Behind the Classroom Door; 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.