapping101.com/curr http://www.mc3edsupport.org/community/knowledgebases/video-what-is-curriculum-mapping1704.htmliculum-mapping-general http://www.k12curriculumdevelopment.com/1/category/curriculum%20mapping%20/1.html 2. Read and study the different curriculum perspectives on the following weblinks: http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/analysis-of-curriculum-perspectives1897395.html http://www.academicleadership.org/article/understanding-curriculum-perspectives-a-lessonin-frustration Identify how each perspective can influence the teaching and learning of your subject area. For those who are in the CPE program, identify one subject area you would like to major in : Science, English, Math, Social Studies, Filipino, Music, Arts and Physical Education. 3. Present this in a graphic organizer (tabular presentation).

Curriculum Integration Verses (Critical) Thinking Skills

What is Curriculum Integration? There is no agreed-upon definition, however, there are several characteristics that are within all definitions. They include: student-centered relevant learning, a socially and site-based orientation, all disciplines and grade levels may be involved, and shared content. Curriculum Integration may be referred to as: thematic, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and having connected curriculum. When looking at Curriculum Integration, one sees projects and activities that are based on themes. These themes connect the different disciplines together to form a unified curriculum base. Real-world investigations are used to make the curriculum authentic to the students. Problem-based activities encompass a wide range of academic disciplines so the theme may be used and the students will feel a connection between all aspects of the problem. Academic disciplines are seen as tools to aide the learning process. When a school decides to use Curriculum Integration, they will be able to use this practice in several areas. They may decide to use it within a single discipline. A good example of this is Price Lab having Integrated Math. This math teaches all math within each classroom. They may be using Algebra, along with Trigonometry, Statistics, Geometry, etc., all at the same time. This helps the students understand how real-world problems will be solved using several types of math. The school system may also go across several disciplines to unite their curriculum. A good example of this is when McKinstry Elementary did a unit on the jungle. The Classroom teacher taught English, History and Science concerning the jungle. The Music teacher taught music that was used within the tribes that lived within that part of the world. The Art teacher allowed the students to make life-size cardboard animals and paint them to put within a jungle scene that had been set-up within their main classroom. The Physical Education teacher did games from the jungle tribes. The last teacher to participate was the Librarian. She allowed the students to research jungle animals in books and on the computers. She also read them stories concerning this theme. Curriculum Integration is done within and across learners. This helps all students realize the connection between all subject areas utilized When looking at the historical perspective of the Integrated Curriculum, it began in the 1800's under the label of Core Curriculum, as stated by Herbert Spencer. During the Progressive Educational Movement in the early 1900's, the name was changed to Integrated Curriculum. Much work was done on this theory by John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, George Counts, and Harold Rugg. The theory progressed further in the mid-1900's within the Constructivist Movement. Each person constructs his/her reality with one's own direct experience being the key to meaningful learning.

How do you do Curriculum Integration within the school setting? First, the school system must decide what they would like to integrate (themes), what disciplines they would like to include in this integration, how best to teach these themes, research sources, develop some type of a plan (mapping or web-mapping), and whether technology will be used within the integration. Curriculum Integration differs greatly from the current way of teaching within the school system. Now, teaching is skill-based, the Basal reader is used along with single text, memorization and cumulative knowledge is demanded, and the teaching is taught vertically using the lecture format. Once a school system begins using Curriculum Integration, the classes will be whole language, show authentic literature with multi-texts, promote how to learn which is researchbased, and is horizontal using cooperative learning. An example of beginning a feasible Curriculum Integration using technology should follow three stages. These stages include: " Phase I - Distribution of technology where needed. Participant's will be able to communicate between home and school and use basic software tools (Microsoft Works and Publisher) to carry out a wide-range of curriculum activities. " Phase II - Integration of additional multimedia resources into the school and its curriculum, and the broader community: completing the development of the technical infrastructure; distributing the technology to the community; procuring the resources for the multimedia library; conducting staff development for the educator; and gather baseline data for studies of implementation and effectiveness. " Phase III - all participants are given access to the network from hone and from their classrooms. Curriculum begins to be taught here.[1] Within innovations of Curriculum Integration, we look at allowing the students to participate in "real-world" authentic situations. If the unit is a collaboration of student and teacher input, it would be advisable to follow "The Project Approach" developed by Lillian Katz and Sylvia Chard. In this model the students might choose the topic according to interests, or the teacher could direct the topic. The students go home and interview parents, family members, neighbors, etc., about the topic. Then they share what they learned and develop questions from the things that they have learned which starts the inquiry. The teacher can also ask questions that focus on curriculum goals. This would be the set of essential questions:

" Highlights conceptual priorities for your specific target population " Fulfills learning outcomes. " Umbrella-like language for organizing purposes " Usually two to five questions. " Each question embraces a distinct section of activity. " The set of questions is non-repetitious. " Realistic set of questions for the time frame.

" POSTED by all participating teachers " Connects a range of disciplines (if interdisciplinary). " A logical sequence is apparent in the set of questions." EVERY child can understand the questions[2] When deciding to use total Curriculum Integration one must include comprehensive school reform, technological innovation and corporate sponsorship. To develop core applications for Curriculum Integration which includes technology, one should:

" Review CORE to determine the content and process/skills to be included in the unit for each of the disciplines that will be used " Content is WHAT STUDENTS SHOULD KNOW. " Process/skills are WHAT STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO. " Assessment is added as teachers think of appropriate ways to assess in each discipline. " Content, process/skills, and assessment can be placed on the curriculum map if desired. " This page will be used by the teacher and the students as an assessment guide to determine if the student has mastered the desired content and process/skills.[3] Level I Research on Curriculum Integration shows the theory was established by John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, George Counts and Harold Rugg. It was presented to the educational system during the 20th Century. Level II and Level III Research is lacking. Within Level II, basic research has been done using block scheduling, team teaching, and self-contained programs. Very few schools have gone to total curriculum integration and there is very little data to back these trials. It has been observed that Curriculum Integration is itself a large holding company of educational variables that, put together, DEFIES CLASSICE RESARCH METHODS. It has also been shown that so significant data has been collected on which to base Integration Curriculum as a valid classroom practice.[4] To develop a unit/project there are several steps that one must go through. They include: " Write an essential question at the top of each page; lay the pages out in a working area." Review the brainstorm map and the content, process/skills/assessment page and develop activities. Write the activity name on a "sticky" and place under the corresponding essential question " When activities have been decided upon, determine if the essential questions will work - is another one needed? Is there one that is not needed? " Place the activities in the order decided. " If desired, fill in the format for each activity: o Determine if the activity focuses on a content or process/skill or both. o Name the activity. If the activity needs more explanation, refer to the lesson plan form provided o List the multiple intelligences the activity addresses

o Describe which thinking process is used in this activity. o Include how the activity will be assed.

