COLEGIO DE DAGUPAN

Institute of Graduate Studies

Arellano St., Dagupan City
__________________________________________________________________

MASTER IN EDUCATION
Major in Educational Leadership
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

JENNIE VIE C. DE VERA MED 05 – CURRICULUM THEORY,

CURRICULUM DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
DR. JIMMY A. LAROYA EDUCATION

I. Introduction

Curriculum Theory (CT) is an academic discipline devoted to examining and shaping

educational curricula. There are many interpretations of CT, being as narrow as the dynamics of
the learning process of one child in a classroom to the lifelong learning path an individual takes.
CT can be approached from the educational, philosophical, psychological and sociological
perspectives. James MacDonald states "one central concern of theorists is identifying the
fundamental unit of curriculum with which to build conceptual systems. Whether this be rational
decisions, action processes, language patterns, or any other potential unit has not been agreed
upon by the theorists." Curriculum theory is fundamentally concerned with values, the historical
analysis of curriculum, ways of viewing current educational curriculum and policy decisions, and
theorizing about the curricula of the future.

Pinar defines the contemporary field of curriculum theory as "the effort to understand curriculum
as a symbolic representation".

The first mention of the word "curriculum" in university records was in 1582, at the University
of Leiden, Holland: "having completed the curriculum of his studies". However, curriculum
theory as a field of study is thought to have been initiated with the publication of The Yale
Report on the Defense of the Classics in 1828, which promoted the study of a classical
curriculum, including Latin and Greek, by rote memorization.

II. Discussion

Faculty psychology

The school of faculty psychology, dominating the field from 1860-1890 in the United States,
believed that the brain was a muscle that could be improved by the exercise of memorization
(with comprehension a secondary consideration). This supports the classical theory, which
previously emphasized a method of teaching school subjects using memorization and recitation
as primary instructional tools. The theory itself claims three constituent faculties or power:

 The presence of will or volition, which enables human beings to act;

 The emotions, which pertains to the affections and passions that enable human beings to
experience pleasure, pain, love, and hate; and,
 The intellect or understanding, which is the foundation of human rationality that enables
him to make judgments and comprehend meanings.

The idea is that education should expand the faculty of the mind and this is achieved through the
key concepts of discipline and furniture. The faculty theory, which steered curriculum policy for
elementary, secondary, and high schools, was institutionalized by three committees appointed by
the National Education Association (NEA) in the 1890s to follow faculty psychology principles:
the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (1893), the Committee of Fifteen on
Elementary Education (1895) and the Committee on College Entrance Requirements.

The Herbartians

Different schools of Curriculum Theory developed as a reaction to the classicism of faculty

psychology, including the Herbartians, who organized the Herbart Club in 1892, and later the
National Herbart Society (1895-1899). Their philosophy was based on the thoughts of Johann
Frederich Herbart, a German philosopher, psychologist and educator, who believed that "the
mere memorizing of isolated facts, which had characterized school instruction for ages, had little
value of either educational or moral ends".

The social efficiency movement

The publication of John Bobbitt's The Curricula in 1918 took the prevalent industrial
revolutionary concepts of experimental science and social efficiency and applied them to the
classroom. He believed that "curriculum must directly and specifically prepare students for tasks
in the adult world".He also believed that "human life...consists in the performance of specific
activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these
specific activities." From this idea, he suggested that curriculum was a series of experiences that
children have in order to meet "objectives," or abilities and habits that people need for particular
activities.

Other famous theorists of this movement included Edward L. Thorndyke (1874-1949), the father
of experimental psychology in education, Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915), with his
theory of scientific management, David Snedden, an educational sociologist who promoted
social efficiency and vocational education, and W.W. Charters (1875-1952), a teacher educator
who felt that "curriculum was comprised of those methods by which objectives are determined".
By using education as an efficiency tool, these theorists believed that society could be controlled.
Students were scientifically evaluated by testing (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their
predicted role in society. This involved the introduction of vocational and junior high schools to
address the curriculum designed around specific life activities that correlated with each student's
determined societal future. The socially efficient curriculum consisted of minute parts or tasks
that together formed a bigger concept.

