Beth

Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

Part 1:

As public schools have developed within American educational system,

curriculum theorists have attempted to define and explain curriculum development

that leads to effective learning and student development and learning and that helps

to form the shape of education experiences. Franklin Bobbitt states that:

Curriculum may, therefore, be defined in two ways: (1) it is the entire range of

experiences, both undirected and directed, concerned in unfolding the abilities of

the individual; or (2) it is the series of consciously directed training experiences that

the schools use for completing and perfecting the unfoldment (Flinders &

Thornton, 2012, p. 13). Other theorists, including Ralph Tyler, James Popham,

Maxine Greene, Paulo Friere, Nel Noddings, and Wayne Au, to name a few, have

continued to make contributions to the collective works that lead to effective

curriculum development of what and how students learn.

When reviewing the curricular theories presented by John Dewey and Maria

Montessori, one can notice similarities and differences between their models. Both

the Dewey model and Montessori model are student-centered and based on

experiential learning but the models can look quite different when put into practice

in the classroom. The student-centered curriculums are structured so that learning

is based on the students interests and needs. Students develop to be independent

learners who take ownership of their learning. The teachers have similar roles in

these models. Teachers serve as guides, resources, and facilitators. Flinders and

Thornton (2012) state that: For Montessori, it was not a matter of technical
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

methods but rather attentive observations and the desire to learn that signaled the

true spirit of scientific pedagogy (p. 6). Teachers work to create and shape the

learning opportunities and experiences for the students in their class, serving as

facilitator rather than authoritarian in the classroom.

The social aspect of schooling is one of the biggest differences between

Deweys and Montessoris methods. The social aspect of learning is not heavily

emphasized in Montessoris method. While multi-age classrooms exist within the

model where students learn from older students, students are also free to work

alone when they would like to do so. Dewey believes that learning is a social

process. Students should work in groups and connect with their community at

large. Dewey states that: I believe that the school is primarily a social institution.

Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in

which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the

child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for

social ends (Flinders & Thornton, 2012, p. 35). For Dewey, the social experience

supersedes all of the individual subject domains. Through project-based learning,

the social experience of the students can be integrated into all other subject areas.

While both emphasize using students interests and needs to shape the learning

experiences, Montessoris method uses carefully designed materials while Dewey

uses more project-based learning (Flinders & Thornton, 2012).

When applied in the classroom, these theories may look quite different. For

example, Deweys model can be depicted by a group of students who are interested
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

in the environment and they develop a project around this interest. The students

could explore the environmental impact of industry on local wildlife in parks. In

addition to their academic work in the classroom, Deweys model would encourage

the students to get directly involved in the community, such as by participating or

organizing a park cleanup day, writing an article for the newspaper, or writing

letters to their local elected officials about the issue. Montessoris model does not

stress this need to break down boundaries between the school and the community.

In a Montessori classroom, student can be working with specific materials that are

chosen specially for that objective. The majority of Montessori programs are early

childhood focused but middle and high school programs do exist as well. Older

students in the Montessori model may participate in similar activities as this

environmental project, but the focus would be less of the social experience of the

project and more on the learning and developmental aspect of the project.

Since my initial experience with Dewey and Montessori while writing

Response Paper #1, I would say that my understanding of Montessoris methods has

changed more than Dewey. I did not know much about Dewey but I had

preconceived notions about Montessori before the start of the course. Throughout

the course, I delved deeper into the Montessori model to learn more about how it

applies not only to younger children but to older students, as well. My original

belief regarding Montessori was that, as it had been explained to me in the past, it

focused on each child individually and the description I heard never made much

sense to me. After watching videos of the method in action, reading additional
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

information on the method, and learning about how it is applied with older

students, I have a much greater appreciation for the method and I can see the value

in its application. One of the most impactful points from Montessori that I have

been trying to apply with my own students is that students have the right to the

time to explore an object or subject and to give students the time to do this. On the

other hand, I do not feel that I have changed in my views on Dewey throughout this

course. His project-based learning is beneficial, especially with older students.

These two early curricular theorists helped to form the foundation on which

learning occurs today and on which curriculum development continues to grow.

Part 2:

We engage in critical pedagogy by challenging and questioning the

traditional view. Due to my work with children with disabilities, many who can be

classified as having a severe disability, I have been interested in the issue of

including students with severe disabilities within the administration of the requisite

standardized testing. I am not directly involved in a classroom at this point in my

career but I have seen how this curricular issue plays out in special education

classrooms in the past and it has been a topic of discussion during some of my

current students IEP meetings.

Based on legislation that has been passed in the past 20 years, students with

disabilities are increasingly including in the general education setting. Students

with disabilities are not being segregated away from their peers but the best ways

to do this to ensure that all students are benefitting is continually being worked out
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

in school districts across the nation. The legislation also regulates that students

with disabilities be included in standardized testing. School districts risk losing

funding if less than a certain percentage of students complete the standardized tests.

These students with severe disabilities, such as a 12-year-old with autism who is

non-verbal, communicates his basic wants and needs using an iPad application, and

has the age-equivalency of a two-year-old, are required to participate in

standardized testing. Alternative testing accommodations can be made but they are

still supposed to test similar skills as the tests of his neuro-typical peers. While

participating in these tests, the students miss out on valuable instruction time

working toward goals listed in their IEPs. In a resolution from the American

Federation of Teachers, they state that administering these tests may even be in

violation of some students IEPs, that a standardized test does not capture the full

picture of what a child has learned, and that a multiple method approach to

assessment would be more valuable (American Federation of Teachers, 2014). In

addition, Nel Noddings stated that: Giving all our children the same education,

especially when that sameness is defined in a model of intellectual excellence,

cannot equalize the quality of education (Flinders & Thornton, 2012, p.190). I feel

like the quote from Noddings can be related to this educational issue.