" List the resources needed " At the bottom of each page is space for culminating or connecting activities, as well as a place to put choices for student presentations or products " When all activities have been decided upon, it might be helpful to tabulate them on the matrix created by Thomas Armstrong to see how balanced the unit is in meeting all students' needs and thinking process.[5] The primary strengths of Curriculum Integration include: student-centered; combines school subjects into active projects; uses academic disciplines as tools for the learning process; accommodates learning of skills in separate subjects and application of those to real-life situations; often tied to community issues; leads to cooperative learning; teachers serve as guides, facilitators, and enablers; teachers collaborate, take risks, innovate, and grow professionally; and that teachers and students are involved in the planning and development of instructional process. Weaknesses include: a potpourri problem; polarity may develop; disciplines or subjects may be slighted; focus is integration as a means to an end; focus is authentic learning activities; time; availability of materials; and type of assessment to be used. Practitioners may need some suggestions to help them become comfortable with trying or implementing Curriculum Integration. Some suggestions that could be proposed include: becoming comfortable with the use of technology; step outside of the box; research to find the appropriate plan for them; use "mapping" or "web-mapping" to solidify curriculum; acquire district/community "buy-in"; collaborate with fellow teachers; use professional growth to dare themselves to grow professionally; dare to be innovative; co-teach and be comfortable sharing the lime-light; etc. Once teachers become unafraid of others treading on their territory, Integrated Curriculum could become a practice of the future. When discussing Integrated Curriculum, one might look at the Thinking Skills Programs to understand the way children develop learning patterns. Piaget's Developmental Stages include:

" Stage Characterised by Sensori-motor (Birth-2 yrs) Differentiates self from objects Recognizes self as agent of action and begins to act intentionally: e.g. pulls a string to set mobile in motion or shakes a rattle to make a noise Achieves object permanence: realizes that things continue to exist even when no longer present to the sense (pace Bishop Berkeley)

" Pre-operational (2-7 years) Learns to use language and to represent objects by images and words Thinking is still egocentric: has difficulty taking the viewpoint of others Classifies objects by a single feature: e.g. groups together all the red blocks regardless of shape, or the square blocks, regardless of color

" Concrete operational (7-11 years) Can think logically about objects and events Achieves conservation of number (age 6), mass (age 7), and weight (age 9) Classifies objects according to several features and can order them in series along a single dimension such as size." Formal operational (11 years and up) Can think logically about abstract propositions and test hypotheses systematically Becomes concerned with the hypothetical, the future, and ideological problems.[6] If you look at these stages, one can see that Integrated Curriculum would be beneficial during the through the Pre-operational to Formal operational stages. This is where the mind is actively working on developing higher-ordering thinking skills. By including the information that the student's already have, with new information, knowledge development and learning would increase. [1] Dumas, M. State Integrated Curriculum Specialist. Oct. 1, 1997. http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/integrate/packet/int2.html [2] Hayes-Jacobs, H. State Integrated Curriculum Specialist. Oct. 1, 1997. http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/integrate/packet/int4.html [3] Dumas, M. State Integrated Curriculum Specialist. Oct. 1, 1997. http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/integrate/packet/int3.html [4] Ellis, A. Research on Educational Innovations. Eye on Education. Larchmont, NY. 2001 pp. 171-181 [5] Dumas, M. State Integrated Curriculum Specialist. Oct. 1, 1997. http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/integrate/packet/int5.h5ml

[6] Atkinson et al (1993) Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/piaget.htm

A .Curriculum integration Curriculum Integration - Students Linking Ideas across Disciplines

Definition Curriculum integration implies restructuring learning activities to help students build connections between topics. A seminal study by Seymour and Hewitt concludes that one of the reasons students leave science and engineering is that they lose interest.[1] Building connections and establishing greater relevance is important. Goal: Transferable Learning Engineering graduates will be expected to transfer and apply their conceptual understanding in novel situations. However, transferring knowledge from one context and applying it in a different situation is a very challenging task.[2] Promoting successful transfer in engineering curricula depends upon students prior knowledge and characteristics of their undergraduate experiences. Since prior knowledge is beyond curricular control, emphasis in promoting transferable learning should be on characteristics of engineering curricula. During their undergraduate experiences students learn a number of topics simultaneously in different courses. In their courses students must actively extend their existing cognitive networks or construct new networks in which to hold the new information. They might more easily and effectively assimilate new information if topics presented simultaneously in different courses were closely related. Therefore, faculty members might coordinate topics across different subjects. Further, faculty members reasoned that they might facilitate assimilation if they constructed lectures and other learning activities that acknowledged other topics that students were learning and helped students build links between these Curriculum Integration Example Arizona State University Students Link Electromagnetics and Electronic Materials Electromagnetics and properties of electronic materials are two of the most challenging areas of electrical engineering. At Arizona State University, Professor Ronald Roedel and coworkers use wave phenomena to integrate the material and offer students challenging and more realistic problems. Roedel unites concepts, like matter waves, electromagnetic waves, and lattice vibrations, to create a strong, interdisciplinary foundation. Example Problem: Develop a nondestructive technique to examine regrowth kinetics of a silicon wafer implanted with silicon ions and the interface between the thin amorphous layer near the top of the wafer and the crystalline region below. Because amorphous and crystalline silicon have different relative permitivities, consider using a He-Ne laser to illuminate the wafer. As the interface moves, the thickness of the amorphous layer changes, and the reflectance should change. Set up the wave equations for normal incidence reflection from a two-interface dielectric system and solve these equations to determine the thickness of the amorphous layer. Then find the velocity of the amorphous/crystalline interface.

topics. Research support for integrated learning activities can be found in multiple sources. Source No. 1: Transferable Learning and Multiple Contexts The context in which one learns is also important for promoting transfer. Knowledge that is taught in only a single context is less likely to support flexible transfer than knowledge that is taught in multiple contexts. With multiple contexts, students are more likely to abstract the relevant features of concepts and develop a more flexible representation of knowledge.[3] The use of well-chosen contrasting cases can help students learn the conditions under which new knowledge is applicable. Abstract representations of problems can also facilitate transfer. Transfer between tasks is related to the degree to which they share common elements, although the concept of elements must be defined cognitively. In assessing learning, the key is increased speed of learning the concepts underlying the new material, rather than early performance attempts in a new subject domain.

Instead of compartmentalizing material into either solid state or electromagnetics arenas, students who tackle problems like the one above see the need for thinking and problem solving skills at the analysis and synthesis levels.[4] Roedel developed the Wave Concepts Inventory (WCI)[5] to measure students conceptual understanding of the material. Using the WCI, Roedel has shown that students who have taken the integrated course have a stronger conceptual understanding of electromagnetics and electronic materials than students who take the separate courses.

