Category: Curriculum

This paper is aimed to dwell upon the notions of the curriculum and imagination. It will point out the major issues of the curriculum. Besides, it will speculate on the concept of imagination. Finally, the paper will attempt to answer the question of whether present-day curriculums allow imagination to develop.

The curriculum is acknowledged to be a normative document which is aimed to define the composition of educational subjects which are studied in an educational institution, their allocation in the years of education, the weekly and annual amount of time for each subject, as well as the structure of the educational year. The curriculum can be considered as a certificate of the educational institution. It is stated to be composed in accordance with the following principles: the achievements of the sciences, hygienic norms, objectivity, age approach, the achievement of the goal in each educational level, succession, the annual distribution of the subjects, a combination of the obligatory and facultative subjects, and types of the educational activities. The curriculum for public schools is claimed to be elemental. It is supposed to be worked out on a centralized basis.

However, there generally tend to be several alternatives so that each school has a possibility of choice. Innovative schools are likely to elaborate on their own curriculums based on the general educational standards (Lake 18). Apart from the above-mentioned, curriculum proves to play the role of an external limitation, which is aimed to determine the general framework of the solutions to the educational content and requirements for its acquisition. Besides, it establishes the requirements for the organization of the educational process. What is more, the curriculum is taken into account in the course of working out the budget and solving the related matters (Lake 24). Apart from that, the curriculum is used as one of the mechanisms of financing implementation. The curriculum is aimed to establish the recommended content of educational subjects and the amount of time, which is supposed to be allocated to each subject (Ladson-Billings 101-102).

The curriculum is acknowledged to consist of the following parts: obligatory and variable elements. The obligatory part is expected to guarantee the familiarization with the significant national and general cultural values, as well as the formation of the personal qualities which correspond to the public ideals. Besides, the obligatory part has the purpose of determining the content of the obligatory objective areas. As for the variable part, it includes the component of off-hour activities which are formed by the participants of the educational process (Lake 30). It is expected to contribute to the individual character of the students’ development, their interests, and inclinations, as well as the interest of the state in the accomplishment of the general education.

The time which is given to this part could be used to increase the number of scholar hours, to study particular school subjects from the obligatory part in detail, or to introduce educational courses which are aimed to develop various interests and skills of the students (Lake 42). Off-hour activity is organized in accordance with the following directions of personal development: intellectual, social, general cultural, ethical, and athletic. So as to ensure the development of talented and gifted children’s potential, it should be possible to work out individual curriculums together with the students and their parents. Individual curriculums entrain individual educational plans in the framework of which an individual educational program is supposed to be formed. An individual educational program should include the content of subjects, their modules, courses, and forms of education. Apart from that, it is possible to organize distance learning. Individual educational plans and programs should be accomplished with the help of a tutor (Moore et al. 151-152).

The curriculum is expected to contain two parts in accordance with the levels of general education, which are primary and secondary levels. The curriculum is assumed to be based on the image of the structure of the key general educational programs, as well as the image of the structure and content of the results which the general education is aimed to attain. The content of education in a particular educational institution is determined by the educational program. The sample basic educational programs are aimed to guarantee the possibility of a variable implementation of the educational content. Since the basic educational programs regulate the teaching process, their positions should have orienting and non-categorical character. This means that in case it is required due to the existing conditions, for instance, in the case of implementation of an experiment or author’s program, an educational institution has a possibility of stepping aside from the curriculum provided they fulfill the requirements related to the results of the education (Greene, “Imagination and Consciousness” 257-259).

Basic educational programs are expected to be supplemented by programs of the development of universal educational activities which are aimed to regulate different aspects of the acquisition of meta-objective skills. The elaboration of sample educational programs is primarily based on the image of the structure of general educational programs, the image of the structure and content of the results of the general educations, as well as on the concretization of the concept of the educational results which is reflected in the core of the general education content. Three types of educational programs are singled out: typical, working, and author’s.

