On Curriculum Development

On Curriculum Development

Curriculum is a broad topic and one may have his or her own opinion of what it is. But most importantly, we teachers, including us students, are the activators of curriculum and should be always flexible to adjust ourselves over time and make the changes that time brings with it. We need to bear in mind that the present curriculum are not here to stay forever but will change as we advance with new experiences into another dimension of lifestyle. Curriculum is the root to education but teacher is the tool and teaching, the profession.  And a root will not be taken out if the tool cannot dig it up.

Curriculum consists of all experiences for learning that are planned and organized by the school. It is composed of actual and meaningful experiences and activities inside and outside the classroom under the guidance of the teacher and for which the school accepts responsibility.

Planned and organized. These experiences must be properly planned and organized or put in a sequence so that the child can easily understand it. This will consider the  principle of growth and development of the child. This experiences could take place outside or inside the classroom under the guidance of the teacher and for which the school accepts responsibility. The teacher must facilitate these experiences. It is inherent for teacher to provide guidance to the students, thus all the experiences of the child must be under the tutelage of the teacher.  The school is responsible for these experiences in the sense, that it is to be executed in the school and the school officials (like the  curriculum experts and personnel) are the one who plans and organized these experiences.

Curriculum is like a blueprint of a house plan. It has its specifications. A house with good foundation will last long. Just like a curriculum, if it contains experiences suited to the child, then the child is assured of a good education. People say that education should make a man a good man and a woman a good woman. This can happen if education is based and founded on a sound curriculum.

Experts define curriculum in a variety of ways. From these definitions, we can say  that indeed, curriculum is an indispensable thing in a school.

The heart of education is the curriculum. Curriculum contains all experiences designed for learners in the school (outside and inside the classroom) that must aim to change and improve the learner’s attitude and behavior, including their growth and development

Curriculum as process

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with  an ability to think critically, -in-action an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation out of which may come thinking and action. They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

Curriculum as praxis

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with  a personal, but shared idea of the good and a commitment to human emancipation, an ability to think critically, -in-action

an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.

Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation

out of which may come informed and committed action.  They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

As a minimum, a curriculum should provide a basis for planning a course, studying it empirically and considering the grounds of its justification.  It should offer:

A. In planning:

1. Principle for the selection of content - what is to be learned and taught

2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy - how it is to be learned and taught.

3. Principles for the making of decisions about sequence.

4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3 above, to meet individual cases.

B. In empirical study:

1. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students.

2. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers.

3. Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer-group situations.

4. Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and on different pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation.

C. In relation to justification:

A formulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which is accessible to critical scrutiny.

Stenhouse 1975: 5

25 examples of school activities that you consider part of school

curriculum.

1. Field Trip
2. Boy /Girl Scout Program
3. Linggo ng Wika
4. United Nations Program
5. Community Helpers
6. Computer Lessons
7. Choir
8. Martial Arts
9. Piano Lessons
10. Japanese Culture and Language
11. Chinese (Mandarin) Language Lessons
12. Student Government Management Program (SGMP)
13. Student Technologists and Entrepreneurs of the Philippines Program (STEP)
14. International Programs on Student Exchange and Representation and Referrals
15. Promotion and Strengthening of Science Clubs
16. Work Appreciation and Training Program
17. Kabataan Program (Mandated under Executive Order No. 139, it is a year-round work program of the government, which encourages high school, college and vocational students as well as out-of-school youth to engage in constructive and productive activities through the assistance and cooperation of government and private offices.
18. Junior Graft Watch Unit
19. Student Leadership Training
20. Culture and Arts in the Community
21. Scouting Movement
22. Drum and Bugle Corps
23. Cheering Squad Formation
24. On the Job Training
25. Intramurals

The factors considered in planning a curriculum are:

- Nature of the society

- Interests, needs, previous experiences and problems of learners

- Educational and psychological principles based on the findings of

scientific studies and experimentations.

The Nature of Society

If the school proclaims its mission to be focused on preparing children to be effective, productive, responsible members of a global society, then it is evident that curriculum planning must include an overview of the major realities/characteristics of the very global society that students are being prepared to encounter. While the list of realities is potentially quite vast, some of the more obvious items of interest may include: communication, technology, political/world climate, economics, vocations, interpersonal relationships, family and community living, ecology, values and value systems, health (both physical and psychological) and uses of leisure time.