Curriculum Integration Example: Multidisciplinary Applications of Spectral Analysis at University of Alabama At the University of Alabama, Sally McInerny, associate professor of aerospace engineering and mechanics, and electrical engineering associate professors Harold Stern and Tim Haskew have developed a juniorlevel multidisciplinary laboratory course on industrial applications of dynamic data acquisition and analysis. By using a team of professors to teach the course, says Stern, we could show the students how professors work in teams. And by using professors from Source No. 2: Student Perspective Qualitative researchers at the University of different disciplines, we could help the students see concepts from different California Berkeley interviewed 70 mechanical engineering students about their perspectives and how different disciplines learning experiences in college. Although the share common principles. The instructors researchers were aware of various integrated designed the course to integrate topics in curricula that had been implemented across the digital signal processing, communications, country, they were interested in the student acoustics, vibrations, electric machines, and power. Multidisciplinary teams of aerospace, perspective of integration, as well as the pedagogical perspective. Data from the electrical, industrial, and mechanical engineering students develop a qualitative interviews tended to support the value of linking concepts. For example, Of the 70 understanding of time and frequency domains. students interviewed, 60% commented on the Interdisciplinary interaction in upper-level benefit of linking concepts across lecture courses is helpful to students, explained McInerny, because it allows them

disciplines.[6]

to see some of the common principles and themes that run through all disciplines of engineering. Instructors use resources Source No. 3: Neurological Studies Studies using functional magnetic resonance available via the Web and movies developed with MATLAB to help students develop a imaging show that activities in the left prefrontal and temporal regions jointly foundation for later work. With a conceptual promote memory formation[7] for words in a foundation in place, students work to list. Activity in the left prefrontal cortex may understand the breadth of possible applications, studying four laboratory indicate that subjects must make some association between the new words that are modules: speech encoding and enhancement, being presented for recall and prior memories. machinery sound power measurement, Thus, studies of neurological processes machine condition monitoring, and motor support the necessity of building links between condition monitoring. The course ends with a new stimuli and prior knowledge for small design project.[9] subsequent recall. Curriculum Integration Example: First-Year Students at the Rose-Hulman Link Chemistry Source No. 4: Concept Maps and Mathematics Concept maps are graphs in which the nodes Mathematicians and chemists at Rose-Hulman are concepts and the edges that connect the Institute of Technology introduce reaction nodes are links that describe how the kinetics simultaneously.[10] They present the connected concepts are related.[8] Very general nth order reaction and the associated roughly, concept maps may represent the knowledge of a person and the way in which differential equation , as the person has organized her/his knowledge. In well as first and second order reactions (n = 1 general, faculty members would prefer that in or 2), as important special cases. Obtaining a students concept map that there would be solutions (analytical models) to the differential many links between a concept and other equations motivates antiderivatives (or concepts so that the student would be able to indefinite integrals). Students acquire data connect a particular concept to many possible from reactions in the chemistry laboratory and applications. However, helping students attempt to fit the data with these analytical develop more tightly interconnected concepts models. An application in one discipline may require increased curricular integration. motivates theoretical exploration in another discipline. Models obtained from the theoretical exploration are used to interpret laboratory data. Students begin to see how a single concept appears in diverse contexts. Curriculum Integration Example: Building Terminology Bridges Differences in terminology (or nomenclature, as chemists prefer), units, or error analysis sometimes inhibit the ability of students to make links. For example, what physicists call

torque is named moment of a force by faculty members teaching engineering mechanics. Chemists teaching reaction kinetics to firstyear students often introduce the concept of indefinite integration before or at the same time as the students see the concept in calculus. However, chemists may be unsure of whether to call it indefinite integration or antidifferentiation. Terminology may not cause problems for faculty members who have mastered material, but different names for the same concept can hinder students mastery. Helping students see the different names for the same concept can encourage deeper learning.

References for Further Information: 1. Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N.M. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press 2. Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1983) Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer, Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138 3. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (1999). Bransford J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking R.R. (editors). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/index.html 4. Roedel, R. J., El-Ghazaly, S., and Aberle, J.T. (1998) An Integrated Upper Division Course in Electronic Materials and Electromagnetic Engineering - Wave Phenomena for Electrical Engineers, Proceedings, Frontiers in Education, Tempe, AZ. http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie98/papers/1341.pdf 5. Roedel, R. J., El-Ghazaly, S., Rhoads, T.R., and El-Sharawy, E. (1998) "The Wave Concepts Inventory - An Assessment Tool for Courses in Electromagnetic Engineering Engineers, Proceedings, Frontiers in Education, Tempe, AZ. http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie98/papers/1351.pdf 6. McKenna, A., McMartin, F., Terada, Y., Sirivedhin, V., and Agogino, A. (2001) A Framework for Interpreting Students' Perceptions of an Integrated Curriculum, Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM. 7. Wagner, A.D., Schacter, D.L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A.M., Rosen, B.R., and Buckner, R.L. (1998) Building memories: Remembering and Forgetting of Verbal Experiences as Predicted by Brain Activity, Science, 281, 11881191 http://web.mit.edu/wagner/www/papers/WAG_SCI98.pdf 8. Turns, J., Atman, C., and Adams, R. (2000) Concept Maps for Engineering Education: A Cognitively Motivated Tool Supporting Varied Assessment Functions, IEEE Trans.

Education. 42:2, 164173 9. McInerny, S., Stern, H.P., and Haskew, T.A., 1999, Applications of Dynamic Data Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Education, 42:4, 276-280 10. Winkel, B.J. and Rogers. 1993. Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Nature, Evolution, and Evaluation. Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. 186-191. 11. Al-Holou, N. et. al. (1999) First-Year Integrated Curricula Across Engineering Education Coalitions, JEE, 88:4

Curriculum Mapping
What Is It? Curriculum mapping is a process for collecting and recording curriculum-related data that identifies core skills and content taught, processes employed, and assessments used for each subject area and grade level. The completed curriculum map then becomes a tool that helps teachers keep track of what has been taught and plan what will be taught. Creating and working with curriculum maps is a 7-step process involving:
y y y y y y y

Phase 1: Data collection. Phase 2: A review of all maps by all teachers. Phase 3: Small mixed group reviews, in which groups of five to eight diverse faculty members share individual findings Phase 4: Large group comparisons, in which all faculty members gather to examine the findings of the smaller groups. Phase 5: Identification of immediate revision points and creation of a timetable for resolution. Phase 6: Identification of points requiring additional research and planning, and a timetable for resolution of those points. Phase 7: Planning for the next review cycle.

The purpose of a curriculum map is to document the relationship between every component of the curriculum. Used as an analysis, communication, and planning tool, a curriculum map
y y y y y

allows educators to review the curriculum to check for unnecessary redundancies, inconsistencies, misalignments, weaknesses, and gaps; documents the relationships between the required components of the curriculum and the intended student learning outcomes; helps identify opportunities for integration among disciplines; provides a review of assessment methods; and identifies what students have learned, allowing educators to focus on building on previous knowledge.

Bear in mind that curriculum maps are records of implemented instruction -- of what has been taught during the current school year. Projection maps, or pacing guides, on the other hand, project what will be covered in the future.

