Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Taylor Dietmeier

Kansas University

CT 709
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Abstract

Today’s curriculum has leaned heavily on rote memorization, high-stakes testing,

traditional disciplines, and strict linear-objectives curriculum. We have simplified education to

be a formula, ultimately neglecting opportunities for students to express themselves and solve

meaningful real-world problems. This paper explains the importance of structure, project-based

learning, and multicultural education in order to raise up a generation of quality thinkers and

world changers.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Part 1

Ralph W. Tyler and Jerome S. Bruner were early curriculum theorists whose works - Basic

Principles of Curriculum and Instruction by Ralph W. Tyler and Man: A Course of Study by Jerome

S. Bruner – critiqued scientific curriculum-making and revealed a dedication to and belief in the

study of the learner for the basis of curriculum. Although both were seeking to understand the

learner, Tyler and Bruner’s intended reasons for studying learners were strikingly different. Tyler

sought to study deficiencies in behavior and understanding, while Bruner aimed to discover and

understand a student’s curiosities and interests to make learning more meaningful.

Tyler and Bruner’s theories came to life in their writings about pedagogy and content

implementation. Tyler highly emphasized objectives and linear outcomes, using deficiencies to

guide objectives (Tyler, p. 71). Bruner, on the other hand, believed that teachers should be

facilitating learning, presenting puzzles, games, and contrasting ideas to invoke conversation,

relationships, and discoveries in students (Bruner, p.91). In Man: A Course of Study, Bruner wrote

that a successful teacher is one that makes the content interesting, relevant, and interactive

(Bruner, p. 79), and educators should discover areas of curiosity in students when deciding what

content should be taught (p. 78). He emphasized metacognition, saying, “Children should be at

least as self-conscious about their strategies of thought as they are about their attempts to

commit things to memory” (p. 89). In short, Tyler is concerned about the product and Bruner is

focused on the process.

Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Throughout the course, my perspective of Ralph Tyler has changed quite dramatically.

Initially as I was reading his work, I felt my head nodding in agreement, reflecting to my earlier

days at a chaotic project-based school that was lacking so much structure that they weren’t sure

whether or not students were passing or failing. Being an analytical thinker, I enjoyed Tyler’s

emphasis on structure and outcomes. His writing felt like a perfect formula; first analyze the

student for gaps, then make an objective, then test for outcomes. Everything in me was saying,

“YES! A formula!” I had found exactly what I wanted; a simple answer. But I knew deep down

that there isn’t a simple solution.

It seems that simplicity is exactly what has been behind the political high-stakes testing

movement. But when politicians, educators, and institutions choose one aspect of a theorist and

use it in isolation, it becomes simplified and surface level, and we fail to achieve our ultimate

goal: learning. Through the course, I have discovered that students, schools, diversity, and

curriculum are complex, and the ideals of a given theorist are not intended to stand alone, but

work in conjunction with other beliefs. I have realized that Ralph Tyler’s work was not only

ground-breaking and pivotal, but it was incredibly influential. He’s one of the few theorists

whose work is emphasized daily in practically every school in the world. Objectives, gaps, and

assessment are words repeated profusely by educators and administrators alike. I’m afraid,

however, that we have taken Tyler’s linear outcomes-based strategies and completely neglected

the complexity of the classroom. We’ve isolated it and traded it for true, meaningful learning.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

The last presentation in the course stated that each new theorist brings new ideas to the

world of curriculum, and no consensus has been made. As critical theorists, we must recognize

that curriculum is complex, and we should be careful to implement multiple practices that

support meaningful student learning. At the beginning of the course, I argued that it is possible

to be a teacher that implements the ideologies of both theorists, Tyler and Bruner. Now, more

than ever before, I believe that an excellent teacher must strive to be an educator who maintains

aspects of both theorists. Structure, objectives, and outcomes can and should exist at the same

time as meta-cognition, simulations, and explorations.

Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Part 2

Many students in Kenya have been setting their schools on fire out of frustration for not

being heard (Mabel, p.1). In response, schools have been enforcing even stricter discipline,

increasing practice exams, and eliminating arts programs. Teachers, administrators, and policy-

holders are making decisions because they want to help their students get on a path for success.

I, too, want my students to be successful, but I believe using a slightly different approach will get

better, longer-lasting results. As a self-proclaimed critical pedagogue, I have been deeply

disturbed by the lack of respect for and belief in learners, and I hypothesize that my school’s

action steps, namely to eliminate arts education, are going to produce stronger resistance – and

perhaps more fires – amongst secondary school learners.