B. Human Development (Interests, needs, previous experiences and

problems of learners)

Curriculum and instruction are two aspects of schooling that must be regarded together at all times. A curriculum plan which identifies the scope and sequence of content (facts, concepts, skills, attitudes) must also address the pedagogy that is appropriate for inculcating or developing learning in students. Yet, the nature of the content (in terms of its complexity and degrees of abstraction) and the teaching approaches (teacher-directed or student-centered) must not be planned in a vacuum. The nature of the learner will inevitably have a profound influence on learning, by way of facilitating or by way of impeding learning.  Hence, when designing a curriculum, one must carefully consider the nature of the learner in order to plan appropriate instructional approaches to be used.

Human development is a vast and rather complex terrain to traverse. It entails physical, intellectual, social, and psychological dimensions. A great deal of information has been provided through the years by researchers, yet so much more needs to be learned. Curriculum planning must not ignore what is known about human development. Our success with children will inevitably be intertwined with the degree to which we are able to use what we know about them as we attempt to prepare learning programs and environments that are suitable for students. Some of the major contributors to our understanding of human development include Abraham Maslow, Robert Havighurst, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget.In addition, much new information is emerging from brain research and from the work of Howard Gardner [Multiple Intelligences] and Daniel Goleman [Social Intelligence].

The significance of these developments and others is that educators would be wise to re-visit their notions about teaching and learning and incorporate the relevant concepts and understandings as a basis for accommodating the many human needs that children bring into the classroom. The simple logic that applies here is that we are much more likely to succeed in our efforts to effect learning if we are able to provide the learning experiences that are congruent with the developmental realities that we find in youngsters. Some implications that relate to human development include:

1.  Selection of teaching strategies,

2.  Development of a classroom environment that will be conducive to learning

3.  Using means of communication that are appropriate to the learners

4.  Providing the emotional and psychological supports that students need

5.  Selection of learning materials that account for learning modalities, reading  

     levels, levels of understanding, and prior knowledge

6.      Assessing student learning 

The Nature of Learning (Educational and psychological principles based on the findings of scientific studies and experimentations)

We know a great deal about how learning happens. There are myriad theories about how learning occurs in human beings, and many teaching approaches have been developed in response to those theories.  However, one significant reality confronts us, and that is: Despite the heroic, creative, and persistent efforts of dedicated and talented teachers to facilitate learning in students, the results fall short of the goal. Many students do not learn a great deal of what they are taught.  Standardized test results across the country have a rather limited focus in what they measure and do not even begin to encompass the many goals that teachers are responsible to attain across the major domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. However, they are widely used barometers of teaching efficacy; thus, they provide an objective substantiation of the claim being made here that children are not entirely successful learning what they are being taught.

Some of the learning theories, particularly those that find their origins in the work of Ivan Pavlov, believe that learning results from a stimulus-response continuum in which the individual learns through constant exposure to a particular stimulus. The theories that originate from this perspective suggest that effective teaching approaches would be teacher-centered and possibly lecture-oriented, using rote memorization and drill-and-practice. This approach is used widely around the world and has been largely successful. Unfortunately, there are some limitations in using such an approach:

a.       Despite the fact that presentation of information can be done quickly, it takes a great deal of time to allow for the multiple repetitions required for learning

b.      It tends to focus on memory and recall, rather than on the higher order thinking skills

c.       Iit becomes tedious quite quickly for many students, and there is a tendency for some students to become increasingly less attentive as the process continues

Other learning theories explain that learning occurs when the individual perceives a pattern or develops an insight into the material that is being observed.  Kurt Lewin'’ field-ground theory and the work of gestalt psychologists assert the view that the individual actively seeks out meaning and formulates understandings by seeing relationships and patterns, then interpreting them as to their significance. The teaching approaches that are suggested by this line of thinking are: problem-solving, laboratory experimentation, and inquiry learning; the classroom is essential student-centered, and the teacher is in the role of guide and facilitator. The advantages of such approaches are that the learning which results is powerful and rather indelible and the higher order thinking skills [synthesis, analysis, and evaluation] are more readily accommodated. The most obvious disadvantage is that such approaches are quite time-consuming; students need time to observe, formulate hypotheses, gather and analyze data, synthesize, evaluate, draw conclusions and determine applications of their insights.

Before curriculum planners design a program of studies, they need to arrive at a series of very fundamental and critical decisions. These decisions are actually derived from our views as educators on the nature of knowledge to be acquired by the pupils/students. This also becomes increasingly difficult as educators like us continue to experience the effects of the “Knowledge Explosion” in which vast amounts of new knowledge are appearing daily, and decisions regarding what to teach and what to ignore are more difficult than ever before. To avoid overwhelming the curriculum with too much information, we must be very selective in planning the curriculum.  Thus, curriculum planners will consider our contributions  both as educators and implementers, hence such manifestations can prove our importance as a catalyst of change particularly in education.