Basic educational programs are worked out in accordance with the standard which is accepted for each subject. They are a recommendatory character. As for working educational programs, they are elaborated according to the basic programs and are approved by the principle. They reflect the requirements of the standard and the possibilities of a particular educational institution. When it comes to the author’s educational programs, they tend to take into account the state standard. However, they might have a different approach to the structure of any subject, as well as the author’s viewpoint of the consideration of theories, phenomena, and processes. Author’s programs are expected to undergo a procedure of certification and are approved by the council of each particular educational institution. Such programs are widespread in teaching various facultative courses (Egan 266-267).

The curriculum contains the following sections: the introduction, planned results of the program acquisition in each level, programs of separate subjects and courses, and the evaluation system for the results, which are aimed to be achieved in the course of the program acquisition. The programs of separate subjects are expected to contain variants of teaching planning as well as recommendations on the material and technical supplements of the educational subject. The content of education in the program might have different structures of representation. Nowadays, the most popular structures are admitted to be linear, concentric, spiral, and mixed. The linear structure means that the separate parts of the educational material form a continuous succession of tightly interconnected elements. Therefore, the content of education, or knowledge, is transmitted only once in a particular way. Any new material is taught based on the already study material, and they are interconnected. Such a structure appears to be economical. The concentric structure of representation implies the revision of the acquired knowledge.

One and the same question is revised several times to achieve the constantly enlarged profound level. In primary schools, educational programs are built in accordance with this principle. The concentric structure is required and justified from a pedagogical viewpoint in the cases when certain phenomena and decrees cannot be revealed, comprehended, and acquired at once, and their comprehension requires a particular depth of knowledge acquisition. Some examples are as follows: decrees of mechanics and electrical current, difficult physiological issues, and historical decrees. The necessity to revise the previously studied material is determined by nature and the mechanisms of students’ developing thinking. It is obvious that scientific concepts cannot be acquired at once as a ready – mature – phenomenon since they are supposed to pass the way of development. The characteristic feature of the spiral system of the material representation is that, in the course of studying any subject matter, the student tends to constantly enlarge and go deeper into the circle of the knowledge, which is connected with the subject matter. This system does not have any intervals like in the concentric system. Finally, as for the mixed system, it combines all the described structures (Egan 268-269).

Taken into account the mentioned above, it is necessary to admit that the curriculum is a result of a large amount of hard work, which requires much time and effort. Besides, many specialists from various scientific fields are involved in elaborating on the curriculum. The curriculum is accepted to reflect the historic teaching experience and the achievements of pedagogical and psychological sciences. The functions of the curriculum are as follows. First, a student finds out new information, gets new experiences, and acquires new skills. Therefore, they develop their knowledge and abilities. The second function is intentional.

It contains the ideological element, which means that the knowledge and skills that are included in the curriculum are oriented to form the scientific world view and ethicality. The third one is methodological. It deals with structural issues. It appears to organize the teachers’ actions in the course of their preparation for the classes, which means the selection of the materials, kinds of practical works, active methods, and dynamic forms of education. The programs are accepted to contribute to the organization of the scholar labor of students. They are expected to determine the type of activity on the subject study in the educational institution, as well as the process of the acquisition of free information. The specificity of each school subject, which is based on the content, types of knowledge application, types of activities, determines the variability of the curriculum structures (Lake 56-58).

It is essential to note that the objective construction of the curriculum might result in the isolation of the knowledge of one subject from the knowledge of another subject. It is possible to say the same about specific skills and abilities which are formed in the course of a particular subject acquisition. That is why the educational process presupposes systematic guidance to establish inter-subject relations. Such guidance is implemented with the specification of the program, the content of the course books, the introduction of the generalizing subjects, and the teacher’s actions. Inter-subject relations can be divided into two types. The first one is the relations between the knowledge and skills which are specific for each particular subject. The second one is the relations between the knowledge and skills which are common for all the subjects. In the first case, all the required relations are revealed and established in each educational subject. As for the second case, the division between subjects is possible. For instance, some skills in scholarly work, such as the work with a book and summarizing, and universal school actions are formed by all the teachers.