Curriculum Mapping
The United States educational system is in the midst of reform and new forms. While there are, and will continue to be, federal recommendations and requisites related to accountability such as Common Core State Standards, Race To The Top, No Child Left Behind, PARCC Assessments, high-stakes testing, standards alignment, and instruction based on best practices, many public and private learning orgnaizations want to infuse a 21st century learning-centered mindset and build their educational mission, vision, and goals around an emphasis on students as diverse learners and thinkers. There are many research-based models designed to help cultivate educational reform and new forms. Based on a desired model (or often times, more than one model), a learning organization creates a framework that necessitates all teachers be involved in the act of learning--teachers as learners, teachers as systemic designers of student learning, students as learners and, at times, codecision makers, and teachers focusing on best-practice teaching and facilitating.

Curriculum Mapping Model

The curriculum mapping model based on Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs's work (1997, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) clearly addresses the necessity to synthesize various models and create a framework that foucses on the recommendations, requisites, and desires that affect students' learning and teahcing environments. Udelhofen (2005) states "the concept of curriculum mapping originated in the 1980s with the work of Fenwick English" (xviii). Dr. Jacobs embraced and enhanced the earlier work by

adding a variety of teacher-driven curriculum maps, horizontal and vertical alignments, cyclic reviews, and professional curricular dialogue. Jacobs (2004) states, "curriculum maps have the potential to become the hub for making decisions about teaching and learning. Focusing the barrage of initiatives and demands on schools into a central database that can be accessed from anywhere through the Internet can provide relief Mapping becomes an integrating force to address not only curriculum issues, but also programmatic ones." (p.126). Hale (2008) adds, "curriculum mapping is not a spectator sport. It demands teachers ongoing preparation and active participation. There must also be continual support from administrators who have a clear understanding and insight into the intricacies of the mapping process." (p. xv) Curriculum Mapping emphasizes the requisite that teachers and administrators focus on the balance between what really took place in individual classrooms with what was individually or collaboratively planned. This data is measured in real time: recorded by months or grading periods. Most types of curriculum maps are recorded monthly. Teachers record what has taken place, or is planned, individually at a school-site level (Diary Map, Projected Map); collaboratively planned curriculum at a school-site level (Consensus Map, oftentimes referred to as a Core Map, Master Map, or Benchmark Map); or collaboratively planned curriculum at a district level (Essential Map). To gain insight into gaps, absences, and repetitions in a school or district's K-12 curriculum, it is critical to create quality maps. During the initial learning-to-map-phase the most commonly recorded data includes content, skills, assessments, resources, and their alignment to one another other and state (or other) standards. In subsequent and more advanced phases of mapping, additional data such as evaluation processes, attachments of best-practice lesson plans and activities, essential questions, and other curricular information is often included. Curriculum maps are never considered "done," nor is having maps the ultimate goal of mapping. Maps are a by-product of mapping. The term mapping is a verb. It consitutes active engagement and collegial participation in on-going curriculum work. Curriculum mapping does not perceive education as a static environment since learning, and learning about learning, is in continual motion. As long as teachers have new students, new classes, and new school years, newly designed, revised, and replaced learning and teaching evidence in curriculum maps provides a school or district's ongoing curriculum. Curriculum maps are never to be used for teacher evaluation or punitive damage. Maps are designed to provide authentic evidence of what has happened or is being planned to happen in a school or throughout a district. Encouraging frequent individual and collaborative revisiting, reviewing, and renewing of available data (e.g., curriculum maps, student assessments/evalautions, teacher-to-teacher instruction observations, formal testing results) through curricular dialogues and collaboratve decison making is at the heart of mapping. This mindset is a necessity to reach sustainabilty and have curriculum mapping become a natural way for conducting curriculum work that continually improves student learning.

Curriculum Mapping Focuses

Curriculum Mapping focuses on three Cs: Communication, Curricular Dialogue, and Coherency. Communication -- 21st Century curriculum maps are most often developed and maintained using an Internet-based commercial mapping system. This technological venue provides teachers and administrators with easy access to both the planned and actual horizontal (same grade level and/or same discipline) and vertical (different grade levels and/or different disciplines) curricula for present and past school years. The commercial systems' search features allow teachers to gain instant information in regard to mapping data to aid in curricular dialogue. This means and level of communication is unprecedented. In the not-to-distant past data had to be printed out, copied, distributed, and an in-person meeting held to view and discuss the documents. Curriculum Mapping encourages innovation and thought about meeting differently and in new ways. Curricular Dialogue -- Teachers take part in collegial relationships wherein they make databased decisions about grade-level, cross-grade level, disciplinary, and cross-disciplinary curricula and instructional practices. Teachers become Teacher Leaders. Curriculum Mapping has two guiding principles: Jacobs (2004) states that teachers and administrators must consider "the empty chair" which represents all students in a given school or district, and "all work must focus on Johnny, and all comments and questions are welcomed as long as they are in his best interest" (p.2). Second, if it is in the students' best interest to change, modify, stop, start, or maintain curriculum practices, programs, and/or other related issues, there must be data-based proof to do so (Jacobs, 2002). These two principles are logical, rational, and well-founded. One may consider them easy to implement, but oftentimes proves difficult in practice. Barth (2006) refers to the "elephant in the classroomthe various forms of relationships among adults within the schoolhouse might be categorized in four ways: parallel play, adversarial relationships, congenial relationships, and collegial relationships" (p.10). Not surprising, the first three ways do not elicit vigorous curricular dialogue. Barth contends "empowerment, recognition, satisfaction, and success in our workall in scarce supply within our schoolswill never stem from going it alone success comes only from being an active participant within a masterful groupa group of colleagues" (p.13). Therefore, it is of utmost importance to provide teachers with ample professional development to hone their skills in all facets of curriculum mapping and collegial, curricular dialogue. Allowing teachers time to build personal ownership in the mapping process empowers them, and subsequently, improves student learning. Coherency -- A combination of 21st Century communication plus curricular dialogue eventually equals curricular coherency. Many teachers are currently engaged in what Dr. Jacobs (2001) refers to as "treadmill teaching." Running breathless on grade-level or content-area treadmills trying desperately to get everything they believe needs to be taught, taught. If teachers took the time to slow down their treadmills and personally document and evaluate both the planned, and most importantly, actual learning, they may well discover that they are perpetuating a potentially incoherent curriculum. Curriculum Mapping is designed to ask teachers to record, reflect on,

study, and revise their individual and corporate work. This cyclic endeavor eventually leads a school or district to developing and maintaining an aligned curriculum that makes sense to all and most importantlyto students!