             

The most fundamental questions relate to our views on the nature of knowledge to be imposed.  It might seem frivolous to ask such a question, but it is a necessary one with which to start. What is knowledge? What knowledge should students acquire?

What is knowledge?

            Facts?

Concepts?

Skills?

Attitudes?

Problem-solving?

Scientific Method?

Thinking?

All of these?

Some of these?

None of these?

Our very answer to these questions suggest the emphasis that will be given in classrooms and even the overall design of the program of studies. To a large extent, the methods of instruction that are used in the classroom will be influenced by the focus of the studies program as determined by our views on the nature of knowledge. 

Aside from our views being used and considered in designing the curriculum which can be said to be significant contributions, we can further state that as educators, we control curriculum as well as curriculum control us after the curriculum is fully planned for implementation. This is a two-way thing. In the past, teachers were controlled by the curriculum. Because of this practice, teachers were not very creative and depended heavily on curriculum. Teaching and learning were not very effective. But I strongly support that teacher’s control curriculum because they are the implementers of the curriculum.

In the reform, teachers should and must control curriculum to be more creative and to suit the students' needs. Teachers are the only people who know what is best and relevant for their students. Therefore they are in good position to decide what in the curriculum is necessary or not at a certain stage.
The teacher is the one who decides whether a certain topic is relevant and best suits the learners, if not he/she may make some changes so that it best suits the ability level of the students.

An Example

If the curriculum says to teach a life-skills lesson on knitting with wool and the school is located in the remotest part, the teacher may do some changes. Instead of knitting with wool, he/she may teach a lesson on weaving baskets using materials around in the environment, etc.

In doing so, learning becomes more easy and flexible for the teacher and students. Therefore, curriculum should not always control a teachers but a teacher may control the curriculum on to an extent to meet the needs of students.

Teaching and Learning

In this essay, British education theorist Peter Newsam describes two contrasting approaches to education. The traditional approach assumes there is a predetermined body of knowledge that the teacher should pass on to the student. This approach uses testing and competition to evaluate and motivate students. In the progressive approach, the child, rather than a set body of knowledge, is the frame of reference. The teacher’s role is to be conscious of the development stage and the capacity of each child. The progressive method stresses cooperation rather than competition. Newsam suggests that an effective teaching system can incorporate elements of each approach.

Teaching and Learning

By Peter Newsam

The relationship between teaching and learning, what and how teachers teach, and how and what learners learn has long been a subject of controversy. The two, sometimes extreme, positions adopted by those who engage in it can be loosely described as, on the one hand, “traditional” and, on the other, “progressive.”

The traditional position starts from the assumption, taken to be so obvious as not to be open to question, that the purpose of teaching is to ensure that those taught acquire a prescribed body of knowledge and set of values. Both knowledge and values are taken to reflect a society’s selection of what it most wants to transmit to its future citizens and requires its future workforce to be able to do.

An important characteristic of this traditional view is that it seeks to convey what is already known and, at some level, approved. The relationship between teacher and learner is determined thereby. The learner is seen as the person who does not yet have the required knowledge or values and the teacher as the person who has both and whose function it is to convey them to the learner.

From the nature of this relationship, a number of things follow: the systematic transmission of knowledge and values from teacher to learner needs to proceed smoothly. That requires well-behaved learners and a disciplined environment, if necessary externally imposed with sanctions for failures in compliance. Teaching and learning also benefit from carefully designed syllabuses and prescribed curriculum content. Furthermore, as what has to be learned can be set out in full, stage by stage, from the start of the educational process to its conclusion, it follows that what is taught can be regularly tested and that each stage of teaching and learning can best be seen as a preparation for the next. It also follows that, as individual learners learn at different speeds and are capable of reaching different levels of achievement, it seems sensible to arrange learners in groups of similar abilities, either at different schools or in graduated classes within schools. Finally, so far as human motivation is concerned, competition is seen to be the predominant way to encourage learners or institutions to strive to improve their performance in relation to that of others.

The opposed view, broadly described as “progressive” or “child-centered,” starts from the learner rather than from any predetermined body of knowledge. On this view, the function of the teacher, from parent in the earliest years right through the years of school attendance, is to be aware of each child’s capacity and stage of development. The primary importance of children’s learning, which in turn is taken to depend on that stage of development, requires each of those stages to be seen as important in its own right rather than as a preparation for some later stage. An eight-year-old child, for example, is seen as an eight year old to be developed to his or her full potential as an eight year old, rather than as a future nine or fifteen year old. The curriculum itself tends to be seen, in the words of the Report of the Consultative Committee on the Primary School as open-ended and inquiry-based: “the curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience rather than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored.”