However, different teachers happen to spend a different amount of time on this. What is more, the content inside the inter-subject program is divided into the educational years so as to ensure that the information from one subject, which is necessary for another subject, is provided in advance. The implementation of the inter-subject connections proves to face the following difficulty: the different sections of one subject, which is tightly connected with the corresponding sections of another subject, can be studied at different times. Therefore, there is an implementation of preceding relations, as well as an implementation of subsequent relations. The first ones are accomplished in case the topic from one subject precedes the topic from another subject. In such a situation, it is necessary to apply the material from a different topic. The second ones are implemented when the topic under consideration is studied later than the one with which it is connected. In such a situation, the previously studied material serves as a basis for the new topic from a different subject (Lake 74-77).

Imagination is acknowledged to be a cognitive process. Its specificity is based on the processing of the previous experience. Imagination is stated to be tightly connected to thinking. Therefore, it is possible to speak about the unity of both of the processes (Rugg 112).

Both thinking and imagination tend to appear in a problematic situation. They are stated to be motivated by the person’s needs. The basis for them is accepted to be provided by the notion of anticipatory reflection. Depending on the situation, the amount of time, the level of knowledge, and their organization, one and the same task can be tackled by means of imagination, as well as thinking. The difference lies in the fact that the reflection of the reality which is implemented in the course of imagination involves vivid representations, whereas the anticipatory reflection in the processes of thinking involves operating of notions that allow perceiving the surroundings in a generalized and mediate way. The choice between thinking and imagination is claimed to be determined by the situation. The creative imagination works in the situation when the level of uncertainty is rather high. Therefore, imagination allows making decisions even in the case of the incompleteness of knowledge (Greene, “Imagination and Learning” 167).

In its activity, imagination proves to the traces of past perceptions, impressions, and images, which means that it uses the traces of memory. The genetic relationship of memory is expressed in the unity of the constituents, which comprise their basis of analytical and synthetically processes. The principal difference between memory and imagination is revealed in the difference in the directions of the operating of the processes. Thus, the major tendency of thinking is the reconstruction of the system of images, which is maximally close to the situation which has taken place in the experience. For the imagination, it is characteristic to strive for a maximally possible transformation of the initial imaginary material. Imagination is included in the perception and affects the creation of the images of the perceived subjects. The major function of the imagination is acknowledged to be the transmission of the optic phenomenon, which presents a disturbance of the eye retina surface into the image of the external thing (Greene, “Releasing the Imagination: Essays” 102-103).

Imagination is tightly connected to the emotional sphere. This connection is stated to be of a double character. On the one hand, this image is able to evoke strong feelings. On the other hand, once evoked, the emotion or feeling can appear to be a reason for the active work of imagination (Eisner 18).

Imagination has the following functions. First, it represents the reality in images. Besides, it creates the possibility of using the images by coping with tasks. Second, imagination regulates emotional states. Third, it affects a person’s cognitive processes and conditions, namely, perception, attention, memory, speech, and emotions. Fourth, imagination allows creating an internal plan of action and fulfilling them inside by manipulating images. Fifth, imagination helps to plan and program the activity, as well as to work out programs and to evaluate their correctness and the process of implementation (Fettes 7).

As for imagination development, the process is acknowledged to take place in childhood. The child develops imagination through creative thinking. This proves to result from curiosity and expressed interests. The starting point for imagination development is expected to be the directed activity, which means involving the children’s fantasies into real practical problems. The development of imagination is entrained by the following factors: the situations of incompleteness, the resolution of multitasking problems, the stimulation of independence, self-supporting earnings, bilingual experience, and positive attention to the child from the part of the adults. The development of imagination is prevented by the following factors: non-conformity, the discouragement of imagination, strict gender stereotypes, separation of the study from the play, unwillingness to change a viewpoint, and authorities (Greene, “Releasing Imagination” 4-5).

Taken into account everything that has been reflected upon above, it is possible to state that the curriculum leaves enough space for students to develop their imagination since they are oriented on solving matters which contain many problems at once or study languages at educational institutions of different levels. As for the positive attitude from the adults, this can be achieved if the teacher is professional from the ethical viewpoint. Modern schools tend to incorporate study and play, which also contribute to the development of imagination. What is more, in present-day society, the role of one person’s authority has been reducing, which is also beneficial when it comes to imagination.

To sum it up, it is necessary to state that this paper has dwelt upon the notions of the curriculum and imagination. It has pointed out the major issues of the curriculum. Besides, it has speculated on the concept of imagination. Finally, the paper has established that present-day curriculums are likely to allow imagination to develop.

