The Teaching Experiment:
Lessons Learned through Trial and Error in Curriculum Design
Introduction:
As I spent hours pondering how to approach this final synthesis paper I allowed my mind to wander from idea to idea until I finally said “aha.” From the lens of a pre-service science teacher the approach that made most sense to me was to compare designing curriculum to crafting an experiment. One can design an experiment and make predictions as to the outcome but it is important to remember that until tested, a hypothesis is just a hypothesis. In my eyes this is much like designing curriculum.
One of our first lessons learned at Antioch during Problem Solving Science was that even the worlds most flawless lesson plan could completely tank when tested on a live student audience. As teachers we are all scientists performing one experiment after another in the pursuit of creating powerful learning experiences for all students. The question is, where does one start when designing an experiment? One of the most common misconceptions around curriculum design is that activities should be the focus of a curriculum unit. Although this may create hands-on, engaging learning there is the potential to loose sight of the “big picture”. When designing curriculum it is not about designing for multiple different experiments, but about crafting one comprehensive experiment that presents the whole and focuses on connecting all of the parts.
While there are multiple steps and guidelines one can follow when designing curriculum there is by no means a prescription. This was learned early on while designing a month long curriculum unit on cells for seventh grade this semester. Unlike designing an experiment where one must follow a recipe, curriculum design should be categorized as an art. Jimmy Karlan intrigued us at the start of Curriculum Design by proclaiming us that we “will be screenwriters, directors, editors, designers, instructors, managers—all blended into one being from which your art will manifest itself.” As a science major in undergraduate school I became used to prescriptive assignments, labs and tests, which stifled creativity. Although foreign at first, designing curriculum became an avenue for imagination to resurface and a place to play, invent and take risks.
As teachers we have the option to continually experiment with curriculum and it’s delivery. The best teachers are never completely satisfied with their curriculum and endlessly year after year continue to experiment. Once I am a science teacher I plan to try new ideas, incorporate surprise elements and carry on the tireless “teaching experiment”. Students will be involved in the process from the beginning by selecting topics of their interest and by suggesting direct feedback on what works and what does not. Below are the steps that I would take in crafting a curriculum unit that will generate powerful learning experiences for all students. As specified above, curriculum design is not an algorithm, although for the purposes of this paper I have used the elements of the scientific method to serve as guidelines for the steps I find useful when designing curriculum.
Develop a Question:
As in any well-designed experiment the first question you pose will set the stage for the entire curriculum. The definition of a good guiding question, as provided by Traver, is:“The fundamental query that directs the search for understanding” (1998) Students try to answer this question throughout the entire unit, which becomes the thread for coherence. Crafting a good guiding question is the most important component of the entire curriculum but can also be the most challenging. The question my partner and I posed for our curriculum unit on cells was, “Is our school sabotaging our cells?” With this question we wanted to capture students’ attention from the start and provide an avenue for students to create change within their own school while at the same time learning complex scientific concepts. A solid guiding question will guide you through the rest of the design.
There are four components, as suggested by Traver, that are important to keep in mind. First, good guiding questions are “open-ended yet focus inquiry on a specific topic”. For example, “What is a good habitat?” allows students to interpret the question as to their current knowledge and there are no right or wrong answers. Secondly, questions should be “non-judgmental but answering them requires high-level cognitive work”. Thirdly, questions should have “emotive force and intellectual bite” where students are intrigued by the topic and have to think deeply to answer. Lastly, questions should be “succinct” and with few words that captures the audience.
Conduct Background research:
Once a guiding question is developed, the next step is to identify the “big ideas” for your curriculum, which should be explicit to students from the beginning. These can be obtained from the state and national standards. This is an essential step in planning curriculum and will allow you to establish goals for the unit. One of the biggest difficulties teachers face today in the wake of national standards is covering all of the content. In fact, “despite all good intentions and many positive effects, the standards movement has not solved the “overload” problem. In fact instead of ameliorating the problem, the standards may have exacerbated it.” (Tomlinson & Mctighe, 2006) All educators’ deal with this dilemma, it’s just a matter identifying the most important “big ideas” and creating” essential questions” that will direct student learning.
As suggested by Jimmy Karlan, after establishing the “big ideas” it important to identify what your “bottom lines” are. These are not actually related to the topic but act as a lens with which to evaluate your curriculum as you create it. They are not activities but attributes or qualities that you want to make sure your curriculum possesses. For example, my bottom lines when designing curriculum are as follows: real world problem solving, student opinion and choice, empowerment, community-based, multiple learning styles, systems approach, adaptability, and embedded assessment. These are all elements that serve as reminders for how to construct meaningful curriculum for students and should be referred to throughout the entire design process.