So far as values are concerned, the progressive approach tends to see attempts to teach or improve these directly as less effective than creating schools which exemplify values of greatest relevance to the young. Hence the importance placed on the way individuals, adults and learners alike, are encouraged to behave towards each other. A disciplined environment, rather than being externally imposed, is a direct consequence of that process. Social values, cooperation rather than competition and equal value given to the efforts of the least as well as the most able, are emphasized. Finally, as a point of principle, it is assumed all can succeed at some level in some aspects of learning. As one 19th-century educator insisted: “All can walk part of the way with genius.” Sharply differentiated forms of education, with children attending schools or classes confined to those with particular levels of aptitude, however assessed, are thought to conflict with this principle. By inducing a sense of failure in children allocated to what are seen, by others and themselves, as schools or classes with lower standards than others, general levels of achievement are thought to be depressed and an unmotivated and under-achieving group of children unnecessarily created.

The opposed concepts implicit in “traditional” and “progressive” attitudes to teaching and learning reflect approaches regarded by those holding one or other of them as self-evident: that it must be right to start from what needs to be taught or, conversely, that it must be right to start from the learner whose success in learning it is the purpose of teaching to ensure.

The virtual impossibility of reconciling these two diverse approaches, at least in their extreme forms, has led to each being caricatured, often in metaphorical terms. Traditional education’s perception of children, in an extreme form, was described by Charles Dickens in Hard Times as seeing them as: “little vessels arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.” In short, like a kettle that has to be filled from a tap, the traditional learner is taken to be a passive recipient of whatever is being taught. Further, because the traditional approach to education requires a degree of memorization, the ability to recall with precision what has been taught in the terms in which it has to be reproduced by the learner, this feature is disparagingly described as “learning by rote.” The implication is that the learner’s mind has not been required to be engaged in the process. Finally, the assumption that, to the traditionalist, knowledge is something that already exists, causes this approach to be seen as backward-looking at a time when new knowledge is being created and reshaped at a bewildering rate.

Criticisms of progressive education, particularly in its extreme forms, have concentrated on the folly, as this is perceived, of allowing children to decide when and how they are to learn anything. Lack of externally imposed discipline has led to some schools where, as one inspector of schools described it, “it is like a wet play-time all day.” The emphasis on growth and development, with analogies to the way plants move naturally through their lives without constantly being told what to become, has been particularly criticized. The simple notion of growth carries with it no implication as to the direction that growth is taking. Growth, progressives are thought to ignore, may as easily be in an unwholesome direction as a healthy one. This leads to values being seen to be relative, with no one set of values inherently to be preferred to any others. Yet what ought to be, values of any kind, cannot be derived from what is; and it is a naturalistic fallacy to suppose otherwise. Finally, because the teacher is not seen as at the center of the educational process, he or she is reduced to becoming a “facilitator” of children’s learning; in extreme cases unprepared even to answer simple questions or directly to teach anything at all, on the assumption that the only things a learner really learns are those things which he or she has “discovered for himself.”

Between the two extreme positions, reconciliation has proved difficult. Historically, the traditional approach has been dominant and continues to be held particularly firmly by those who themselves were able, well-motivated learners and as such required little more of their teachers than specific instruction. Progressive approaches have tended to be favored by teachers or theoreticians whose concern has been with the education of all children, including the able and the well-motivated but with particular attention to the needs of those with little interest in or apparent aptitude for learning and little confidence in its relevance to their own lives.

In practice, neither of the two extreme approaches to teaching and learning has proved generally satisfactory. In its starkest form, traditional education has often served able pupils well but has been less successful with others. On the other hand, progressive education has tended to work well enough in the early years of schooling, in the hands of able and committed teachers, but has had less success when attempted in other circumstances.

The need to develop systems which incorporate the best of traditional and progressive approaches to teaching and learning has long been evident. Fortunately, what good schools and good teachers actually do has suggested ways forward. Increasingly, the approach adopted places the teacher in authority, as traditionally has been the position, but the absolute necessity of engaging learners in their own learning, as progressive educators have argued, is seen as equally important. Teaching, on this view, requires skillful questioning of pupils by the teacher, rather than undue reliance on direct instruction. The purpose of that questioning is to encourage the minds of the learners to understand, to arrange, and to act on the material with which they are required to engage. In this sense, learning is active; indeed it is interactive, with the teacher responsible for ensuring the direction that this learning takes but with the learner consistently being challenged to shape it to his or her needs. Education of this kind has increasingly become a feature of effective schools and school systems worldwide. In the process, the long-standing conflict between traditional and progressive approaches to teaching and learning, with the time-consuming controversies to which this gives rise, has a real prospect of being resolved.

About the author: Sir Peter Newsam is an educationalist and former director of the Institute of Education, University of London.