Works Cited

Eisner, Elliot W. “What Can Education Learn from the Arts about the Practice of Education?” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, 2002.

Egan, Kieran. “Education’s Three Old Ideas and a Better Idea.” Curriculum Studies, vol. 31, no. 3, 1999, pp. 257-267.

Fettes, Mark. “Imagination and Experience: An Integrative Framework.” Democracy and Education, vol. 21, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1-11.

Greene, Maxine. “Imagination and Consciousness.” Teachers’ College Record, vol. 73, no. 2, 1971, pp. 253-269.

Greene, Maxine. “Imagination and Learning: A Reply to Kieran Egan.” Teachers’ College Record, vol. 87, no. 2, 1985, pp. 161-171.

Greene, Maxine. Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts, and Social Change. Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Greene, Maxine. “Releasing the Imagination.” NJ: Drama Australia Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1-11.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “And Then There Is This Thing Called the Curriculum: Organization, Imagination, and Mind.” Educational Researcher, vol. 45, no. 2, 2016, pp. 100-104.

Lake, Robert. “A Curriculum of Imagination in an Era of Standardization: An Imaginative Dialogue with Maxine Greene and Paolo Freire.” Information Age Publishing Inc., 2013.

Moore, Christy M., et al. “Among Elliot W. Eisner’s Contributions to Teaching and Curriculum.” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, vol. 16, no. 1-2, 2014, pp. 145-154.

Rugg, Harold. “The Creative Imagination: Imperatives for Educational Theory.” Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society, vol. 16, no. 1, 1960, pp. 110-135.

Introduction

Since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, the standards-based curriculum has taken on a whole new meaning. While the specifics of the act can get rather complicated, the effects have been quite clear. The federal government’s involvement in state-run education has developed a disconnect within the classroom due to the idea that broader spectrum policies can easily be established. Students, such as those in urban and socio-economic disadvantaged areas remain at a standstill due to the procedures of the NCLB. However, other students, especially those will disabilities have been dealt a significant blow to their progress through standards-based accountability. The results of these issues have been more frequent calls for a revision to, if not the entire removal of, the NCLB.

Education policy’s issues

Foremost, the issue of the federal government’s involvement in state education policy has taken on a different life all its own. Scholars and other concerned parties to this problem have been split mostly down the middle on this subject. Some want reform, no matter what the future implications are or the politics behind the actions, and believe big government is the answer. Others would rather revert to state-mandated education policies, although they also call for reform to the system. (Vaughn & Everhart, 2005). Just as in all cases, a moderate solution would be best for this situation. The federal government could maintain some levels of influence in education standards, yet individual states account for the rises or pitfalls. (Crawford & Tindal, 2006). People say that the NCLB is designed to do just that. However, the intended design and the actual outcomes are skewed, to say the least.

Secondly, students from urban and socioeconomic disadvantaged backgrounds have an even more difficult case when it comes to accountability. Many educators refuse to teach at schools in these areas because of the conditions. The budgets are not commensurate with the needs of the educators, or students. (Bainbridge & Sundre, 2005). Therefore, the incentive to become more polished in their skills as an educator fades. Crowded classrooms and an insufficient amount of classroom materials place the students in these areas at a disadvantage before they even begin. (Hickock & Ladner, 2007). Yet, they are expected to meet and exceed the minimum requirements without the minimum materials.

Furthermore, students with disabilities are another population in need of support from the NCLB outcomes. Although there have been upgrades in research and facilities to this population of students, the idea that a standards-based curriculum should be applied to these special needs students is hard to understand. (Freund, Ohlson, Browne, & Kavulic, 2006). Many schools simply do not have the budgets to support the demands that these programs require. Then, the government decides they will take away more funding if the schools do meet the requirements. The schools come to a dead end, where they cannot move forward to provide more opportunities and soon find themselves behind the curve. Lost in the mix, unfortunately, is the family, wondering why adequate education needs cannot be met for their students with special needs. (Riddle & Skinner, 2007).