The Hypothesis: If multiple pedagogical theories such as constructivist, democratic, post-modern, coherent, and authentic are incorporated into designing curriculum, then bottom lines will be achieved and students will have powerful learning experiences.
During our Curriculum Design course this semester we explored multiple curriculum themes that have influenced our approach to designing curriculum. Many of them share similar elements and are intricately linked to one another. Although it does not take the incorporation of every theory to be a success, the only way to truly test this hypothesis is on a classroom of students. Below each of the theories are expanded upon and interpreted as I perceive them:
Learning is Individualistic Theory: “Each of us makes sense of the world by synthesizing new experiences into what we have previously come to understand.”(Brooks, 1999)
Constructivist theory begs the question of “who’s in charge of learning?” Contrary to popular belief, the responsibility lies in the hands of the individual, not the teacher. In order for students to take ownership of this responsibility it is the teachers role to facilitate student empowerment. By seeking student’s points of view, challenging them to solve problems and allowing the space for students to ask their own questions and seek their own answers encourages lifelong learning habits to emerge. Constructivism is a style of teaching that respects the understanding a learner forms on his or her own and that gives us space for multiple understandings.
Students are not “blank slates” waiting to be filled, but are full of knowledge and their own understandings. At the beginning of a new unit, it is important never to assume that everyone have the same background knowledge of a particular subject. Students often have misconceptions around scientific topics and it is important to allow the time to work through them. Student relevance will emerge from this process and is one of the main guiding principles of this theory.
This semester we watched a documentary called A Private Universe that accurately portrayed that even the “brightest” of students have enduring misconceptions around scientific concepts. Observing how most Harvard graduates could not explain why we have seasons was proof that the way we are teaching science is not working. By heavy reliance on textbooks teachers have exacerbated student misconceptions due to misguiding diagrams and unclear discriptions.
In my Earth Systems Science course this semester I had an opportunity to teach about Milankovitch cycles and what causes seasons. After watching A Private Universe I was inspired to incorporate constructivist principles into the presentation and play off of those misconceptions. I began by asking the audience to draw a diagram of what causes seasons and discuss this with a partner. Then together as a group we worked through the 2 most common misconceptions that people had associated with the seasons. This was a rewarding experience to witness firsthand the reworking of prior knowledge into a coherent understanding.
Power of the Students Theory:“Those committed to a more participatory curriculum understand that knowledge is socially constructed, that it is produced and disseminated by people who have particular values, interests and biases.” (Apple & Beane, 2007)
Democratic classrooms do not happen by chance. Teachers tirelessly work to “bring democracy to life” by including students in designing curriculum, making decisions and encouraging participation in policy making decisions at school. Students yearn to see the relevance to their worlds and to make connections from what they are learning in school to their own lives. If students can take part in designing their own learning journeys and have their voices taken seriously they are much more likely to see the bigger picture. In a democratic classroom, curriculum is designed so that the concerns of young people are seriously considered instead of just the adult perspectives.
The creators of this theory are dissatisfied by traditional classrooms that emphasize, “tighter centralized control, standardization of content, reductive testing, authoritarian and sterile teaching.” (Apple & Beane, 2007) Instead of the traditional paradigm, the principles that encompass democratic classrooms are a concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and minorities, concern for the welfare of others and “the common good”, faith in the individual and collective capacity of people to create possibilities for resolving problems, the open flow of ideas and the use of critical reflection and analysis. (Apple & Beane, 2007) Instead of valuing competition, as in traditional classrooms, the emphasis is placed on collaboration and cooperation amongst students.
To see an example of this theory in action we watched a short film about a middle school program called The Alpha Program. The number one principle of the school is that curriculums is student-centered and directed by their interests. We observed students crafting curriculum with their teachers as facilitators and deciding democratically what concepts they wanted to learn that year. Students were given the choice as to their daily schedule and how much time to allow for group projects, lectures and individual learning time. When watching this I was in awe of the unbounded student freedom and could not help but question its credibility due to my own traditional classroom experience. If balanced correctly students can and should take an integral part in shaping the class curriculum and as teachers we should allow opportunities to inspire lifelong learning. One quote that stood out for me from the film was the, “It is better to get educable than educated.”