My proposal was to empower learners through student voice, freedom of expression,

creativity in the arts, and ultimately their success. My recommendation was that we make one

of the values at Uhuru Academy “Student Empowerment,” because I genuinely believe that their

success depends on it. Practically, I proposed the following: 1) art/music courses offered one

period per week for all students during normal class hours, 2) weekly afterschool

art/music/dance clubs, 3) forums for students to voice complaints and considerations. Students

are tired of the strict way of thinking that only has time for irrelevant curriculum to be transferred

from one person to another (also known as naïve thinking by Freire, p. 149, Flinders & Thornton,

2009). We need to support our students for the exam, while at the same time giving them space

and opportunities to be conscious, intentional, outward-thinking and creative world-changers

Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

(Greene, p. 158, Flinders & Thornton, 2009). We need to ignite our students’ background

knowledge and experiences, to give them openings that help them weave a web of connection

which births meaning and mastery. I want to empower them with confidence, expression, voice,

and ultimately, great success.

Towards the end of this course, particularly during Elaine Chan’s case study about

diversity and values, I discovered that there are times where a teacher’s beliefs and values are

pointedly different from a parent or colleague. Throughout my time in Kenya, I’ve had to discern

between pushing an American value and standing up to defend students. The very idea of

defending students, however, is absolutely counter-cultural in my context. Undoubtedly, my

colleagues know that I value student empowerment and that I unabashedly bring that into my

workplace. The question I still have, however, is whether or not that is wrong.

I once co-led a parenting seminar for parents of scholarship students in one of the

displaced people camps where some of my students reside. We talked about adolescence,

particularly the physical and social changes that cause adolescents to go through behavioral

changes. At the end of the seminar, one parent said that she had learned that she should no

longer hit her daughter, but she believed strongly that her daughter needed to be submissive and

should not directly speak to her mother or father in the home. That wasn’t a value I was

comfortable quietly accepting, nor did I think it was appropriate for me to argue in that moment.

In the same way, a few months ago, students were complaining that a group of students

had been stealing everyone’s uniforms while they were drying on the line. The student council
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

members came to the principal and me with utter excitement. “We came up with a brilliant plant

to stop the thieving! A Wall of Shame! When a thief is caught, we will announce them in the

assembly and post their picture on the Wall of Shame outside of the school office.” My value of

positive culture chimed in and suggested a different solution to the thieving problem. That time,

I couldn’t hold back my beliefs about empowerment and positive school culture, and I refused to

allow a Wall of Shame at the school, even if it was a common practice in Kenya.

Every day, I face difficult situations that reveal that my values and beliefs are remarkably

different from the beliefs of my colleagues, students, and community. And yet, because they are

my values, they feel like they are right and worth fighting for.

I wouldn’t say that this course has caused me to change my values or beliefs, but it has

definitely helped me solidify them with research and consider carefully how I express them in a

culture that holds different values. With writings from Noddings, Dewey, Montessori, and more,

I was able to grow in my belief that education is more than grades and exams, which was a

principle I have held for several years. Through readings from Sleeter and Stillman, Eisner, and

Sumara and Davis, I was able to better evaluate my own practice in how I convey my beliefs and

values, and determine to what extent it impedes on another’s value system. I look forward to

continuing my reflective practice on how my values are revealed in my school interactions.

Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Part 3

First and foremost, I believe in learner-centered, project-based curriculum that links

disciplines together and encourages local problem-solving. Like Nel Noddings, I believe that we

live in a critical “age when attention must be given to the problems of resources (especially

water), environmental preservation, religious understanding, peace, world health, technology,

post-industrial work, the conditions of minorities, and globalization… People must work together,

communicate effectively, be willing and able to solve problems without undo self-interest, and

be flexible in the face of change” (Noddings, p. 79). Students should not simply know or

memorize irrelevant curriculum that has been transferred from the teacher’s mind to the

students’ paper (Freire, p. 149); rather, students should engage, explore, justify, analyze and

apply newfound knowledge. Knowledge is a very powerful gift that, if used and applied to solve

real-world problems, can make incredible changes in the community. Like Eisner, I believe

excellent schools should be able to answer the question, “What opportunities do students have

to work cooperatively to address problems that they believe to be important?” (Eisner, 332).