Conclusion

The NCLB, as it currently stands, has tied the hands of states to support the programs that are needed for the advancement of accountability and standards-based curriculum. New systems are needed if the current demands are to be met and future pitfalls are avoided. State control of education is a policy that, both publicly and privately, needs to be maintained to provide efficient and effective learning environments. Urban and socioeconomic disadvantaged areas need to be closely monitored to ensure adequate educators and materials are being provided to students. Special needs programs must also be examined to guarantee these students are not deprived of opportunities.

References

Bainbridge, W. L., & Sundre, S. M. (2005). Testing To Improve or To Punish? School Administrator, 62 (1), 42-42.

Crawford, L. & Tindal, G. (2006). Policy and practice: knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment. Remedial & Special Education, 27(4), 208-217.

Freund, M., Ohlson, C., Browne, B., & Kavulic, C. (2006). Emerging Accountability Systems within Part C and Section 619 Programs. Teacher Education & Special Education, 29(3), 168-178.

Hickock, E. & Ladner, M. (2007). Reauthorization of NCLB: Federal Management or Citizen Ownership of K-12 Education? USA Today, 136(2720), 64-66.

Riddle, W. C., & Skinner, R. (2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer: RL33960. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1-22. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Vaughn, M., & Everhart, B. (2005). A Process of Analysis of Predictors on an Assessment Continuum of Licensure Candidates’ Success in K-12 Classrooms. Research for Educational Reform, 2005, 10(1), 3-15.

Preschool is the onset of development where a child is trying to familiarize her or himself with the surrounding environment. Preschool children are fall in the category of those between three and five years. At this age, simplicity and interaction with others are very essential because the child familiarizes her or himself with that which he or she can see or touch.

Therefore, it is unlikely that a teacher will ask a child to write a composition at this stage. The goal of enhancing language acquisition at this level is to “promote complex verbal reasoning, escalating the use of decontextualized language, and developing personal narrative skills” (Arizona State University, n.d.).

Strategies and Methods

Developing activities directed at developing problem solving skills

Language development should entail instilling problem solving skills in children so that they become open-minded. In so doing, children will be able to come up with impeccable ways of settling down disputes.

Problem solving activities include those which help to develop language and communication skills, which are useful in pacifying an argument(s). As a result, the child is able to develop different special forms of language applicable in different specific situations. For example, the language adopted in comical events is different from that which is used in formal events.

Story-telling and plays

These activities are very enjoyable and interesting to children. As a result of the innate interest of these activities, by the children, language learning becomes an easy task. Storytelling and role plays promote the use of multiple sensory organs in language learning and language acquisition. This is because the child uses her or his hearing to listen, and eyes to see the pictures that are usually alongside the stories.

For example, when a teacher is reading a story out loud to the children using high or low pitched voices to depict mood, a child is able to visualize and capture the use of language as the story unfolds. When children use multiple sensory organs during learning, their apprehension ability is increased (Otto, 2009).

Engagement in conversations

Encouraging children to converse amongst themselves builds their social skills as well as their ability to employ language in expressing their thoughts and ideas. Such conversations are evident during role play when more than one character is involved, since social interaction is evident.

Repetition

Some words are frequently used thus; a child will learn these words first. Words like mama or papa are globally used, and are the first words that a child will utter as the initial step towards language development. This is because they are repeatedly uttered to a child as ‘mama’ and ‘papa’ are the ones closest to a child at the time. Repetition is associated with better comprehension of the spoken words.

Positive Remarks

The reactions by other human beings to children’s actions have a significant effect on the subsequent attempts by the child to learn. Positive remarks are more or less like rewards, which motivate children to have more interest in language learning/development. A teacher therefore should reward a child with positive remarks because negative ones will only kill the child’s interest to learn language.

Theories

Behavioural Theory

Children learn language from other human role models, who act as stimuli, by initiating that which is to be imitated, practiced and that which calls for reward. This theory is applicable to all the strategies mentioned above because in one way or the other, language development is initiated by the human and non-human environment surrounding a child.

Biological/Innatist Theory

This aligns itself with cognitive development. Children tend to acquire language sounds in a predefined sequence based on the first sounds, which have universal bearing. In addition, language development is believed to be a natural process in that children come into the world with a biological propensity, which is a built in device referred to as the language acquisition device (LAD) (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004).

