#24

The topic on this week's Behind the classroom door are from northern Illinois University's

College of Education is the modern curriculum. Watch should it be.

Here's the moderator Dean Robert after top curriculum

has many meanings and it seems to me we ought to examine some of these meanings so that we

can have some common understanding as we talk about it before we begin this discussion.

It's my understanding that curriculum includes everything that the child

experiences under the direction of the teacher.

I think that is one of the most common definitions of

curriculum. However recently there's been far greater out places upon

trying to define curriculum in a way that the you could

control your definition of curriculum.

What about what about recess.

What about the extracurricular activities

curriculum is is of course the course of study and the

subject matter and that the student is introduced to

and is there a difference between the Elementary and the secondary line.

Why think at the elementary school level we usually think of curriculum and experiences in

reading writing speaking listening observation reasoning

computing discovering creating and regard to

recess.

I would say in any experience that under the under the direction supervision of the teacher.

But where are we when we talk about the formal curriculum are we referring to

the courses the subject matter. Primarily we

structure this so that children of all ages of

cores are engaging in a certain type of study in certain areas.

I think most people.

Think of it in that way that for example it tends to be a course of study though it's only part of

the curriculum which is often one part I think tricky a lot of towns to be

defined more today in terms of all the learning

experiences that are planned for by the school and under the

supervision of the school that are designed to meet certain learning

objectives.

I know they have modified even the terminology for a while

we used to say extracurricular activities and I guess it still used

meaning in competitive athletics and school dances

clubs that might meet after school and they changed that term from

extracurricular to co-curricular.

I don't know if they use it I don't but the idea here was that this what might be

is important as a structured

program in the school.

I think the change of the term is very important because

co-curricular map that these areas such as

dramatics athletics

speech were just as important in the school curriculum as.

Latin and English other areas in

fact many students who have gone through the schools. In

retrospect feel that they may have learned more from some of the so-called

extracurricular and I think we all look back on some of those.

And this was one of the reasons for the extra our co-curricular activities

or drama or something of this nature it was very important.

Dr. Fox would you go so far as to include activities such as this would

jar commonly a part of a school's program say the

cafeteria the school lunch program which is maintained and supervised by the

school. Say it's transportation where the school

provides bus service for children can you see where this

could be planned so that this would be a learning also be a learning experience for children.

Yes Leo I think it can be but I don't think in some schools it is in fact.

Again if you fall back to the definition that.

In order to be part of the curriculum it has to be planned to meet certain

educational objectives. And I think as school lunch program

may meet that definition if within a school lunch program for

example emphasis would be placed on the proper diet

proper eating habits. If school lunch period however is

completely uncontrolled or unsupervised and it

is simply a way of providing lots of the people do not have to leave the

school building then I do not think you could call that another

words over a curriculum is that aspect that is controlled and

structured and is directed at a certain set of objectives that are

chosen in advance so that we we know they're good are as good as we

can.

Designed them and then we try to achieve those objectives through the

experiences the youngsters have in the schools.

That's right I think there still is great disagreement about the definition of curriculum

because some of the writers Reagan for example in

curriculum still defined curriculum as all the learning experiences

of a child. And that would be on the playground within the school

hallways and so forth. However that definition is not as

functional as a definition that deed limits or restricts the

meaning of curriculum to an area that you actually can work with either which you

can plan that you can control that you can change it if it is not effective.

Well a curriculum is really the lifeblood of the school isn't it it's the

lifeblood of the program that the children and gaijin and therefore is very

important. In the curriculum are poorly structured with gaps or where in some

other way inadequate the children would suffer and perhaps seriously we

know what would happen for example if if they missed a good piece

of mathematics instruction along the way. How do we manage I

wonder to keep it in order and keep it lined up and make sure we don't have

gaps and repetitious ness.

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING. Well I think one of the most common ways of doing us as

a process that's known as articulation

articulation simply means that the teacher is within a school all

work together so that what is learned for example in a first grade

is related to what is learned in the second grade and third and so forth

so that you have a greater degree of complexity as a child was through the grades

you have vertigo articulation which is a type i just mentioned plus

horizontal articulation was very important between say an

elementary school which is we'll assume sixth grade

departmental ised and a junior high school which contains seven eight

and nine and his departmental lies in the Senior High School which is

the part analyze and then the big Joe the college i.e. I have a feeling

that these gaps are these changes in the nature of the school

are our critical points in the con con

continuation of a good curriculum in most schools or what have curriculum

guides to that would state their objectives for that particular level and many

times the committees and methods of evaluation.