The progressive reform movement

The progressive reform movement began in the late 1870s with the work of Colonel Francis
Parker, but is most identified with John Dewey, and also John Mayer Rice and Lester Frank
Ward. Dewey's 1899 book The School and Society is often credited with starting the movement.
These reformers felt that curriculum should be child driven and at the child's present capacity
level. To aid in understanding the relationship of curriculum and child, Dewey described
curriculum as, "a map, a summary, an arranged and orderly view of previous experiences, serves
as a guide to future experience; it gives direction; it facilitates control; it economizes effort,
preventing useless wandering, and pointing out the paths which lead most quickly and most
certainly to a desired result". He envisioned "the child and the curriculum are simply two limits
which define a single process".

The Social Efficiency and Progressive Reform movements were rivals throughout the 1920s in
the United States, with the 1930s belonging to the Progressives, or a curriculum combining
aspects of both. Ralph W. Tyler's Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949) swung
the pendulum of curriculum theory away from child centeredness toward more generalized
behaviors.

Tyler's theory was based on four fundamental questions which became known as the Tyler
Rationale:

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 these purposes are being attained?

The multicultural education movement

There is a racial crisis in America, which is exacerbated by the widening gap between the rich
and the poor.[19] In order to address this gap within the multicultural education movement there is
a body of knowledge which argues for the need to reconceptualise, re-envision, and rethink
American schooling. Numerous authors advocate the need for fundamental changes in the
educational system which acknowledges that there is a plurality within teaching and learning for
students of diversity. Current research suggests that educational structure is oppressive to
students of diversity and is an obstacle to integration into society and student achievement.
Current multicultural education theory suggests that curriculum and institutional change is
required to support the development of students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
This is a controversial view but multicultural education argues that traditional curriculum does
not adequately represent the history of the non dominant group. Nieto (1999) supports this
concern for students who do not belong to the dominant group and seem to have challenging
curriculum experiences that conflict with their personal cultural identity and their wider
community reference groups.

Sputnik and the National Defense Act

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 created a focus on science and math in the United States
curriculum. Admiral Hyman Rickover accused the American public of indifference to
intellectual achievement. "Our schools must return to the tradition of formal education in
Western civilization-transmission of cultural heritage, and preparation for life through rigorous
intellectual training of young minds to think clearly, logically, and independently".[29] The result
was a return to curricula similar to the classicists of the 1890s and the modern birth of the
traditionalists, with massive federal funding for curriculum development provided by the
National Defense Act of 1958.

Reconceptualized curriculum

Joseph J. Schwab was instrumental in provoking curriculum developers to think beyond the
traditionalist approach. In his 1969 paper "The Practical: A Language for Curriculum" he
declared the curriculum field "moribund".This, plus the social unrest of the 1960s and '70s stirred
a new movement of "reconceptualization" of curricula. A group of theorists, including James
Macdonald, Dwayne Huebner, Ross Mooney, Herbert M. Kliebard, Paul Klohr, Michael Apple,
W.F. Pinar, and others, created ways of thinking about curriculum and its role in the academy, in
schools, and in society in general.[31] Their approach included perspectives from the social,
racial, gender, phenomenological, political, autobiographical and theological points of view.
Today

W.F. Pinar describes the present field "balkanized...divided into relatively separate fiefdoms or
sectors of scholarship, each usually ignoring the other except for occasional criticism." The top-
down governmental control of educational curriculum in the Anglophone world, including the
United States, has been criticized as being "ahistorical and atheoretical, and as a result prone to
difficult problems in its implementation". But there are theorists who are looking beyond
curriculum as "simply as a collection of study plans, syllabi, and teaching subjects. Instead, the
curriculum becomes the outcome of a process reflecting a political and societal agreement about
the what, why, and how of education for the desired society of the future."