Cognitive

Cognitive theory is applicable in showing language acquisition while factoring in language complexity. Language learning strategies for language acquisition aim at promoting development in terms of memory, cognitive function, meta-cognitive function, compensation, social function and affective ability.

Storytelling and plays for example promote social, memory, cognitive, and meta-cognitive development. Language development should therefore aim at promoting personal development of every child as dictated by the cognitive theory, by enabling the children to acquire problem solving skills by way of example (Chomsky, 2006).

Social Interaction Theory

This theory promotes language development through social interactions like conversations and plays. Social interaction enables students to learn from one another, as well as learn to share their ideas and thoughts.

Curriculum Content

Children should become proactive individuals from the time when they are young, as this enables them to become great leaders. Settling arguments is very critical in life, and the acquiring the right language to do so is also very imperative.

Role plays are an integral element in teaching young children because it enables them to visualize, participate, and gain a better understanding of the events defining language during learning. Lessons for children entail simple activities such as word spelling, reading out loud, and construction of simple sentences.

At this juncture, a teacher can ask the students to repeat what she or he says for example ‘A for apple’. By so doing, the children will be imitating the teacher. In another example, a teacher can ask the children to assume different roles and use language to express and articulate these roles. Such roles are assigned during plays, where a child learns to mimic these roles through language: a very important parameter during role play.

Conversations and social interactions are predicated from reading sessions, where a teacher assigns different students different characters such as ‘Tom’ and ‘Mary’. One student becomes Tom and the other one becomes Mary, and both engage in a conversation by assuming the characteristic roles of the two characters. Every little attempt made by the children is reinforced by the positive remarks such as ‘Good Work’.

These two simple words act as a great motivation factor to children because they will want to receive more positive remarks through more attempts in language development and acquisition. By so doing, this leads to further language development and learning, in an enjoyable and enticing way.

Modifications

Children with special needs, or learning English as a second language, need special support because unlike the other students, they need to practice more, and the teacher needs to go slow on them. Students with special needs may have some form of disability and therefore, teachers should be cautious and patient with such children.

As a way of reinforcing language learning and especially for those who learn English as a second language, and for the special students, video lessons can be used. Video lessons enable these students to learn and practice more when they are by themselves, at home or in the field.

In addition, video-taped lessons are perceived to be interesting thus, the probability that a child will make good use of them is high. Songs are also a way of helping this special category of students. Songs should be designed in a manner that communicates information. As the children are singing the songs, their use of language is improved, and the ability to remember is enhanced.

References

Arizona State University. (n. d.). Enhancing Children’s Language Development in Preschool Classes. Web.

Chomsky, N. Language and Mind. Third edition. (2006). London: Cambridge University Press.

Cooter, R. B., & Reutzel, D. R. (2004). Teaching children to read: Putting the pieces together. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Otto, B. (2009). Language Development in Early Childhood. 3^rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.

School education is the key stage of learning in academic life that requires cooperation from all the members of the society. To stay in compliance with the ever changing world and achieve academic excellence there is a need to adopt innovations for some special class of students which in the present context is K-12 learners. It was reported that secondary schools are charged with preparing America’s youth for the challenge of work, further education, citizenship and leadership.

For this purpose, Georgia Department of Education has taken initiatives for supporting secondary improvement efforts through pyramid of interventions organized in four tiers. As such, there is a need to consider practices that would influence K12 schools. Previously, it was reported that parternerships would enable to maintain institutional identity that benefits K-12 students, teachers and administrators (Hamos, 2006).

The Health Professions Partnership Initiative (HPPI) has promoted the establishment of partnerships between academic health centers and K-12 school systems. This initiative could help in achieving outcomes impacting each partner mutually. This could be further strengthened by another report that described that partnership with a local university’s undergraduate, health professions schools, and with various community entities might require the support, assistance, and funding from the outside sources (Zuhlke, 2006).

This report also emphasizes the involvement of key leaders and policymakers in the formation of these partnerships, especially those who are able to be effective in a shared-leadership environment. Therefore, it may indicate that while implementing the parternership program K-12 schools should focus on assistance from all departments. These partnership strategies may appear in agreement with the Georgia education department’s pyramid intervention tiers 1- 4 that emphasize learning through evidence based, social development domain, tailored interventions corresponding with their needs and adapted methodology.