Post-conventional Theory: “The Rethinking of traditional beliefs and structures; no firm definition due to “continual growth and movement”. (Slattery, 1995)
This theory could also be entitled “chaos theory” and is characterized by indeterminacy. There is no master curriculum plan or any right and wrong answers. There is no beginning, middle or end. Teachers and students together are the developers of curriculum and the goals will emerge somewhere in the experience. I am reminded of Levy’s Ideal Classroom where students entered an empty classroom and where asked to design it. There were no desks, chairs, posters or paper just a blank canvas for students to work from where they could let their imaginations soar. This approach was not only as a post-modern ideal there were also elements of democratic, constructivist and authentic principles all embedded within this proposal.
Post-modernist theory is a non-linear, heterarchical theory where actions are driven by desire, and chance. During the post-modern era that began in 1950s there was a shift to “regarding the world as an organism rather than as a machine, the earth as a home rather than as a functional possession, and persons as interdependent rather than as isolated and independent.” (Slattery, 1995) Students benefit from being able to make connections between all living and non-living things and to understand that we are all apart of a system that is intricately linked. This understanding is pivotal to student’s understanding of his or her own worlds and is lacking from traditional science education.
Interconnectedness Theory: “None of the pieces of a puzzle mean anything alone; only when the pieces are put together do they mean something.” (Beane, 1995)
“A “coherent” curriculum is one that can be best described by the jigsaw metaphor. When the pieces are connected the whole makes sense but in separate pieces one cannot see the big picture. Curriculum should be designed so that there is a sense of relevance and connectedness, along with enhanced meaning throughout the entire unit. This theory is characterized by “unforgettable experiences” for the student that “involves creating contexts that organize and connect learning experiences” (Beane, 1995) The principles of a Coherent curriculum are woven through all of the other pedagogical theories, which are all moving away from uniformity and control.
Serendipity Theory:
“Everyone acknowledges that curriculum becomes intriguing, alive and compelling when something out of the blue captures the imagination of a group of children.” (Sobel, 1994)
When asked to share an example of a time that you experienced an authentic learning experience in school I could not think of one. Teachers were always so focused on covering all of the content that anything that could have been turned into an incredible authentic learning experience was perceived as a distraction to real content. David Sobel’s example of the children playing in the dam outside on their school grounds resonates with me. As a child I spent most of my time outside playing and building although I did not make the connection until reading Sobel’s article that those were actually real learning experiences.
If as a teacher you allow authentic learning to take place then your curriculum will be different every year. Sobel claims that these learning experiences happen as a result of “genuine, unmediated individual and developmental fascinations of children and teachers.” Although, there is also recognition that it is up to the teacher to capitalize on the situation. It is suggested that “the clue is to recognize the innumerable variables at work in determining whether something will catch fire or not” (Sobel, 1994) The key is to listen to your students interests and allow the freedom to stop and talk about that bird that flew into the window. There will always connections to be made to whatever students are learning at the time.
Designing the Experiment:
Experiments are designed to test hypotheses. In the case of curriculum design, students will determine if the hypothesis is disproven or not by demonstrating their understanding of the concept. But first, below are two important questions to consider when crafting the experiment.
1. Why exactly are you teaching this concept?2. What do you want students to understand and be able to explain 5 years from now?
At the beginning of the course we were introduced to backwards planning, as suggested by Tomlinson and McTighe. (2006) This sounded counterintuitive at first but as time progressed it became coherent. By starting with the big ideas first then planning them in a week-to-week macro sequence, laid out the framework for a curriculum unit. Lastly crafting the micro sequence with the daily plan and activities served as a guideline for designing curriculum.
To be successful in designing to test the hypothesis it is important to determine whether or not students have achieved those desired results. Assessments are often the most challenging aspect in the design process. Instead of “placing all the eggs in one basket”, as cumulative tests do, it is extremely important to embed multiple assessments while students are learning the material that will allow you to determine where students are in their understanding. Establishing rubrics are a great way to guide one through the evaluation process.