Curriculum Mapping and Change

Curriculum Mapping necessitates that teachers play an active role in making curricular decisions. Looking at this historically, it is not the educational norm. Empowering teachers to become Teacher Leaders is paramount, and a top priority when introducing the concepts of Curriculum Mapping. Administration, as always, plays a critical role in this endeavor. Lyle (2006), a Curriculum Mapping Coordinator in Marion, Illinois, wrote an excellent article pertaining to the issue of Curriculum Mapping, leadership, and change. Here is an excerpt: Curriculum mapping involves a second-order change. Marzano, R., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. (2005) state that second-order change "involves dramatic departures from the expected, both in defining a given problem and in finding a solution" (p. 66). Curriculum Mapping may be considered a second-order change for our district because it challenges the status quo of historical practices and therein may result in resistance. However, it has the potential of resulting in transformative learning. Weinbaum (2004, cited Merzirow & Associates, 2001) in stating "transformative learning involves the process by which we revise or change our fundamental assumptions, perspectives, and worldviews" (p.16). Curriculum Mapping results in reflective practices that expand teacher perspectives and responsibilities for student learning from a micro to macro level. Jacobs (1997) states To make sense of our students' experiences over time, we need two lenses: a zoom lens into this year's curriculum for a particular grade and a wide-angle lens to see the K-12 perspective. The classroom (or micro) level is dependent on the site and district level (a macro view). Though the micro and macro levels are connected throughout a district, there is a conspicuous lack of macrolevel data for decision making. Yet we need that big picture for each student's journey through his or her years of learning. With data from curriculum mapping, as school and its feeding and receiving sites can review and revise the curriculum within a larger, much-needed contest. Data on the curriculum map can be examined both horizontally through the course of any one academic year and vertically over the student's K-12 experience (pp. 3 - 4). The data generated in curriculum maps can provide information that enables teachers to identify and address curricular gaps and repetitions. Curriculum Mapping is built on a foundation of collaborative inquiry groups in which "teachers construct knowledge from questioning their own practice and looking closely at their own students and their work" as well as the relationship between individual teacher's works in terms of the big picture of the student's K-12 experience (Weinbaum, 2004, p. 18). Lambert (2003) states "schools in which staff members discuss student learning outcomes during continuing professional dialogues tend to reflect upon and improve practice as a result" (p. 54). The reflective process of Curriculum Mapping as well as

the variety of collaborative inquiry groups has the potential of significantly impacting student achievement. However Curriculum Mapping can not be sustained without the proper leadership, support, and teacher "by-in." Effective Curriculum Mapping requires nurturing, supporting, and encouraging teacher leadership so that the impetus for systemic change is fostered by a bottomup approach rather than a top-down system. Lambert (2003) suggests: Directive or command-and-control behavior may get the immediate task done, but it undermines the growth and development of those who are subjected to it, diminishing teacher leadership and the leadership capacity of the school. Innovation, risk-taking, and real conversations about teaching and learning are not to be found in schools governed by directive principals. (p. 44) Fostering teacher leadership, shared vision, and "trusting" collaborative inquiry groups is the cornerstone of a curriculum mapping initiative that results in sustainable change. Barth (2001) notes that teacher leaders often: "encounter resistance from fellow teachers" because they "violate the taboos of their school" in that "principals lead; teachers teach. So it has been, and so it shall be" or they may feel impeded by "other teachers and administrators who are threatened" by the teacher leader's passion and enthusiasm. (p. 446) Curriculum Mapping results in a redefining of teacher and administrator roles and responsibilities. References: Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher Leader. Phi Delta Kappan,82 (6), 443-449. Jacobs, H.H. (1997). Mapping the big picture integrating curriculum and assessment K-12, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T, McNulty, B.A. (2005) School leadership that works from research to results, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum. Critical to understanding Curriculum Mapping and its collaborative design, one must recognize that mapping is not an external program or process that "comes and then goes" in a few yearsit is an internal, interactive process that becomes a natural component of a school or district's infrastructure. In an interview for the Journal of Staff Development (Sparks, 1996), Michael Fullen shared People in schools should not take shortcuts in their search for clarity and solutions. They need to engage with all kinds of ideas to improve what they are doing, but not adopt external programs that foster dependency In my view, teaching is an intellectual and scientific profession, as well as a moral profession. That means that schools have to constantly process knowledge about what works and that teachers have to see themselves as scientists who continuously develop their intellectual and investigative effectiveness The cognitive sciences teach us that if information is to become knowledge, a social process is required. This makes great pedagogical sense.

Information stays as information until people work through it together in solving problems and achieving goals ... Changing the culture is even more important because it establishes norms of continuous interaction. So, information becomes knowledge through a social process, and knowledge becomes wisdom through sustained interaction. This connection between enabling teachers to create quality data-based curriculum maps and using the maps for curricular dialogue is critical for a successful Curriculum Mapping initiative. Fowler Elementary School District, in Phoenix, Arizona, has a district motto: Curriculum Mapping is not one more thing on our plateit is the plate! This motto is 100% true, but this reality does take time (from my personal experience, up to three years) to get the majority of teachers in a school or district to cognitively and emotionally understand the complexity of the processes and function in a vigorous, self-challenging manner.

The Curriculum Mapping Journey

Based on current educational demands, success is based on measurable, improved student learning. Curriculum Mapping addresses this concern, but goes much deeper. It travels to the heart of our profession: caring about the journey a child takes upon entering as a Kindergartener, exiting as a high-school graduate, and enrolling in a higher-education learning environment ... To be successful for a lifetime: Prek-16+. Be advised: Curriculum Mapping is not a quick fix. Curriculum Mapping has a learning curve to it. For a time, your teachers will be students. They must be afforded the cognitive processing time needed to learn something new, and be well-supported throughout the process. Some will learn faster than others; some will need more support; and still others may refuse to learn. Just as curriculum's root meaning is: a path taken in small steps, it is important to allow teachers to likewise take small steps. Learn as much as you can about Curriculum Mapping by continuously reading, attending conferences and networking to aid in developing your school or district's strategic plans, realistic action plans, and short-term goals. Please use my website to help gain insight into the world of Curriculum Mapping and support your present or future work. If you would like to e-mail me or call me to discuss questions or wonderments, please feel free to do so at any time.