Hence, intervention programs concerned with partnership may benefit K-12 schools. Next, it may be essential for K-12 schools concentrate on different racial and ethnic minorities if they wish student achievement as per the designed pyramid intervention tiers. Earlier workers described methods of community-based participatory research (CBPR) with the objective of improving the social and academic functioning of children from racial and ethnic minority populations in a public school district (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2006).

This study has indicated the need of clarity about the policy limitations to effective collaboration, and increased awareness regarding the academic needs of minority children in schools. It also suggested that CBPR approach has the potential to expand the scope of mental-health services research, particularly related to services for racial and ethnic minorities (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2006).

This study has supported another earlier description that emphasized on higher education program for minority students (Slater & Iler, 1991).Its proposed objective was to increase the number of minority students who will be prepared to enter training for high-level professional careers, especially in medicine and science. They have found that graduates have demonstrated significant achievement compared with their peers when measured by standardized tests and the graduates’ participation in research mentorships and college acceptances. Hence, such education programs if implemented could benefit K-12 schools.

This methodology is strongly in agreement with tier 4 of pyramid intervention program that has underscored the participation of targeted students in specially designed learning programs. At this particular juncture, it is also reasonable to highlight that gender discrimination might interfere with the enrollment of African-American females in academic pathways that lead to science based careers (Taylor et al., 2001).This could be alleviated by adopting practices that correlate with achievement and success like challenging curricula, a nurturing learning environment, high expectations, community service, research experiences, and mentoring relationships. (Taylor et al., 2001).

Therefore, it can be concluded that keeping in view of the above beneficial information, K-12 schools should implement the innovation programs thinking from broad perspectives while adhering to the standard protocols of education.

Reference

Hamos, J.E. (2006). Framing K-12 partnerships in order to make a difference. Acad Med, 81, (6 Suppl), S11-4.

Zuhlke, D.J. (2006). The HOPE partnership: a public school district superintendent’s policy and leadership perspective. Acad Med, 81, S51-4.

Mulvaney-Day, N.E., Rappaport, N., Alegría, M., Codianne, L.M (2006). Developing systems interventions in a school setting: an application of community-based participatory research for mental health. Ethn Dis, 16, S107-17.

Slater, M and Iler, E. (1991). A program to prepare minority students for careers in medicine, science, and other high-level professions. Acad Med, 66, 220-5.

Taylor, V.S., Erwin, K.W., Ghose, M., Perry-Thornton, E. (2001). Models to increase enrollment of minority females in science-based careers. J Natl Med Assoc 93, 74-7.

Building capacity to support school improvement (n.d). Web.

The various elements in the curriculum, such as context, resources, learner, etc. have a powerful impact on the approaches of lesson planning (John, 2006). What factors should the teacher consider in order to prepare an effective lesson plan?

According to John (2006), the dominant model of lesson planning implies a linear way of thinking that starts from formulating the objectives and ends with lesson evaluation. However, such an approach seems impractical because different aspects and factors of learning are interrelated and, thus, it is better to plan lessons by using a more dynamic, non-linear approach. At first, it is possible to outline the basics: aims, inputs, activities, feedback, and evaluation. Then, it is important to consider the elements of a broader context such as professional values, students’ backgrounds, classroom environment and cohesion, degree of task difficulty, et cetera. Only when both contextual and practical aspects match each other well, the planned lesson can become effective.

Learnings aims, outcomes, and objectives are sometimes used interchangeably (Wittmann-Price & Fasolka, 2010) but what do you understand as the difference between them, or different interpretations simply semantics?

Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) state that objectives present a method to organize the teaching and learning process, while outcomes “reflect the students’ performance in relation to objectives” (p. 234). Additionally, McIntyre and Mirriahi (2018) and Harden (2002) note that objectives are more teacher-centered compared to outcomes, which are student-centered. It means that a teacher formulates objectives to clarify what will be covered during the course. In turn, outcomes are meant to help learners understand what they have accomplished by the end of the course. Thus, it is not correct to use the terms interchangeably as they are qualitatively different.