Curriculum Design and development

Course Description & Objectives:

This course prepares students to design and develop curricula in diverse socio-cultural,
philosophical, political and economic situations for formal and non-formal education sectors.
The course focuses on curriculum design and development starting with the construction phase
until it is ready for implementation in an educational organization. Students are therefore
required to produce a draft curriculum in their area of specialization as a deliverable. The course
also focuses on effective and efficient use of resources as derived from a selection process of
informed decision-making. Practical strategies for curriculum design, development, and
implementation and monitoring will be discussed

Course Objectives/Aims: This course is intended to develop among students the theoretical and
practical knowledge of designing, developing and implementing educational programmes.The
students should be able to:

1. Formulate educational objectives in the three domains.

2. Select and organize appropriate content and learning activities.
3. Carry out a needs assessment for their selected community need
4. Develop an understanding of the theoretical and philosophical perspectives of curriculum
design and development.
5. Analyze various models of curriculum development and their implications in local,
regional, and international contexts.
6. Plan for each stage in the curriculum development process
7. Design and deconstruct a curriculum of their choice.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of the course, students will;

1. Identify and rationalize some curriculum development models used for constructing and
implementing the curriculum.
2. Identify, collect, select, analyze and synthesize information, materials and data from
various sources during the process of curriculum planning and implementation.
3. Select appropriate models for specific curriculum implementation programme
4. Design a draft curriculum in their areas of interest

In this chapter, we consider the changes needed across the K-12 science education system so
that implementation of the framework and related standards can more readily occur. Standards
provide a vision for teaching and learning, but the vision cannot be realized unless the standards
permeate the education system and guide curriculum, instruction, teacher preparation and
professional development, and student assessment.

By “system” we mean the institutions and mechanisms that shape and support science
teaching and learning in the classroom. Thus the system includes organization and administration
at state, district, and school levels as well as teacher education, certification requirements,
curriculum and instructional resources, assessment policies and practices, and professional
development programs. Our use of the term “system,” however, does not necessarily imply that
all the components of the science education system are well aligned and work together
seamlessly. Rather, adopting the idea of a system (1) acknowledges the complex and interacting
forces that shape learning and teaching at the classroom level and (2) provides an analytic tool
for thinking about these various forces.

The next section is an overview of four major components of the K-12 science education
system, and in succeeding sections we consider each of them in turn. For each component, we
discuss what must be in place in order for it to align with the framework’s vision.

These discussions do not include formal recommendations and are not framed as standards
for each component, because the committee was not asked to undertake the kind of extensive
review—of the research on teacher education,

The committee instead relied on a number of recent reports from the National Research
Council (NRC) that did examine research related to each of the components discussed in this
chapter. They include Knowing What Students KnowInvestigating the Influence of
Standards,Systems for State Science Assessment, America’s Lab Report, Taking Science to
School, and Preparing Teachers. The discussions in the following sections are based primarily
on these reports. Explicit standards for teaching, professional development, education programs,
and the education system were included in the original National Science Education Standards
(NSES) published by the NRC in 1996. Although many of these standards are still relevant to K-
12 science education today, the committee did not undertake a thorough review of these portions
of the NSES. Instead, given our charge, we focused on the NSES standards that describe science
content. For future efforts, we suggest that a review of the other NSES standards, in light of the
research and development that has taken place since 1996, would be very valuable; such a review
could serve as an important complement to the current effort.

KEY COMPONENTS OF K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION

The key components of science education that we consider in this chapter are curriculum,
instruction, teacher development, and assessment. It is difficult to focus on any particular
component without considering how it is influenced by—and how it in turn influences—the
other components. For example, what students learn is clearly related to what they are taught,
which itself depends on many things: state science standards; the instructional materials available
in the commercial market and from organizations (such as state and federal agencies) with
science-related missions; the curriculum adopted by the local board of education; teachers’
knowledge and practices for teaching; how teachers elect to use the curriculum; the kinds of
resources, time, and space that teachers have for their instructional work; what the community
values regarding student learning; and how local, state, and national standards and assessments
influence instructional practice.

A Complex System

Much of the complexity of science education systems derives from the multiple levels of
control—classroom, school, school district, state, and national—across which curriculum,
instruction, teacher development, and assessment operate; thus what ultimately happens in a
classroom is significantly affected by decision making distributed across the levels and multiple
channels of influence.