In The Heart of the Matter Falk describes useful assessments as providing “accurate information about the students --- either insights to their unique learning needs and understandings or to how they are progressing in relation to desired goals.” (Falk, 2000) High stakes tests do not serve the purpose of discovering how students understand the material but serve as a way to measure students in relation to other students. Falk suggests that this is the major problem with our current education system. Norm-referencing tests are “designed to compare performance with others, rather than demonstrate the degree to which a student has mastered specific criteria…” which sets students up for failure. (Falk, 2000)
Instead of giving norm-referencing tests that set students up to fail, assessments should serve the purpose of fostering learning experiences and showing student progress. Every student is unique and requires a different formula for success. Evaluation is a complex endeavor that cannot be quantified if only one form of evidence is used. Multiple means for assessment should be incorporated into the design to allow for all types of learners. Challenge boards are one method of assessment that allows for student choice and autonomy. Other forms of evidence that can be incorporated are class participation, journals, group work, labs, projects, and homework. By allowing for multiple check-ins such as journal prompts that elicit student understanding, this will help to assess students understanding of the material and clarify misconceptions before the culminating test.
The last step of the design is planning learning experiences and instruction. This is where the micro phase begins and activities are created. Once this is in place it is time to test the curriculum in front of students.
Analyze Results:
As I had mentioned previously, the experiment is not complete until it has been tested on a live audience. Unfortunately there was not an opportunity to have our curriculum tested however instead we had an hour-long session where our professor and cohort critiqued our curriculum. For the purpose of this paper, the results of the curriculum design process will be analyzed based upon the feedback of my peers. In a classroom setting, the results would have been analyzed based upon how students understood the content.
The opportunity to have 15 people critique an original month curriculum was a once in a lifetime experience. Never again will I be able to have so many eyes to help look for missing elements and to offer ideas and things to consider. Although the experience placed me in a vulnerable position it helped to prepare me for the many evaluations I will receive when teaching. I’ve learned that it is important to try to detach one’s ego and absorb all the advice you are given because that is the only way one can grow as a person.
During the convening session, I realized the undeniable truth that the product that Katie and I had poured my heart and soul into was not going to accomplish its main goal. Our idea was to ask students “Is our school sabotaging our cells?” and explore the complexities of cells through this lens. Once reviewed by our cohort we realized that we had not created enough experiences for students to see how their own cells were impacted. We allowed for time for students to play with cells, manipulate cells and look at them understand a microscope but we had not incorporated activities that would explain how their cells were being affected by their environment. While they may reach an understanding that all things are comprised of cells and that it is cells that determine our health, as the curriculum stands, students are not going to be able to explain how the environment impacts their cells.
During our convening session the two main questions we asked our cohort was, is our curriculum coherent and do our activities support and provide our students with the knowledge and tools they need in order to create their final projects? There were many suggestions offered and many will be incorporated in the curriculum. One idea was instead of comparing heart cells on the first day have students create their own cell and how it would function. This is a constructivist approach, which would hopefully aid in discovering student’s prior knowledge of the topic. Another idea that made sense was to cut out days of focusing on cancer and stem cells and provide more time to delve into hard science behind cells roles and functions. Another idea was to cut out our lesson on “What’s for lunch?” because although there are great learning opportunities focused around this topic, it does not stick to the guiding question.
One of the principle changes I would make to our curriculum is to incorporate an anonymous school wide survey of students and teachers and the illnesses and conditions they have. This would also ask when students and teachers experience the worst symptoms and if they are in between the hours of 7:30am and 3:30pm. The results would be incorporated into the final project and would give incentive for students to discover how they can help their classmates and teachers by improving the school’s health. If asthma is prevalent then students can research what causes asthma and test the school for variables that would impact the prevalence of the condition. They could do the same thing with the common cold. Somewhere along the way we lost touch of this component and once incorporated I believe students will see the relevance.
Crafting an original curriculum this semester was a rewarding experience although at times incredibly difficult. I learned that it is important to always ask oneself, what’s the motivator for students before going any further. Accepting feedback on an original curriculum is not easy but an integral part of the process. As teachers, we should invite and encourage all opportunities to be critiqued because it is the only way we will improve.
Repeat the Process“ The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov
It is important to remember that if at first you don’t succeed you can always try again. Often experiments do not produce the results you were looking for. This can be discouraging but at the same time can be an important opportunity for reflection and learning. As teachers we must remember that students benefit most from teachers who continuously experiment. If the desire to experiment ends, then it’s time to change professions.
References
Apple, M. & Beane, J. (2007) Democratic Schools Lessons in Powerful Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Beane, J.A. (1995) Introduction: What is a Coherent Curriculum?
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VG: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Falk, B. (2000). The Heart of the Matter. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. New York: Garland Publishing.
Sobel, D. (1994) Authentic Curriculum. Holistic Education Review.
Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. What Really Matters in Learning (Content)?
As I spent hours pondering how to approach this final synthesis paper I allowed my mind to wander from idea to idea until I finally said “aha.” From the lens of a pre-service science teacher the approach that made most sense to me was to compare designing curriculum to crafting an experiment. One can design an experiment and make predictions as to the outcome but it is important to remember that until tested, a hypothesis is just a hypothesis. In my eyes this is much like designing curriculum.
One of our first lessons learned at Antioch during Problem Solving Science was that even the worlds most flawless lesson plan could completely tank when tested on a live student audience. As teachers we are all scientists performing one experiment after another in the pursuit of creating powerful learning experiences for all students. The question is, where does one start when designing an experiment? One of the most common misconceptions around curriculum design is that activities should be the focus of a curriculum unit. Although this may create hands-on, engaging learning there is the potential to loose sight of the “big picture”. When designing curriculum it is not about designing for multiple different experiments, but about crafting one comprehensive experiment that presents the whole and focuses on connecting all of the parts.
While there are multiple steps and guidelines one can follow when designing curriculum there is by no means a prescription. This was learned early on while designing a month long curriculum unit on cells for seventh grade this semester. Unlike designing an experiment where one must follow a recipe, curriculum design should be categorized as an art. Jimmy Karlan intrigued us at the start of Curriculum Design by proclaiming us that we “will be screenwriters, directors, editors, designers, instructors, managers—all blended into one being from which your art will manifest itself.” As a science major in undergraduate school I became used to prescriptive assignments, labs and tests, which stifled creativity. Although foreign at first, designing curriculum became an avenue for imagination to resurface and a place to play, invent and take risks.
As teachers we have the option to continually experiment with curriculum and it’s delivery. The best teachers are never completely satisfied with their curriculum and endlessly year after year continue to experiment. Once I am a science teacher I plan to try new ideas, incorporate surprise elements and carry on the tireless “teaching experiment”. Students will be involved in the process from the beginning by selecting topics of their interest and by suggesting direct feedback on what works and what does not. Below are the steps that I would take in crafting a curriculum unit that will generate powerful learning experiences for all students. As specified above, curriculum design is not an algorithm, although for the purposes of this paper I have used the elements of the scientific method to serve as guidelines for the steps I find useful when designing curriculum.
Develop a Question:
As in any well-designed experiment the first question you pose will set the stage for the entire curriculum. The definition of a good guiding question, as provided by Traver, is:“The fundamental query that directs the search for understanding” (1998) Students try to answer this question throughout the entire unit, which becomes the thread for coherence. Crafting a good guiding question is the most important component of the entire curriculum but can also be the most challenging. The question my partner and I posed for our curriculum unit on cells was, “Is our school sabotaging our cells?” With this question we wanted to capture students’ attention from the start and provide an avenue for students to create change within their own school while at the same time learning complex scientific concepts. A solid guiding question will guide you through the rest of the design.
There are four components, as suggested by Traver, that are important to keep in mind. First, good guiding questions are “open-ended yet focus inquiry on a specific topic”. For example, “What is a good habitat?” allows students to interpret the question as to their current knowledge and there are no right or wrong answers. Secondly, questions should be “non-judgmental but answering them requires high-level cognitive work”. Thirdly, questions should have “emotive force and intellectual bite” where students are intrigued by the topic and have to think deeply to answer. Lastly, questions should be “succinct” and with few words that captures the audience.
Conduct Background research:
Once a guiding question is developed, the next step is to identify the “big ideas” for your curriculum, which should be explicit to students from the beginning. These can be obtained from the state and national standards. This is an essential step in planning curriculum and will allow you to establish goals for the unit. One of the biggest difficulties teachers face today in the wake of national standards is covering all of the content. In fact, “despite all good intentions and many positive effects, the standards movement has not solved the “overload” problem. In fact instead of ameliorating the problem, the standards may have exacerbated it.” (Tomlinson & Mctighe, 2006) All educators’ deal with this dilemma, it’s just a matter identifying the most important “big ideas” and creating” essential questions” that will direct student learning.
As suggested by Jimmy Karlan, after establishing the “big ideas” it important to identify what your “bottom lines” are. These are not actually related to the topic but act as a lens with which to evaluate your curriculum as you create it. They are not activities but attributes or qualities that you want to make sure your curriculum possesses. For example, my bottom lines when designing curriculum are as follows: real world problem solving, student opinion and choice, empowerment, community-based, multiple learning styles, systems approach, adaptability, and embedded assessment. These are all elements that serve as reminders for how to construct meaningful curriculum for students and should be referred to throughout the entire design process.