Happy Mapping!
Resources Hale, J. A. (2008). A guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining the process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H.H. (2001). Keynote address. National Curriculum Mapping Institute. Park City, Utah. Jacobs, H.H. (2002). Keynote address. National Curriculum Mapping Institute. Park City, Utah. Jacobs, H .H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jacobs, H. H. (2006). Active literacy across the curriculum: Strategies for reading, writing, speaking, and listening, Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. Jacobs, H. H. (2008). Keynote presentation. Glendale, AZ: Regional Curriculum Mapping Conference. Jacobs, H. H. (2010).Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jacobs, H. H. & Johnson, A. J. (2009). The curriculum mapping planner: Templates, tools, and resources for effective professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lyle, V. (2006) Leadership for curriculum mapping. Unpublished Manuscript. Marion School District #2, Marion, Illinois. Jacobs, H. H. & Johnson, A. J. (2009). The curriculum mapping planner: Templates, tools, and resources for effective professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jacobs, H. H. & Johnson, A. J. (2009). The curriculum mapping planner: Templates, tools, and resources for effective professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sparks. D. (1996). Interview with Michael Fullan. Journal of Staff Development, Winter 2003 (Vol.24, No. 1). Udelofen, S. (2005). Keys to curriculum mapping: strategies and tools to make it work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

K-12 Curriculum Development

Vision: Why Now? 03/25/2010 0 Comments Curriculum mapping is an ongoing process which asks teachers to develop curriculum goals, identify essential content, skills and concepts, and reflect on the taught curriculum. Some school districts make the mistake of diving into curriculum mapping and attempting to complete a product. When teacher teams become satisfied with the product, then the process is at risk. If a principal or superintendent asks teachers to change their focus from curriculum mapping to test item development or writing across the curriculum, then teachers soon realize that curriculum mapping was a fad and is no longer "the main thing." Andy Stanley wrote (1999) "Everybody ends up somewhere in life. A few people end up somewhere on purpose. Those are the ones with vision." Can your school district afford for the teachers in one building to end up somewhere on purpose while the other schools work in isolation and each teacher determines what matters most for their respective classrooms? Do all sixth grade English Language Arts teachers have a common goal or course goals for preparing students for the next level of learning?

Stanley suggests that teams answer the following questions related to "Vision": Topic: Curriculum Mapping 1. Why must we see this vision through to the end? 2. What difference will curriculum mapping make? 3. What is there to gain? 4. What is there to lose? 5. What is at stake? 6. Why should we attempt curriculum mapping? 7. Why must it be done now? 8. What do we lose by waiting until next year? 9. What will we need to give up in order to pursue our vision for curriculum mapping? 10. How does misalignment among team members or schools impact the overall vision? Developing a vision for curriculum mapping is important for developing a common focus for all educators involved in the process. Revisiting the vision will help educators clarify the purpose and allow educators to determine the next steps for curriculum mapping. If student achievement is the goal, then we must identify the inputs and the process for aligning the work of teachers and teacher teams. Does your school district have a vision for curriculum development or curriculum mapping? References: Stanley, A. (1999). Visioneering. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, Inc.
2. Read and study the different curriculum perspectives on the following weblinks:

Analysis Of Curriculum Perspectives

Posted: Feb 23, 2010 |Comments: 0 | Views: 796 | 4Share
Ads by Google

Improve Teaching Skills Earn a Degree or Masters in Education Leadership at Macquarie

www.international.mq.edu.au
SUNY Learning Network Online Degree, Courses, Certificate Accredited, Quality Education, 24x7

sln.suny.edu/sunylearningnetwork
eLearning for Schools SharePoint+SLK+THESISContentZone= Distance Learning Solution

getthesis.com/SLK.htm

Study English in London English Courses Central London, UK Small Classes, All Levels, Apply!

www.schoolofenglish.org.uk Introduction Curriculum perspectives arose from the fact that there are two main aspects of any curriculum. The first is more obvious than the other; the formal curriculum. This involves the academic parts of any curriculum. These are the elements that are taught in the classroom. The other aspect is the hidden curriculum. This is concerned with the values that are inculcated in the classroom. These values remain with students for the longest part of their live and have a greater effect on them than the formal curriculum does. Most schools mostly focus on the non-visible elements rather than the hidden part as asserted by Cusick (1973). He did research on implementation of the curriculum and found that schools spend about sixty seven percent of their time focusing on hidden aspects of the curriculum yet they were not aware of this. Eisner (1979) asserts that those subjects that receive more attention are determined by the hidden curriculum. The latter is also responsible for the teaching styles adopted in classrooms and methods of delivering subject content. In relation to this argument, many philosophers and educationists came up with theories explaining the nature of the hidden curriculum. The proponents, critics and content of these perspectives will be examined in detail in the subsequent portions of the essay. These will incorporate five main perspectives. Experiential theory of the curriculum Psychology is one of the most important disciplines in education because rot was responsible for the creation of the experiential theory of the curriculum. It should be noted that before experiential approaches most theories of education revolved around reductionist views. However, with the passage of time, more and more psychologists realized that there was more to learning that reduction. This formed the background fro the experiential theory. The main proponents of the theory were Freire and Kolb. The proponents believed that learning occurred in a cycle. It first starts with experience, this is then followed by reflection where there is perception and processing, thereafter action takes place. For example, teachers may be faced with the task of awarding grades for a particular exam. The fact that they are undergoing that challenge denotes the fact that they are experiencing it; i.e. the first phase of experiential learning. Thereafter, teachers have to think about other circumstances where they have had to do the same. This will constitute the reflective part of the learning process. Thereafter, they are expected to consider all the angles to the issue. They may decide to consult with other teachers on the issue and this will cause further reflection.

This reflective aspect is made of two major concepts. These are abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. In the latter part, one has to apply logic in the formation of ideas; feelings are not considered here. While in the active experimentation stage, learning occurs through experimentation with changing scenarios. Kolb therefore came up with four stages that help to identify learning styles depending on the earlier elements of the learning process. The stages are; activists, pragmatists, theorizers and reflectors. Those who focus on one stage more than another will fall into that respective learning style. Knox (1986) asserts that these stages can be applied in the classroom when students are trying to learn something. This is because they can relate to subject content on a cognitive level and can therefore internalize the learning process. Besides that, experiential theory can also be applied by teachers. Teachers can present information in bits or in phase so that they can allow learners to experience' it. Brookfield (1990) asserts that teachers should realize that curriculum ideas are tested through the experiences acquired from their lives. There are some critics to this theory. Rodgers (1996) asserts that the learning process is more complex than more. There are certain aspects of learning that may occur and these are not included in the four stages put forward by Kolb. Rogers suggests that learners need to set goals, make out intentions and purposes; they also need to make choices. All these aspects are not distinct in Kolb's theory. Another limitation of the experiential theory is that the styles of learning are not based on standards but are dependent on how learners rate themselves. Source; Kelly Curtis (2007): The theory of experiential learning; retrieved form http://www.iteslj.org/ accessed on 28th April 2008 Constructivist theory of the curriculum The constructivist approach was put forward by a number of proponents. These include Dewy (1998); who is looked at the major philosophies behind it. There was Piaget (1972) and Bruner (1990) who were cognitive constructivists while Vygotsky (1978) was a social constructivist. The theory presupposes that learning takes place in such a manner that the recipients of information build up on those skills and knowledge that they receive from the environment as asserted by (Harnard, 1982) The main idea behind the constructivist approach is the fact that most of the time, there is a need to teach ideas in holistic manner. There is little room for breaking the summarizing process into steps. An example of how this theory can be applied in the classroom scenario is by asking students to summarize short amounts of paragraphs by picking out what they are familiar with. Thereafter, the teacher can ask students to summarize larger chunks of information until they learn proficiency even if they will be dealing with new information. According to this theory, teachers should treat tasks as wholes and teachers enhance learning by varying the environment. Instructions must also be presented in such a away that learners can fill in the left behind. They must also be organized in such a manner that they facilitate better understanding by learners. Critics site that the theory oversimplifies the relationship between thinking and behavior. Where thinking will be influenced by attitudes, one's intellectual skills and the knowledge they possess.