Each teacher ultimately decides how and what to teach in his or her classroom, but this
decision is influenced by decisions at higher levels of the system. First, there is the effect of
decisions made at the school level, which include the setting of expectations and sequences in
certain content areas as well as the principal’s, department chairs’, or team leaders’ explicit and
implicit signals about teaching and learning priorities. Leaders at the school level may also make
decisions about the time and resources allocated to different subjects within guidelines and
requirements set by the state, teacher hiring and assignments, the usage of science labs, and, in
some cases, the presence of a school building’s laboratory space in the first place. The school
leaders’ expectations, priorities, and decisions establish a climate that encourages or discourages
particular pedagogical approaches, collegial interactions, or in-service programs. Furthermore, a
school’s degree of commitment to equity—to providing opportunities for all students to learn the
same core content—can influence how students are scheduled into classes, which teachers are
hired, how they are assigned to teach particular classes, and how instructional resources are
identified and allocated.

At the next level of the system, school districts are responsible for (1) ensuring
implementation of state and federal education policies; (2) formulating additional local education
policies; and (3) creating processes for selecting curricula, purchasing curriculum materials, and
determining the availability of instructional resources. District leaders develop local school
budgets, set instructional priorities,

The state level is a particularly important one for schools. States, being constitutionally
responsible for elementary and secondary education, play major roles in regulating and funding
education—they provide nearly half of all public school revenues with most of the remainder
coming from local property taxes. Each state must develop and administer its own policies on
standards, curriculum, materials selection and adoption, teacher licensure, student assessment,
and educational accountability. Across states, the authority of schools and districts to formulate
policy varies considerably. Some states have relatively high “local control,” with more power
residing at the district level; others states have more centralized control, with more influence
exerted by the state.

Finally, although the federal government contributes less than 10 percent of all funds
invested by states and local districts in education it influences education at all levels through a
combination of regulations, public advocacy, and monetary incentives. For example, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind Act) requires the testing of
students at specific grade levels.

There are also influences from the other stakeholders that have an interest in science
education, such as parents, businesses, local communities, and professional societies. These
stakeholders can become engaged at all levels—national, state, local—and often have a
significant influence on what is taught and how it is taught.

Clearly, a science education system must be responsive to a variety of influences—some that

emanate from the top down, some from the bottom up, and some laterally from outside formal
channels. States and school districts generally exert considerable influence over science
curricula, and they set policies for time.

The Importance of Coherence in the System

The complexity of the system—with several components that are affected by or operate at
different levels—presents a challenge to implementation of the framework and its related
standards. Successful implementation requires that all of the components across the levels cohere
or work together in a harmonious or logical way to support the new vision. This kind of system-
wide coherence is difficult to achieve, yet it is essential to the success of standards-based science
education.

In the literature on education policy, the term “coherence” is often used interchangeably
with another term—“alignment”—although others have suggested that alignment alone is not
sufficient to make a system coherent. For example, not only would a coherent curriculum be well
aligned across the grades or across subjects, it would also be logically organized, integrated, and
harmonious in its internal structure. Here we treat coherence as the broader concept and
alignment as only one of its dimensions.
 A standards-based system of science education should be coherent in a variety of ways. It
should be horizontally coherent, in the sense that the curriculum-, instruction-, and assessment-
related policies and practices are all aligned with the standards, target the same goals for
learning, and work together to support students’ development of the knowledge and
understanding of science. The system should be vertically coherent, in the sense that there is (a) a
shared understanding at all levels of the system (classroom, school, school district, state, and
national) of the goals for science education (and for the curriculum) that underlie the standards
and (b) that there is a consensus about the purposes

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Curriculum refers to the knowledge and practices in subject matter areas that teachers
teach and that students are supposed to learn. A curriculum generally consists of a scope, or
breadth of content, in a given subject area and of a sequence of concepts and activities for
learning. While standards typically outline the goals of learning, curricula set forth the more
specific means—materials, tasks, discussions, representations—to be used to achieve those
goals.