So I think you'll find that most schools do have a sequence of

programs set up.

Well from what you have said I would assume that if a

school system whose. Curriculum extends from

kindergarten through grade 12 then would have a sequence of

learning activities for all disciplines or all subjects and starting

in the kindergarden and standing through the senior year of high school.

Well is that the case. Take chemistry or physics for example

which is commonly taught in the senior high school. What sort of basis would

be laid for that in kindergarten.

I think we all see a good example because as you go down

into the grades and are like what happens to a discipline in other words doing

specific subject matter a field that is studied is that you take a

broad fields approach to that discipline. So that in the early

grades the science program leads to the study of

chemistry biology physics at senior high school level. And I think

it's especially a good example because recent studies in the field of science have

indicated that we have a very poorly articulated

program in that area. It has been common

up until the past few years just to stress only biological

concepts within the elementary grades. There was botany

maybe come into the picture. Some study of plant life and little in

six cows we had very very little physics and chemistry partially because

teachers of the elementary grades usually were required to have only

the two sometimes three general courses of science at the

college level I think there's a more fundamental reason that science is one of our weak

spots particularly in the later elementary grades.

And that is that most elementary school teachers are women. And our

society tends not to cause young girls and women and

subsequently to be interested in science. And there's quite a hurdle to overcome

there it seems to me. Children are very interested in science especially

in the fourth fifth and sixth grades. And unless this is capitalized they're not going

to carry on this interest in continuing science the way they should.

I think this brings in that it leads into the question of who should determine the curriculum

in the saddle. And I know that this

question has been answered in different ways through the years I member many years ago the curriculum was

determined for example by specialists in the field and teachers had very little to

do with it. And then I think for a number of years it was a trend for just the

opposite to happen. You know teachers working together develop the curriculum for

the school. And I've noticed recently recent years that now there seem to be more of a trend I

think towards both. Working on the curriculum.

I would like to go back a little ways here to where you

mentioned the difficulty of primary great teachers with the

teaching of science. I think probably the difficulty comes in that

these teachers do not realize just what science consists of.

Many of them have the idea that to teach science you must be involved and wires

and electromagnets and batteries and test tubes and chemicals and

things like that. Wow think of the opportunities that even a kindergarten

teacher has in introducing children to biology and.

Viewing birds discussing pets and so forth.

Carrot care of these animals. It's a wonderful opportunity to

lay the basis for the study of biology and zoology and so forth.

No question about it and I think that good teachers and good

textbooks by the way reading materials tend to bring this in and again we

touch upon something that has an influence in the curriculum I believe textbooks.

Have a direct impact on what is included in the curriculum.

Of course you might say that teachers and the group that exist in the

school districts also have an impact on what the textbooks shall be.

But many school systems I have a feeling that the

textbook. Is the most influential factor in

structuring the curriculum.

I think it is and I think unfortunately the textbooks vary

so little that even when teachers select their own textbook there isn't

that much of a choice some terms of what they're teaching. And I think in the area we

serve most of the school systems employ a full time

curriculum coordinator. You may have a title such as

director of instruction or assistant superintendent charge of curriculum.

However it becomes very important to achieve

what Leo was talking about in the area of science or in any other field.

To have someone look at the total curriculum and see a unified district from

kindergarten through 12 to look at what children are doing in the first grade

second third and so forth. And to bring in specialist

to help the women for example who as you said may not be interested in

science. Or to help people who have

weaknesses in certain areas to understand what concepts should be covered in each

grade. And as Lloyd said most of those schools would develop

curriculum guides so the new teacher coming into the school.

Would not be repeating what a teacher in an earlier grade

has taught. I think a good example is the American Indian. It's been said

that at one time in the state of Illinois you could go into any elementary

school any day of the week and find at least one teacher teaching some type of

unit of the American Indian. Even though within that unit you

had far more fallacious or false information than

correct information based on law or mythology rather than the.