Doyle (1997) adds that there are several complex variables that come into play; for example, emotions, consequences and factors unique to a given situation. Consequently, it becomes rather difficult to determine one's adaptive behavior. The same author asserts that one must look into a particular situation as it is to analyze the content and form of the mental models coming into play during the learning process. Behavioral theory Behavioral theory of learning as applied to the curriculum refers to how the environment can influence acquisition of knowledge as asserted by Cunia (2005). He continues to make an analogy of the learning process to a black box. The black box will depict different characteristics or output depending on what stimulated it (input). He explains that one can deduce learning progress by checking on behavior. For example students who passed a test after trying out a number of study techniques should settle on the study technique that caused him to pass. Cunia (2005) adds that learning occurs when behavior indicates that a given stimulus was effective in producing the desired outcome. The main emphasis in this theory is on a thinking curriculum. The theory is mostly applied in situations where students are trying to summarize information. A teacher is supposed to disseminate information in a stepwise manner. Once a teacher starts with the first step, learners are supposed to divide into sub skills where they categorize information. Thereafter, a teacher is expected to give the second step where learners are expected to erase all the irrelevant material in the first step and then build up on what they acquired in the first step hence the construction of ideas. A basic prerequisite for the constructivism theory is that learners establish routines on how best to complete a learning task; they are taught the skill of summing up sub processes. In the behavioral approach, a teacher must first consider the knowledge that students are expected tpo acquire, thereafter the development of a curriculum can occur. However, it should be noted that in most circumstances the learning process mostly occurs in an inductive and stepwise manner. (Fennimore & Tinzmann, 1990) Critics assert that mot learners lack the ability of lumping up the information to come up with a holistic approach. Most of them lack the ability to reconcile the sub processes involved in the learning process and hence get stuck there. Besides this behaviorists usually focus on end goals of the curriculum rather than what kind of knowledge students have acquired in the past. What this does is that each time a student has to learn something new, they can't relate it to past information. Consequently students will see very little meaning in information and therefore easily forget it as asserted by Ullman (1980). The latter author also adds that another problem with the theory is that there is more emphasis on building up on previously acquired knowledge therefore students who had not acquired much knowledge will have severe limitations in the learning process; there may be many gaps left Traditional theory The traditional theory mainly focuses on the classroom as an area that can be managed. The main assumption here is the students can be manipulated in order to bring about desired results. The focus is on engineering behavior. In the traditional approach, a child's personal views are

considered as sources of contamination in the learning process and therefore take little precedence. Hopkins (1994) explains that the traditional approach was brought about by the need for efficiency as seen in the manufacturing sector. In this approach, instructions carry the day and experimental learning is viewed as a form of risky strategy. An example of how the traditional theory is applied in the classroom is through the use of listening and observation skills. Students are expected to deal with technical aspects of subjects such that English and Math. The drilling technique is quite useful here since most students are expected to memorize facts. Correct answers alone may not necessarily satisfy the teacher. Answers should be framed in such a way that they correspond to methods used in class textbooks. More emphasis is placed on sub skills rather than overall relevance of subject matter to students' experiences and the world around them. Dewey (1951) is one of the major critics of the theory. In his theory he asserts that a child can guide the learning process given the right atmosphere. He strongly opposed the traditional approach because it can be deemed as a form of imposition. It prevents children form growing their personal identities. He also adds that the traditional approach emphasizes on drilling techniques into learner's minds rather than acquiring them. Drilling makes students loose interests in subject matter. Dewey (1951) believes that the traditional approach mostly focuses on the future; which may appear quite remote to the normal student. He gives suggestions that the most appropriate approach would be one that deals with the present through experience. Structure of disciplines theory In this kind, there is emphasis on the importance of subject matter content. It came about at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is based on expertise in subject content. The theory assumes that in order for members of society to function well in the wake of the global economy, there is a need to acquire high levels of literacy and numeric in subject areas. This theory of the curriculum is mainly teacher centered. Additionally, knowledge in curriculum disciplines is considered as factual. (Eisner, 1979) Critics to this approach claim that most of the time, students are not allowed to participate actively in the learning process. Consequently, there is little room for linking different subject contents to one another and to the surrounding environment. This means that chances of developing versatile and easily adoptive citizens in the future are minimized. There is a need to link different subjects with each other in order to make a lasting impression in the learner's mind at all times. Conclusion The curriculum theories explained above are usually reflections of what society perceives. The five main theories may be summarized as traditional or progressive theories. Conservative societies usually adopt the former while liberal societies adopt the latter. In progressive theories like experiential and behavioral approaches, there is more emphasis on the students learning process and instructions are given in context of what the student has acquired. However,

traditional and structural discipline theories mainly focus on the teacher as the information disseminator and student's participation is discouraged. (Dewey, 1998)

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/analysis-of-curriculum-perspectives1897395.html#ixzz1Rhzjc1lW Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Understanding Curriculum Perspectives: A lesson in frustration

Volume 8 Issue 4 Fall 2010 Posted On Tue, Sep 28 2010 14:38:00 Authors: Molly Mee Editor's Rating:0 (0 Ratings) Reader's Rating:0 (0 Ratings) Login to Rate | About Ratings

During a heated discussion in my master-level Curriculum Theory and Development class on whether or not a given curriculum borrows more from the experientialist or the constructivist perspective, Suzy, a 45-year old veteran math teacher interrupts the discussion and in an agitated tone asks, "Professor will you please just tell us the answer?" This is typical of the responses I receive when my students read about curriculum perspectives to interpret them in light of their own teaching. Anticipating frustrations like Suzy's I open my first class session with a lesson on Posner's notion of reflective eclecticism which is an overarching and recurring theme of the course. "Reflective eclecticism is based on the assumption that...there is no panacea in education. People who are looking for 'the answer' to our education problems are looking in vain." The key to deconstructing a curriculum is to understand that an effective curriculum is one that reflects a myriad of alternatives rather than prescribing to just one. This article outlines a series of lessons I implement in my Curriculum Theory and Development class that I believe get at the core of curriculum analysis. I contend that if as teacher educators we want teachers to be able to critically examine curriculum we need to challenge them to see beyond the collection of lessons in front of them and examine the many theoretical perspectives (e.g., traditional, experiential, structure of disciplines, constructivist) that underlie their curriculum. It has been my experience that the areas of divergence and overlap amongst these orientations provoke the students in my classes to the point of frustration. Early in the semester I explain that experiencing mild amounts of discomfort as they sort through the frustrations of defining and understanding curriculum is to be expected. I let students like Suzy struggle for some time with the goal in mind that eventually (and often occurring at the end of the semester) they see that in the world of curriculum studies with angst comes understanding. I approach them with the "no pain no gain" mentality.