Curriculum is collectively defined by teachers, curriculum coordinators (at both the

school and the district levels), state agencies, curriculum development organizations, textbook
publishers, and (in the case of science) curriculum kit publishers. Although standards do not
prescribe specific curricula, they do provide some criteria for designing curricula. And in order
to realize the vision of the framework and standards, it is necessary that aligned instructional
materials, textbooks, and computer or other media-based materials be developed as well.

Curricula based on the framework and resulting standards should integrate the three
dimensions—scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core
ideas—and follow the progressions articulated in this report. In order to support the vision of this
framework, standards-based curricula in science need to be developed to provide clear guidance
that helps teachers support students engaging in scientific practices to develop explanations and
models. In addition, curriculum materials need to be developed as a multiyear sequence that
helps students develop increasingly sophisticated ideas across grades K-12.Curriculum materials
(including technology) themselves are developed by a multicomponent system that includes for-
profit publishers as well as grant-funded work in the nonprofit sectors of the science education
community. The adoption of standards based on this framework by multiple states may help
drive publishers to align with it. Such alignment may at first be superficial, but schools, districts,
and states can influence publishers if enough of them are asking for serious alignment with the
framework and the standards it engenders.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment refers to the means used to measure the outcomes of curriculum and
instruction—the achievements of students with regard to important competencies. Assessment
may include formal methods, such as large-scale standardized state testing, or less formal
classroom-based procedures, such as quizzes, class projects, and teacher questioning. In the brief
subsections that follow, we discuss some of the more challenging issues related to assessment
that are part of the landscape for implementing the framework and its resulting standards.

Purposes of Assessments

As discussed in Knowing What Students Know. There are at least three purposes for educational
assessment:

1. Formative assessment for use in the classroom to assist learning. Such assessment is designed
to provide diagnostic feedback to teachers and students during the course of instruction. Teachers
need assessment information about their individual students to guide the instructional process.
2. Summative assessment for use at the classroom, school, or district level to determine student
attainment levels. Such assessment includes tests, given at the end of a unit or a school year, that
are designed to determine what individual students have achieved.

3. Assessment for program evaluation, used in making comparisons across classrooms, schools,
districts, states, or nations. Such assessment often includes standardized tests designed to
measure variation in the outcomes of different instructional programs.

Schools, districts, and states typically employ assessments for all three purposes and sometimes
today for a fourth purpose—evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Often the multiple forms of
assessment have been designed separately and may not be well aligned with each other. But just
as the education system as a whole needs to function coherently to support implementation of the
framework and related standards, the multiple forms of assessment need to function coherently
as well. That is, the various forms of assessment should all be linked to the shared goals outlined
by the framework and related standards while at the same time be designed to achieve the
specific purpose at hand.

In addition, designers of assessments need to consider the diverse backgrounds that students
bring with them to science class. For example, from an analysis of the language demands faced
by English language learners on science performance assessments, Shaw, Bunch, and Geaney
concluded that assessment developers need to eliminate barriers of language, gender-biased
examples, and other forms of representation that preclude some students’ useful participation.

More fundamentally, the education system currently lacks sophistication in understanding and
addressing the different purposes of assessment and how they relate to each other and to the
standards for a particular subject.

Important Aspects of Science Curriculum

In addition to alignment with the framework, there are many other aspects for curriculum
designers to consider that are not addressed in the framework.

Through discussion and reflection, students can come to realize that scientific inquiry
embodies a set of values. These values include respect for the importance of logical thinking,
precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research
procedures and honest reporting of findings.

III. CONCLUSION

Integration of the Three Dimensions

The framework’s vision is that students will acquire knowledge and skill in science and
engineering through a carefully designed sequence of learning experiences. Each stage in the
sequence will develop students’ understanding of particular scientific and engineering practices,
crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas while also deepening their insights into the
ways in which people from all backgrounds engage in scientific and engineering work to satisfy
their curiosity, seek explanations about the world, and improve the built world.