Secondly, we need multicultural education that celebrates diversity by welcoming a

variety of perspectives through activities and discussions. Even if all of the students seemingly

look the same and come from similar backgrounds, celebrating their individual heritage and

identity gives them meaning and self-expression. At the same time, students need to learn the

language and culture of power to be successful, which was explained in the Module 7 video

discussion between Lisa Delpit and Christine Sleeter (A326Group, 2010). I have seen that at my
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

school, we fail to do either target well. Students from Uhuru Academy represent about 42

different tribes, which each have a unique language and culture. One of the school rules is to

speak English at every moment during the week. Swahili is allowed on the weekends but tribal

language is banned in schools as a national law. This rule exists because English is the language

of power in Kenya, and tribal language is the language of war. English brings jobs, it helps one

pass her national exams, and it is the language of University, while tribal language brings conflict

and division. Students consistently push the boundaries and break these rules, to the point

where teachers have given up enforcing the rules (though I suppose it is vice-versa). On one

hand, we are failing at teaching our students a language of power. On the other hand, we are

ignoring their cultural diversity at best and silencing it at worst.

Lastly, to accomplish project-based education and multicultural awareness, we must have

more flexibility in the curriculum. We can’t possibly “cover” all of the content and expect

students to transform their communities and consider everyone’s perspectives and values.

Reading Nel Noddings Curriculum for the 21st Century brought me so much peace about the

challenges I see in curriculum today. Like Noddings, I have often wondered what it would be like

if we completely transformed traditional curriculum. What if everything were to be inter-

disciplinary and truly multicultural? What if we didn’t have the traditional disciplines, but

provided problems in today’s society that require students to work together, necessitating

multiple disciplines and skills in order to solve the problem? It will never work, I have thought,

the system is far too drenched in traditional disciplines and testing at every level. Our students

won’t be equipped for their next level of education, which will likely be traditional.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

When I consider how to practically prepare students for further education while still

facilitating real-world, interdisciplinary problem-solving, I must refer to the wisdom of Nel

Noddings. She suggested that the traditional disciplines which organize the rubric for curriculum

“be stretched from within, that we push back the boundaries between disciplines and ask how

each of the expanded subjects can be designed to promote new aims for the 21 st century”

(Noddings, p. 81). There simply isn’t enough time or freedom within the curriculum to create an

environment that inspires students to think deeply. Noddings argues that we should not “cover”

so much materials, but we should push back the boundaries of the disciplines to discuss topics in

history, religion, biography, and politics even in the science classroom (Noddings, p. 80).

My goal as an educator is to raise up students who can think on their own and express

their perspectives confidently. At the same time, the 21st century requires them to work

collaboratively and respectfully. Lastly, our society is hungry for people to utterly transform the

world by the quality of their thinking and problem-solving. We do not need another generation

of people whose only skill is to regurgitate facts on an exam. Pushing back boundaries of

disciplines will create more time for project-based, critical- and creative-thinking, and

multicultural education.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

References

A326Group. (2010, Dec. 10). Lisa Delpit and Christine Sleeter. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVBvxfdM1A4&feature=youtu.be.

Bobbitt, F. (2009) Scientific Method in Curriculum-Making. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton

(eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 15-22. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bruner, J. S. (2009) Man: A Course of Study. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum

Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 78-93. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (2009) My Pedagogic Creed. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum

Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 34-42. New York, NY: Routledge.

Flinders, David J. & Thornton, Stephen J. (2009) The Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton

(eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 15-22. New York, NY: Routledge.

Glenn, B. (2011). The Impact of Arts Education in the Developing World (Master’s Dissertation).

Greene, M. (2009). Curriculum and Consciousness. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.),

Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 78-93. New York, NY: Routledge.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper

Mabel, W. (2016). List: Over 100 Schools Burned in Kenya in Two Months. Retrieved from

https://www.tuko.co.ke/160676-list-school-fires-reported-in-kenya-in-2016-per-

county.html.

Montessori, M. (2009) A Critical Consideration of the New Pedagogy in its Relation to Modern

Science. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp.

22-34. New York, NY: Routledge.

Noddings, N. (2007). Curriculum for the 21st Century. In: Educational Studies in Japan:

International Yearbook, pp. 75-81.

Tyler, R. W. (2009) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J.

Thornton (eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 69-78. New York, NY:

Routledge.