The Hypothesis: If multiple pedagogical theories such as constructivist, democratic, post-modern, coherent, and authentic are incorporated into designing curriculum, then bottom lines will be achieved and students will have powerful learning experiences.
During our Curriculum Design course this semester we explored multiple curriculum themes that have influenced our approach to designing curriculum. Many of them share similar elements and are intricately linked to one another. Although it does not take the incorporation of every theory to be a success, the only way to truly test this hypothesis is on a classroom of students. Below each of the theories are expanded upon and interpreted as I perceive them:
Learning is Individualistic Theory: “Each of us makes sense of the world by synthesizing new experiences into what we have previously come to understand.”(Brooks, 1999)
Constructivist theory begs the question of “who’s in charge of learning?” Contrary to popular belief, the responsibility lies in the hands of the individual, not the teacher. In order for students to take ownership of this responsibility it is the teachers role to facilitate student empowerment. By seeking student’s points of view, challenging them to solve problems and allowing the space for students to ask their own questions and seek their own answers encourages lifelong learning habits to emerge. Constructivism is a style of teaching that respects the understanding a learner forms on his or her own and that gives us space for multiple understandings.
Students are not “blank slates” waiting to be filled, but are full of knowledge and their own understandings. At the beginning of a new unit, it is important never to assume that everyone have the same background knowledge of a particular subject. Students often have misconceptions around scientific topics and it is important to allow the time to work through them. Student relevance will emerge from this process and is one of the main guiding principles of this theory.
This semester we watched a documentary called A Private Universe that accurately portrayed that even the “brightest” of students have enduring misconceptions around scientific concepts. Observing how most Harvard graduates could not explain why we have seasons was proof that the way we are teaching science is not working. By heavy reliance on textbooks teachers have exacerbated student misconceptions due to misguiding diagrams and unclear discriptions.
In my Earth Systems Science course this semester I had an opportunity to teach about Milankovitch cycles and what causes seasons. After watching A Private Universe I was inspired to incorporate constructivist principles into the presentation and play off of those misconceptions. I began by asking the audience to draw a diagram of what causes seasons and discuss this with a partner. Then together as a group we worked through the 2 most common misconceptions that people had associated with the seasons. This was a rewarding experience to witness firsthand the reworking of prior knowledge into a coherent understanding.
Power of the Students Theory:“Those committed to a more participatory curriculum understand that knowledge is socially constructed, that it is produced and disseminated by people who have particular values, interests and biases.” (Apple & Beane, 2007)
Democratic classrooms do not happen by chance. Teachers tirelessly work to “bring democracy to life” by including students in designing curriculum, making decisions and encouraging participation in policy making decisions at school. Students yearn to see the relevance to their worlds and to make connections from what they are learning in school to their own lives. If students can take part in designing their own learning journeys and have their voices taken seriously they are much more likely to see the bigger picture. In a democratic classroom, curriculum is designed so that the concerns of young people are seriously considered instead of just the adult perspectives.
The creators of this theory are dissatisfied by traditional classrooms that emphasize, “tighter centralized control, standardization of content, reductive testing, authoritarian and sterile teaching.” (Apple & Beane, 2007) Instead of the traditional paradigm, the principles that encompass democratic classrooms are a concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and minorities, concern for the welfare of others and “the common good”, faith in the individual and collective capacity of people to create possibilities for resolving problems, the open flow of ideas and the use of critical reflection and analysis. (Apple & Beane, 2007) Instead of valuing competition, as in traditional classrooms, the emphasis is placed on collaboration and cooperation amongst students.
To see an example of this theory in action we watched a short film about a middle school program called The Alpha Program. The number one principle of the school is that curriculums is student-centered and directed by their interests. We observed students crafting curriculum with their teachers as facilitators and deciding democratically what concepts they wanted to learn that year. Students were given the choice as to their daily schedule and how much time to allow for group projects, lectures and individual learning time. When watching this I was in awe of the unbounded student freedom and could not help but question its credibility due to my own traditional classroom experience. If balanced correctly students can and should take an integral part in shaping the class curriculum and as teachers we should allow opportunities to inspire lifelong learning. One quote that stood out for me from the film was the, “It is better to get educable than educated.”