A major question confronting each curriculum developer will be which of the practices
and crosscutting concepts to feature in lessons or units around a particular disciplinary core idea
so that, across the curriculum, they all receive sufficient attention.
 Every science unit or engineering design project must have as one of its goals the
development of student understanding of at least one disciplinary core idea. In addition, explicit
reference to each crosscutting concept will recur frequently and in varied contexts across
disciplines and grades. These concepts need to become part of the language of science that
students use when framing questions or developing ways to observe, describe, and explain the
world.

Similarly, the science and engineering practices delineated in this framework should
become familiar as well to students through increasingly sophisticated experiences with them
across grades K-8. Although not every such practice will occur in every context, the curriculum
should provide repeated opportunities across various contexts for students to develop their
facility with these practices and use them as a support for developing deep understanding of the
concepts in question and of the nature of science and of engineering. This will require substantial
redesign of current and future curricula.

References

1. J.B. MacDonald (1971). Curriculum Theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 64, 5,
195-200.
2. H.M. Kliebard (1989). Problems of Definition of Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 5, 1, 1-5.
3. J.J. Wallin (2011). What is Curriculum Theorizing: for a People Yet to Come. Stud
Philos Educ, 30, 285-301.
4. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 16.
5. Hamilton (1989) in W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter
Lang Publishing, Inc., p. 71.
6. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 72.
7. Pinar, William; Reynolds, William; Slattery, Patrick; Taubman, Peter (1995).
Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary
Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang. p. 70. ISBN 9780820426013.
8. Slattery, Patrick (2006). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. New York:
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. p. 66. ISBN 9780415953375.
9. Farenga, Stephen; Ness, Daniel (2015). Encyclopedia of Education and Human
Development. Oxon: Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 9780765612687.
10. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 75.
11. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 78.
12. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 97.
13. Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopaedia of
informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
14. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 75.
15. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 90-101.
16. Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum (pp. 1-31). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
17. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 116-142.
18. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 148-151.
19. Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal
of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400
20. McGee Banks, C. A., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component
of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152–158
21. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. JOURNAL OF TEACHER
EDUCATION-WASHINGTON DC-, 53(2), 106–116
22. Jabbar, A., & Hardaker, G. (2013). The role of culturally responsive teaching for
supporting ethnic diversity in British University Business Schools. Teaching in Higher
Education, 1–13. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.725221
23. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
24. d'Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. Simon
and Schuster
25. Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal
of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400
26. Sabry, N. S., & Bruna, K. R. (2007). Learning from the experience of Muslim students in
American schools: Towards a proactive model of school-community cooperation.
Multicultural Perspectives, 9(3), 44–50
27. Nieto, S. (1999). The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities.
Multicultural Education Series. ERIC.
28. Jabbar, A., & Hardaker, G. (2013). The role of culturally responsive teaching for
supporting ethnic diversity in British University Business Schools. Teaching in Higher
Education, 1–13. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.725221. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/15029/
29. H. Rickover (1959) in W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY:
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., p. 154.
30. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 176.
31. H. Kliebard (2004). The Struggle for the American Curriculum,1893-1958. New York,
NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
32. W.F. Pinar (2004). Understanding Curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., p. 5.
33. M. Priestley (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and
curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19, 2, 221-237.
34. J.C. Tedesco, R. Opertii, and M. Amadio (2014). The curriculum debate: Why it is
important today. Prospects, 44, 527-546.
35. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and
Design of Education Assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J.W.
Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the Influence of Standards: A
Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. I.R.
Weiss, M.S. Knapp, K.S. Hollweg, and G. Burrill (Eds.). Committee on Understanding
the Influence of Standards in K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education,
Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee on
Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.).
Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38. National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School
Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer,
M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for
Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
39. National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching
Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth
Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science
 Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound
Policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People,
Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell,
B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 COLEGIO DE DAGUPAN
Institute of Graduate Studies
Arellano St., Dagupan City
__________________________________________________________________

MASTER IN EDUCATION
Major in Educational Leadership
CURRICULUMDEVELOPMENT

JENNIE VIE C. DE VERA MED 05 – CURRICULUM THEORY,

CURRICULUM DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
DR. JIMMY A. LAROYA EDUCATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Curriculum refers to the knowledge and practices in subject matter areas that teachers teach
and that students are supposed to learn. A curriculum generally consists of a scope, or breadth of
content, in a given subject area and of a sequence of concepts and activities for learning. While
standards typically outline the goals of learning, curricula set forth the more specific means—
materials, tasks, discussions, representations—to be used to achieve those goals.