The Lessons Defining Curriculum Even after several years of teaching this class, I still find myself surprised when students come to my first class wanting answers and definitions. I have always rejected the traditional professorial role of one who dispenses knowledge and information preferring instead the role of facilitator. "There has to be a standard definition of curriculum, right?" Ben asks in our first class session. "I mean isn't there one definition that the industry subscribes to?" he continues. I direct them to the question Posner asks, "What should we do once we realize that the experts in our field are in fundamental disagreement?" I provoke them further by telling them that this class is not an easy one partly due to the fact that I will not be delivering answers to them on a silver platter. I make it very clear that they will leave the semester with a greater understanding of curriculum studies but at the same time they will have many more questions than answers. During the first class session we explore as a group many definitions of curriculum until we come to one that we can all temporarily live with. Typically this involves looking at our own classroom practice, reflecting on our own curriculum, and yes we have even consulted Wikipedia. The idea is to arrive at a general understanding and a common definition of the word curriculum, knowing that this definition is a starting point not the final answer. Theoretical Perspectives At about the second or third class session we delve into theoretical perspectives looking at them through the lens of how these perspectives frame our curricula and our practice. My goal is for students to see beyond the scope and sequence of their curriculum to examine how theoretical perspectives have contributed to the shaping of their curriculum. I call for the students to engage in the following activities: 1. 2. 3. 4. Independent reading of the text Critical dialogue with peers about the text Deconstructing the perspectives to identify unique characteristics Linking curriculum to the perspectives

Independent Reading of the Text Students read about the five perspectives: traditional, experiential, structure of the disciplines, behavioral, and constructivist. Each perspective is defined, put in historical perspective, and associated with key figures (e.g. Hirsch, Dewey, Thorndike). Students respond to the following journal prompt: In one to two sentences summarize each perspective and decide with which perspective(s) your curriculum is most closely aligned? It never fails that students come to class having completed the assigned reading and feeling defeated and deflated with the density of the text as well as the grey areas among and between the perspectives. I have come to expect this

and thus the next step in the lesson is to engage the students in a dialogue of the reading to deepen understanding. Critical Dialogue David comes to class a few minutes early, approaches me and says, "I had a really hard time with that reading last night. I am not sure I really understand these perspectives and I certainly cannot figure out which one my curriculum is most closely aligned with. Really I am not sure I am cut out for this grad work." I temporarily, and gently, put off his concerns as I arrange the desks in a circle in preparation for a class discussion. Once in the circle I tap into my former middle school teacher realm and begin a Socratic-style discussion with the opening question "what connections did you see between the five perspectives and your own curriculum?" I am returned with blank stares and a few darting looks to their peers that seem to say help! Experience tells me that many students are reluctant to share their responses for fear that their interpretations are not correct or that there is one specific answer for which I am searching. What seems like ten minutes is really only about ten seconds and eventually David speaks up with his earlier concerns and the discussion begins. Most students are engaged verbally in the discussion and all are attentive and appear to be keenly aware of their deepening levels of understanding. As the discussion comes to a close I ask for feedback by saying, "Give me a glimpse into your levels of understanding of the five perspectives prior to the discussion in comparison to now at the conclusion of the discussion." Unanimously the group says that the discussion has clarified prior questions and that they are now able to define each perspective clearly and concisely. There is always at least one student wanting further clarification on how to chip away at the overlap among the perspectives. Comments like "I think I understand this better now but I am still not sure which perspective my curriculum fits best with" are typical. Students are uncomfortable with the blurred lines among and between the perspectives and the overlap seem to suggest to them that they do not fully understand or that the "correct answer" is not clear. Like a protective parent who wants to solve her child's confusion about the world my inclination is that I have failed because I have not been able to provide more clarity. Tough love prevails and my response is that curriculum analysis is not black and white, that gray areas exist, and that it is up to them to find comfort with the gray areas while at the same time being able to unpack defining characteristics of each that are uniquely separate from the others. Deconstructing the Perspectives The next step in the lesson is to deconstruct the perspectives with the ultimate goal of locating qualities unique to each. Students are divided into small groups and each is assigned a perspective. I provide a guiding question. "What distinguishes your perspective from the other four?" Their task now is to delve back into the text and deconstruct the perspective in an effort to find its distinguishing characteristic(s). Some groups start with looking at what the perspective is "not." For example, the traditionalist is "not" child centered or the constructivist does "not" adhere to a fixed curriculum. Once the group has come to a consensus on what the curriculum is "not" they can more readily identify its unique characteristics. This task typically takes about 30 minutes or so. Students spend their time discussing the perspective, looking back

for textual support to redefine and reconfirm their prior understanding, and brainstorming on qualities unique to the perspective. I circulate the room and help to point them in the right direction. Gentle reminders that the task is to find qualities of the perspective that are not present in the other perspectives are needed. When the task is completed, each group presents their findings to the whole class and each student completes the following graphic display. Responses look something like the graphic depiction below. Perspective Traditionalists Distinguishing Characteristic Cultural heritage should be preserved and taught via the curriculum

Experientialists

Curriculum should be unique to the experiences of the child

Structure of Discipline

Curriculum should focus on subject matter and the subject should be examined in the same manner by which scholars in the field examine it.

Behavioralist

Curriculum should focus not just on content but on what students should be able to do (e.g. certain behaviors).

Constructivists

Knowledge exists within and originates from the child

Linking Perspectives to Your Curriculum Identifying the distinguishing characteristics of each perspective is a major hurdle in deepening understanding of curriculum. Once the students are able to identify the perspectives' differences they feel more comfortable in their understanding and are ready to find links between the perspectives and their own curriculum. Students are again grouped but this time according to their curriculum (e.g., first grade math teachers, high school English teachers, third grade reading teachers, and so on). There are always anomalies like the Community College adjunct professor of Mortuary Science, the infant and toddler care giver, and so on. The key in proper grouping for this activity is to find students who share curriculum that fall under the same or similar perspectives. Once they are grouped the task is for each student to reexamine the five perspectives in light of their own curriculum. The lessons come full circle at this point and it is as if I see the wheels turning inside their heads and the connections being made. Levels of anxiety are lower and levels of understanding higher. Conclusion At the end of each semester I read my course evaluations and relish in comments from students like Suzy, who want answers to complex questions delivered simply and systematically, who write "the professor challenged me to examine my practice from multiple perspectives" and

"curriculum is much more than I ever realized." During our last class, I remind my students of our first class session together and the frustrations we felt. We discuss how far we have come and measure our level of understanding. We all agree it has been a long and arduous semester but one well worth the effort.