A factual account of the Indian in America.

You know all is interlocking of curriculum guy and

textbooks and teachers busy at their work concerns

me with the need for curriculum change to keep pace with the times. You

know we have even designed a term for it we call it

education on lag because something that is needed

by our society filters into the schools sometimes very

slowly simply because of all of the interlocking complex

machinery that is involved.

The knowledge explosion today is so vast.

The Norman content has become so great that it is impossible for and

then the vigil a teacher or a child.

To remember it all. And therefore the child.

Must be taught to be a lifelong learner. He must.

Learn how to draw on this information that he's a painter and use it in

connection with the new problems and new situations in which he meets.

Of course that's not to say that content is unimportant we must still emphasize

content. The child must have it in an abundance but

nevertheless he must learn to be an active learner who knows how

to find out about scientific developments. Be prepared to

meet the new situations and draw and draw upon this content which

he has attained to to meet these problems.

Well I'd like to emphasize again the importance of the of the teacher and

the local school people in determining the content of the

curriculum. Some people might think well we have a scientist why

not have them determine a science curriculum for the elementary school as well as the high school

level and we have sociologists and people why not have them

determine the social studies curriculum so far. And I think it's very important that the local

people who who know the local children they know the unique

features of their own program and our own community they know they know let's say

the characteristics of the learners in the schools and I think that's important so I think

it's important we have a mix here of a specialist working with the local

teachers in determining the quit the curriculum and content.

You know there was a time right after Sputnik and all the concern about academic

excellence that we made some serious mistakes I believe we

started to force children into areas of

learning for which they were not ready. We became a little bit hysterical

then we had our youngsters trying to read when there is three years of age at home and

many of them weren't capable of attempting anything that complex until

perhaps seven years of age.

And as far as content we push them ahead so far that they were losing what

you mentioned Lio as important as this curiosity this inner

desire to learn throughout their lives.

Well I think we have gained a little more common sense about this now. We

realize that children can learn only so rapidly and that they must take one

step at a time.

Besides that I think. An emphasis on facts

gave American students the impression that a fact

was true at the time it was taught and would always be true in an

area such as science for example. Many facts that we were taught

as facts actually are not true today. For example

the number of chromosome is a human cell. I think all of

us were taught forty eight. And of course for several years that number has been

reduced to forty six by the development of

instruments and enabling scientists to make a more precise count

everything that goes up must come down and certainly been

disproved in terms of what's happening in science recently.

I think in every field it's possible to think of facts of the atom as the smallest particle of

matter cannot be divided. That type of

learning actually prevents an individual from experimenting in

a field and some people have felt that the reason that our science program as somewhat

leg behind rushes is that we were taught so many

facts that students did not challenge such as the Atom not being

divided. That it impaired their

learning. Well today they have a far more emphasis spent on self discovery

and the process of learning.

Re the trend and curriculum today seems to be upon making facts and

content something. That is relevant something

that the student can draw upon that he can make use of it. It's not just

something that he memory memorizes and stores away

but it should be something that can be applied and tested in a new situation.

I think so because the facts change but if the person learns a concept or the

generalization even though the fact itself will change the concept can

be transferred to another field. I would have to say that.

Although I agree with Lloyd that the community should participate in learning

in the field of curriculum so called reconstructionist who believe that

instead of simply taking what society wants and what society has

today and perpetuating that society that we should try to

change society it's the obligation of the school to reconstruct

society has considerable merit in some fields.

For example although a great emphasis today is being given to get away education

in a poor ghetto education. My feeling as some of the poorest education

United States today is in rural areas and when the rural community

determines education and that's still true in many schools.

Agriculture for example may be a required subject or at least

much of the money spent in industrial education especially for agriculture. Yet

we have facts that the people who are growing up in rural areas

by and large will not stay in the rural area and they will not farm.

So I think you need the.

Technical knowledge that professional knowledge added to what the community

was you know that's one of the basic problems we really I don't tried to

prepare children for life as it exists today. We're

trying to look into some future time which perhaps none

of us will see where they'll live entirely different lives

because of the tremendous changes that are taking place

sociologists in social conditions and also in science.