Post-conventional Theory: “The Rethinking of traditional beliefs and structures; no firm definition due to “continual growth and movement”. (Slattery, 1995)
This theory could also be entitled “chaos theory” and is characterized by indeterminacy. There is no master curriculum plan or any right and wrong answers. There is no beginning, middle or end. Teachers and students together are the developers of curriculum and the goals will emerge somewhere in the experience. I am reminded of Levy’s Ideal Classroom where students entered an empty classroom and where asked to design it. There were no desks, chairs, posters or paper just a blank canvas for students to work from where they could let their imaginations soar. This approach was not only as a post-modern ideal there were also elements of democratic, constructivist and authentic principles all embedded within this proposal.
Post-modernist theory is a non-linear, heterarchical theory where actions are driven by desire, and chance. During the post-modern era that began in 1950s there was a shift to “regarding the world as an organism rather than as a machine, the earth as a home rather than as a functional possession, and persons as interdependent rather than as isolated and independent.” (Slattery, 1995) Students benefit from being able to make connections between all living and non-living things and to understand that we are all apart of a system that is intricately linked. This understanding is pivotal to student’s understanding of his or her own worlds and is lacking from traditional science education.
Interconnectedness Theory: “None of the pieces of a puzzle mean anything alone; only when the pieces are put together do they mean something.” (Beane, 1995)
“A “coherent” curriculum is one that can be best described by the jigsaw metaphor. When the pieces are connected the whole makes sense but in separate pieces one cannot see the big picture. Curriculum should be designed so that there is a sense of relevance and connectedness, along with enhanced meaning throughout the entire unit. This theory is characterized by “unforgettable experiences” for the student that “involves creating contexts that organize and connect learning experiences” (Beane, 1995) The principles of a Coherent curriculum are woven through all of the other pedagogical theories, which are all moving away from uniformity and control.
Serendipity Theory:
“Everyone acknowledges that curriculum becomes intriguing, alive and compelling when something out of the blue captures the imagination of a group of children.” (Sobel, 1994)
When asked to share an example of a time that you experienced an authentic learning experience in school I could not think of one. Teachers were always so focused on covering all of the content that anything that could have been turned into an incredible authentic learning experience was perceived as a distraction to real content. David Sobel’s example of the children playing in the dam outside on their school grounds resonates with me. As a child I spent most of my time outside playing and building although I did not make the connection until reading Sobel’s article that those were actually real learning experiences.
If as a teacher you allow authentic learning to take place then your curriculum will be different every year. Sobel claims that these learning experiences happen as a result of “genuine, unmediated individual and developmental fascinations of children and teachers.” Although, there is also recognition that it is up to the teacher to capitalize on the situation. It is suggested that “the clue is to recognize the innumerable variables at work in determining whether something will catch fire or not” (Sobel, 1994) The key is to listen to your students interests and allow the freedom to stop and talk about that bird that flew into the window. There will always connections to be made to whatever students are learning at the time.
Designing the Experiment:
Experiments are designed to test hypotheses. In the case of curriculum design, students will determine if the hypothesis is disproven or not by demonstrating their understanding of the concept. But first, below are two important questions to consider when crafting the experiment.
1. Why exactly are you teaching this concept?2. What do you want students to understand and be able to explain 5 years from now?
At the beginning of the course we were introduced to backwards planning, as suggested by Tomlinson and McTighe. (2006) This sounded counterintuitive at first but as time progressed it became coherent. By starting with the big ideas first then planning them in a week-to-week macro sequence, laid out the framework for a curriculum unit. Lastly crafting the micro sequence with the daily plan and activities served as a guideline for designing curriculum.
To be successful in designing to test the hypothesis it is important to determine whether or not students have achieved those desired results. Assessments are often the most challenging aspect in the design process. Instead of “placing all the eggs in one basket”, as cumulative tests do, it is extremely important to embed multiple assessments while students are learning the material that will allow you to determine where students are in their understanding. Establishing rubrics are a great way to guide one through the evaluation process.