It is an academic discipline devoted to examining and shaping educational curricula. There

are many interpretations of CT, being as narrow as the dynamics of the learning process of one
child in a classroom to the lifelong learning path an individual takes. CT can be approached from
the educational, philosophical, psychological and sociological perspectives. James Mac Donald
states "one central concern of theorists is identifying the fundamental unit of curriculum with
which to build conceptual systems. Whether this be rational decisions, action processes,
language patterns, or any other potential unit has not been agreed upon by the theorists."
Curriculum theory is fundamentally concerned with values, the historical analysis of curriculum,
ways of viewing current educational curriculum and policy decisions, and theorizing about the
curricula of the future.
II. DISCUSSION

The course will identify and rationalize some curriculum development models used for
constructing and implementing the curriculum. It is also collect, select, analyze and synthesize
information, materials and data from various sources during the process of curriculum planning
and implementation. Aside from that you should select appropriate models for specific
curriculum implementation program and design a draft curriculum in their areas of interest.

The idea of that education should expand the faculty of the mind and this is achieved through the
key concepts of discipline and furniture. The faculty theory, which steered curriculum policy for
elementary, secondary, and high schools, was institutionalized by three committees appointed by
the National Education Association (NEA) in the 1890s to follow faculty psychology
principles:the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (1893), the Committee of Fifteen
on Elementary Education (1895) and the Committee on College Entrance Requirements. The
progressive reform movement began in the late 1870s with the work of Colonel Francis Parker,
but is most identified with John Dewey, and also John Mayer Rice and Lester Frank Ward.
Dewey's 1899 book The School and Society is often credited with starting the movement.[15]
These reformers felt that curriculum should be child driven and at the child's present capacity
level. To aid in understanding the relationship of curriculum and child, Dewey described
curriculum as, "a map, a summary, an arranged and orderly view of previous experiences, serves
as a guide to future experience; it gives direction; it facilitates control; it economizes effort,
preventing useless wandering, and pointing out the paths which lead most quickly and most
certainly to a desired result". He envisioned "the child and the curriculum are simply two limits
which define a single process".

The Social Efficiency and Progressive Reform movements were rivals throughout the 1920s in
the United States, with the 1930s belonging to the Progressives, or a curriculum combining
aspects of both Ralph W. Tyler's Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949) swung
the pendulum of curriculum theory away from child centeredness toward more generalized
behaviors.

Tyler's theory was based on four fundamental questions which became known as the Tyler
Rationale:

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 these purposes are being attained?

There is a racial crisis in America, which is exacerbated by the widening gap between the
rich and the poor. In order to address this gap within the multicultural education movement there
is a body of knowledge which argues for the need to re-conceptualize, re-envision, and rethink
American schooling. Numerous authors advocate the need for fundamental changes in the
educational system which acknowledges that there is a plurality within teaching and learning for
students of diversity. Current research suggests that educational structure is oppressive to
students of diversity and is an obstacle to integration into society and student achievement.
Current multicultural education theory suggests that curriculum and institutional change is
required to support the development of students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
This is a controversial view but multicultural education argues that traditional curriculum does
not adequately represent the history of the non-dominant group. Nieto (1999) supports this
concern for students who do not belong to the dominant group and seem to have challenging
curriculum experiences that conflict with their personal cultural identity and their wider
community reference groups.

There is no single curriculum that is 'best' for all situations. Not only does geographic
location depends on the type of curriculum taught, but the demographics of the population
matters as well. Some curriculums are based heavy of science and technology while another is
focused mainly on the arts. However, a comparison of different curricula shows certain
approaches to be generally more effective than others. Comprehensive program addressing
health, nutrition and development have proven to be the most effective in early childhood,
especially in program directed at very young and vulnerable children.This requires a genuine
commitment from agencies and individuals to work together, to plan projects collaboratively,
and to involve parents and communities.