And this is what makes it difficult and I think what you're saying Leo and Ray is that we

want to get them ready for change. Rather than just have them accumulate

facts.

While this size change the task of the teacher where formerly the teacher

was concerned with a child accumulating a group of facts.

Today the teacher is interested in causing children to

learn to learn or learning to be lifelong

learning learners.

Or you might say that the school is concerned with having children acquire the

tools for learning so that they can do what what you were discussing.

I think you put enough Mrs. Lee on a very key area and that is a d Zire for

lifelong learning. I think when we put too much stress on

accumulation of facts what often happens is when a course

student has the attitude that thank heavens I'm through with physics and he means

through with physics he wants nothing to do with physics again in his lifetime.

Not all students but students who have had some difficulty in accumulating

factual information. Certainly with the increase of knowledge

occurring in the world today it's far more important for the child to learn

skills that will enable him to be well-informed in

each field including physics than it is for him simply to know all

what is known about a particular subject at the time he studies it.

You know one of the really exciting things about working with young

children is a feeling you have that they are interested initially in

everything. Life itself and its rod of sense and it seems to me

that capitalizing on this interest is very important

that we shouldn't let it die. And when interest fades. Let's say

there is a boy who is deeply interested in science simply because he had a

taste of it and he loses this interest for some reason or other that we have lost

something for society and of course something for him to in terms of

his enrichment of his life.

You know all that. I agree with that very much and I think we should be

far more concerned about studies that reveal there is no

correlation or relationship between school grades and

success in life which certainly tells us that much of what we're

doing in a school seems to be removed from society and has

little relevancy and terms of. Society today

or in the future what we do in a school has to be meaningful

to a youngster. And yet I think in most schools

we teach certain subjects and certain units because we've always

talked them and we feel that these are important.

They may be important but they may have very little

meaning for many of the students in the school today from some of the

things that have been said then I take it that we would agree that there's no such thing

anymore as it is a national curriculum or a state wide

curriculum for children because this was something years ago when I first started teaching we were

striving for a street a state curriculum we had state curriculum

bulletins or a course to study and then many people would talk in terms of a national

curriculum now that that's impossible that I think you have to

define what you mean by a national curriculum in some way as there is a greater

need for a national curriculum the day than in the past because of the

increasing mobility on the part of the American children may attend

many different schools in their lifetimes however.

When you speak curriculum at the state or national level today most

of the leaders in a state in a nation curriculum are looking at this as simply being a

not prescriptive curriculum. In other words it's rather important

that all students will cover the same general areas

but the specifics of the area and how they're covered would vary

from community to community. So the prescription would come at the local level.

In the past the main tools of instruction for the teacher has been the textbook

and the blackboard and chalk and so forth. But

today with the emphasis on

individualized instruction and the new technology which

makes individualized instruction possible. Schools

can provide rich an extensive learning resources through

films film strips sound tapes reference books

maps exhibits and other soft instructional materials.

This means that teachers role is changing

to one of an organizer or manager of learning experiences.

That's quite a contrast to the past where the teacher was was a teacher of any subject

matter field in the future therefore it would be possible

for the teacher to create a differentiated curriculum for each

child.

Well it seems to me we have hardly touched on the complicated matter of the

curriculum. We recognize and agree I believe that

how to learn is probably more important than facts because we want lifelong

learning. We recognize that the curriculum is the heart of the

program for the learner. And we sense that we need to meet the

needs of the future. And that sometimes these needs are not even

discernable at the time we are planning the curriculum so we try to prepare the

child to adjust to whatever the needs may be.

Beyond the classroom door produced by WFIU and

cooperation with the College of Education at Northern Illinois University each

week focuses its attention on one of the many challenging aspects of public

school education. The program is moderated by Dr. Robert F. top

dean of the College of Education at Northern Illinois University. Today's guest were

Dr. Raymond B Fox associate dean at the College of Education. Dr.

Leo Laughlin head of the Department of Administration and services and Dr.

Lloyd Leonard out of the department of elementary education. Next week's

topic will be the role of teachers and special personnel in the

schools. This program is distributed by the national educational radio

network.