Paulo Friere stated that: many political and educational plans have failed

because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of

reality, never one taking into account (except as mere objects of their actions) the

men-in-a-situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed (Flinders &

Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

Thornton, 2012). Those who are enacting the legislation and policies are well

meaning but not in touch with all of the students that these policies effect. To truly

be effective educators, the students needs must be placed above the needs of those

evaluators who are looking to use these assessments as tools of measurement for

funding and teacher evaluations, not truly to measure student progress.

While my views on this specific curriculum issue have not changed, I believe

that I have questioned the use of standardized tests for all students more since I first

started to look into this issue. Wayne Au took an in-depth look at this issue and the

role that high-stakes standardized testing plays in relation to curriculum

development. Au found that the tests have the predominant effect of narrowing

curricular content to those subjects included in the tests, resulting in the increased

fragmentation of knowledge forms into bits and pieces learned for the sake of the

tests themselves, and compelling teachers to use more lecture-based, teacher-

centered pedagogies (Flinders & Thornton, 2012, p. 246). The tests have an impact

on the way curriculums are developed. It is not known for sure whether this effect

is a good or a bad thing for students, teachers, and schools.

Part 3:

Before starting this course, I knew very little about curriculum studies and

definitely could not say that I had a philosophy of curriculum. I knew curriculum as

a framework for a course or learning experience. Throughout this course, it has

been expanded to encompass everything about what is learned and how learning

occurs. Recently, I was telling a colleague about this course and I was surprised at
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

how one-dimensional her view was when it came to curriculum and how I no longer

see curriculum that way. Her view of curriculum was that of an outline for teaching

something. When I think about curriculum, now I picture a large, all-encompassing

web that includes everything about what, how, and why learning is occurring.

To determine my philosophy of curriculum, I first thought about what I

would do if I had to develop a curriculum at this time and in fact I am in the process

of developing curriculum for a social group for preschool students. In the initial

steps of the process, I come back to Ralph Tylers four fundamental questions: 1.

What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational

experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can

these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine

whether the purposes are being attained? (Flinders & Thornton, 2012, p. 59). This

series of questions helps me to shape the objectives, activities to meet the

objectives, and the assessment portion that should be included in the curriculum.

While I now have much more respect and understanding for the Montessori method

than I did prior to this course, I would likely not focus purely on the Montessori

method when working on a curriculum and some of that may be because I work

with children with autism who have intervention goals of interacting with other

children in the classroom because they have a deficit in this area of development. I

would use some of Montessoris components, such as allowing students time to

develop genuine interest, following the students interest when possible, engaging in
Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

hands on learning experiences, and following the students natural development

when constructing learning experiences.

Objectives are necessary to drive the curriculum. Tyler stated that: it is

clear that educational objectives, then, represent the kinds of changes in behavior

that an educational institution seeks to bring about in its students. A study of the

learners themselves would seek to identify needed changes in behavior patterns of

the students which the educational institution should seek to produce (Flinders &

Thornton, 2012, p. 61). The objectives should be measureable and should be based

on assessment data. Only after the objectives are developed, can the curriculum

truly develop and take shape. Popham stated that clearly stated objectives

promote increased clarity regarding educational intents, whereas vague and

unmeasurable objectives yield considerable ambiguity and, as a consequence, the

possibility of many interpretations not only of what the objective means but,

perhaps whether it has been accomplished (Flinders & Thornton, 2012, p. 96). If I

am going to go through the process of developing a curriculum, I would like that

curriculum to be replicable by other professionals. The use of specific, clear, and

measureable objectives increases the integrity of the curriculum.

For the development of the curriculum for my preschool social group, I am

using Tylers questions to guide its development. There is an assessment portion

and I am looking at the needs specific to who will be in this group. The needs of the

students will help to drive the structure of the curriculum. One of the components

that continues to surprise me is that I come back to many of Montessoris beliefs

Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

about education and child development as I am developing this program. My

practice is strongly rooted in behavioral theory but throughout this course I have

been surprised by how many theorists share ideas with behavioral theory. Often,

we just have specific, technical vocabulary associated with the same ideas. While

some theorists have said that teachers should follow the childs lead and interests,

this parallels the idea of using established motivating operations during naturalistic

teaching situations within a behavioral approach to education. In addition, I

strongly believe in hands on, experiential learning. This should be encompassed in

the curriculum whenever possible. I am focused on the education of young children

but I believe that this should be carried through to all educational levels. As I am in

the process of developing this curriculum at this time, I am using aspects from what

I have learned in this course to create a quality and effective curriculum.

Beth Montick
C&T 709: Foundations of Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy of Curriculum Final Paper

References

American Federation of Teachers. (2014). AFT resolution: Against standardized

assessments for students receiving special education services.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15wayLIer74QOBgosuQO7e9HZsS
CpeQ58k6x7lRHC-oc/edit?usp=sharing.

Flinders, D. J. & Thornton, S. J. (2012). The curriculum studies reader (4th edition).
New York, NY: Routledge.