A humanistic curriculum is a curriculum based on intercultural education that allows for the
plurality of society while striving to ensure a balance between pluralism and universal values. In
terms of policy, this view sees curriculum frameworks as tools to bridge broad educational goals
and the processes to reach them. A humanistic curriculum development perspective holds that for
curriculum frameworks to be legitimate, the process of policy dialogue to define educational
goals must be participatory and inclusive. Central to this view is that curriculum policy and
content must both be guided by the principles of social and economic justice, equality and
environmental responsibility that constitute the pillars of sustainable development. This course
prepares students to design and develop curricula in diverse socio-cultural, philosophical,
political and economic situations for formal and non-formal education sectors. The course
focuses on curriculum design and development starting with the construction phase until it is
ready for implementation in an educational organization. Students are therefore required to
produce a draft curriculum in their area of specialization as a deliverable. The course also
focuses on effective and efficient use of resources as derived from a selection process of
informed decision-making. Practical strategies for curriculum design, development, and
implementation and monitoring will be discussed.

Developing a curriculum for a training seminar can seem like a daunting task, but it doesn’t have
to be! Following these steps will ensure a successful curriculum design.

Fun Fact: the first use of the word “curriculum” was early in the seventeenth century at the
University of Glasgow here in Scotland! The word “curriculum” comes from the Latin word
which means “a race” or “the course of the race”. By following our six steps for curriculum
development, you’ll be sure your students can follow the course you plot for them.

Goals and objectives are the heart of your content. Goals are broad statements describing what
the learner should be able to do once instruction is complete. Objectives are more specific and
outline how each goal will be met. Here is an example:

 Goal: Students will be able to use Microsoft Word.

 Objective: Students will create a document including columns.
 Objective: Students will format document according to specific directions about font,
spacing, etc.

Both the goals and the objectives should be measurable so you can assess student mastery of
the subject being taught (step 6). When writing goals and objectives you are doing backwards
planning- thinking about the desired end result and then working backwards, creating steps to
achieve that result.

There are many types of instruction to use beyond simple lecturing, for example:

 The Socratic method

 Demonstration
 Brainstorming
 Group discussion
 Cooperative learning
 Role play
 Independent study

The key is to pick an instructional method that best suits your content. For example, a CPR or
First Aid workshop will rely heavily on demonstration and role play as opposed to
brainstorming.

Although this sounds like the step where you would actually teach, you’re still in the
planning stages! Before you set foot into a classroom you’ll need to consider all the logistics.
Things to think about include where and when youre training will be held, what pieces of
technology will be used, who will present, what materials are necessary and so on. Avoid
common pitfalls such as not having the correct technology or having insufficient space by
planning ahead.

If you have designed measurable goals and objectives the assessment piece should be
fairly simple. Keeping in line with the previous example, an assessment for the students who
learn how to use Microsoft Word would be to show you their document with the necessary
requirements. Assessing your students in a CPR workshop may include demonstration of the
proper techniques as well as a written exam. Your assessments don’t need to be long or complex
but do need to demonstrate that your students learned what you wanted them to.

References
 Engle, P. 2009. Growing global evidence. In Woodhead, M. and Oates, J. (eds). Effective
Early Childhood Programmes. Vol. 4 of Early Childhood in Focus. Milton Keynes, The Open
University.
 UNESCO. 2012. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Policy Paper 03. April 2012.
Marope, P.T.M.; Kaga, Y. (2015). Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early
Childhood Care and Education (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 243–265. ISBN 978-92-3-100113-0.
Amadio, M. (2014). "Curriculum in the Twenty-First Century: Challenges, Tensions and Open
Questions". ERF Working Papers. Paris, UNESCO. No. 9.
Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good? (PDF). UNESCO. 2015. pp. 42–
43. ISBN 978-92-3-100088-1.