In The Heart of the Matter Falk describes useful assessments as providing “accurate information about the students --- either insights to their unique learning needs and understandings or to how they are progressing in relation to desired goals.” (Falk, 2000) High stakes tests do not serve the purpose of discovering how students understand the material but serve as a way to measure students in relation to other students. Falk suggests that this is the major problem with our current education system. Norm-referencing tests are “designed to compare performance with others, rather than demonstrate the degree to which a student has mastered specific criteria…” which sets students up for failure. (Falk, 2000)
Instead of giving norm-referencing tests that set students up to fail, assessments should serve the purpose of fostering learning experiences and showing student progress. Every student is unique and requires a different formula for success. Evaluation is a complex endeavor that cannot be quantified if only one form of evidence is used. Multiple means for assessment should be incorporated into the design to allow for all types of learners. Challenge boards are one method of assessment that allows for student choice and autonomy. Other forms of evidence that can be incorporated are class participation, journals, group work, labs, projects, and homework. By allowing for multiple check-ins such as journal prompts that elicit student understanding, this will help to assess students understanding of the material and clarify misconceptions before the culminating test.
The last step of the design is planning learning experiences and instruction. This is where the micro phase begins and activities are created. Once this is in place it is time to test the curriculum in front of students.
Analyze Results:
As I had mentioned previously, the experiment is not complete until it has been tested on a live audience. Unfortunately there was not an opportunity to have our curriculum tested however instead we had an hour-long session where our professor and cohort critiqued our curriculum. For the purpose of this paper, the results of the curriculum design process will be analyzed based upon the feedback of my peers. In a classroom setting, the results would have been analyzed based upon how students understood the content.
The opportunity to have 15 people critique an original month curriculum was a once in a lifetime experience. Never again will I be able to have so many eyes to help look for missing elements and to offer ideas and things to consider. Although the experience placed me in a vulnerable position it helped to prepare me for the many evaluations I will receive when teaching. I’ve learned that it is important to try to detach one’s ego and absorb all the advice you are given because that is the only way one can grow as a person.
During the convening session, I realized the undeniable truth that the product that Katie and I had poured my heart and soul into was not going to accomplish its main goal. Our idea was to ask students “Is our school sabotaging our cells?” and explore the complexities of cells through this lens. Once reviewed by our cohort we realized that we had not created enough experiences for students to see how their own cells were impacted. We allowed for time for students to play with cells, manipulate cells and look at them understand a microscope but we had not incorporated activities that would explain how their cells were being affected by their environment. While they may reach an understanding that all things are comprised of cells and that it is cells that determine our health, as the curriculum stands, students are not going to be able to explain how the environment impacts their cells.
During our convening session the two main questions we asked our cohort was, is our curriculum coherent and do our activities support and provide our students with the knowledge and tools they need in order to create their final projects? There were many suggestions offered and many will be incorporated in the curriculum. One idea was instead of comparing heart cells on the first day have students create their own cell and how it would function. This is a constructivist approach, which would hopefully aid in discovering student’s prior knowledge of the topic. Another idea that made sense was to cut out days of focusing on cancer and stem cells and provide more time to delve into hard science behind cells roles and functions. Another idea was to cut out our lesson on “What’s for lunch?” because although there are great learning opportunities focused around this topic, it does not stick to the guiding question.
One of the principle changes I would make to our curriculum is to incorporate an anonymous school wide survey of students and teachers and the illnesses and conditions they have. This would also ask when students and teachers experience the worst symptoms and if they are in between the hours of 7:30am and 3:30pm. The results would be incorporated into the final project and would give incentive for students to discover how they can help their classmates and teachers by improving the school’s health. If asthma is prevalent then students can research what causes asthma and test the school for variables that would impact the prevalence of the condition. They could do the same thing with the common cold. Somewhere along the way we lost touch of this component and once incorporated I believe students will see the relevance.
Crafting an original curriculum this semester was a rewarding experience although at times incredibly difficult. I learned that it is important to always ask oneself, what’s the motivator for students before going any further. Accepting feedback on an original curriculum is not easy but an integral part of the process. As teachers, we should invite and encourage all opportunities to be critiqued because it is the only way we will improve.
Repeat the Process“ The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov
It is important to remember that if at first you don’t succeed you can always try again. Often experiments do not produce the results you were looking for. This can be discouraging but at the same time can be an important opportunity for reflection and learning. As teachers we must remember that students benefit most from teachers who continuously experiment. If the desire to experiment ends, then it’s time to change professions.
References
Apple, M. & Beane, J. (2007) Democratic Schools Lessons in Powerful Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Beane, J.A. (1995) Introduction: What is a Coherent Curriculum?
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VG: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Falk, B. (2000). The Heart of the Matter. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. New York: Garland Publishing.
Sobel, D. (1994) Authentic Curriculum. Holistic Education Review.
Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. What Really Matters in Learning (Content)?