John discusses four different models of lesson planning: dominant (linear), naturalistic, interactional, and dialogical model (John, 2006). Which model(s) of lesson planning do you think are most relevant to your teaching practice (or your future teaching practice) and why?

The naturalistic model seems to be more relevant to my teaching practice. Such an approach suggests that a teacher should understand the complexity of the planning process to design excellent curricula (Brady & Kennedy, 2013). In the given model, the planning process occurs in three steps: platform, deliberation, and design. As Lunenburg (2011) states, the platform implies “the beliefs or principles that guide the curriculum developers” (p. 2). It means that professional values and attitudes will inform the decision-making (deliberation), which consequently will lead to the curriculum design. Thus, this model can help educators integrate ethical and professional standards with technological and practical lesson elements.

Differences in Position Statements

It seems there are no significant differences between the definitions of scholarship in nursing developed by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (CASN). They both cover similar sets of skills needed to engage in the education and training practice: critical thinking, research writing, et cetera (AACN, 2018; CASN, 2011). However, I prefer the one published by AACN because it is more focused on the production of new knowledge and innovation.

In my opinion, the investigation of healthcare problems is one of the primary elements of scholarship in nursing. However, as stated by Crosby, Salazar, DiClemente, and Lang (2010), only those research findings that meet the principle of rigor can contribute to better outcomes in health promotion. Thus, in order to produce and publish high-quality research, a practitioner should first explore previous findings and write many papers. These activities can help the nurse understand scientific rigor and research methodology better.

I think that the nurse who completed a scholarship program in a college does not need to attend a specialized education course to become a teacher because the obtaining of a degree implies the acquisition of profound knowledge in multiple spheres of the professional practice including education methodology (“How to become a nursing teacher,” n.d.). Overall, a bachelor’s degree may be enough to educate others. However, obtaining Masters or Ph.D. qualifications provides advantages as it helps to delve into various issues in greater detail and to gain more competence and confidence needed to teach. Additionally, no matter which degree nurse educators have, it can be recommended for them to undertake practice updates to learn new educational methods because it will foster professional development and will help them meet education requirements and standards, as well as changing learner needs, better.

References

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2018). Defining scholarship for the discipline of nursing. Web.

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2013). Curriculum construction (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.

Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing. (2011). Position statement: Doctoral education in nursing in Canada. Web.

Crosby, R. A., Salazar, L. F., DiClemente, R. J., & Lang, D. L. (2010). Balancing rigor against the inherent limitations of investigating hard-to-reach populations. Health Education Research, 25(1), 1-5.

Harden R.M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference? Medical Teacher, 24(2), 151-155.

How to become a nursing teacher? (n.d.). Web.

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Curriculum development: Inductive models. Schooling, 2(1), 1-8.

McIntyre, S., & Mirriahi, N. (2018). Is there a difference between learning outcomes and learning objectives? Web.

Wittmann-Price, R. A., & Fasolka, B. J. (2010). Objectives and outcomes: The fundamental difference. Nursing Education Perspectives (National League for Nursing), 31(4), 233-236.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to examine the extent to which learners with intellectual and developmental disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and the extent to which such access is related to and envisaged by complementary tools and services, including curriculum modifications (e.g., adaptations and argumentations, educational and assistive technology, adult and peer supports), classroom contexts (e.g., instructional groupings, physical classroom arrangements and classroom setting conditions) and other ecological influences.

The study was informed by the limited number of studies addressing “the degree to which accommodations and curriculum modifications are provided to students with severe disabilities or about teacher, student, and classroom ecological variables that may contribute to greater access for this population” (Soukup et al., 2007 p. 101).

As acknowledged by Payne et al (2007), students with special needs need effective curriculum-based instruction and assessment in both academic and social skills spheres, but many existing studies are yet to address this issue.

Design

A quantitative research design was employed to collect and record primary data on 19 elementary students with learning disabilities (mental retardation or autism) sampled from three suburban school districts from the Midwest; that is, the researchers used a computer-based data collection program known as Access CISSAR to collect a wide range of the quantitative variables from the participants during core academic instructional time in science and social studies.

The researchers were able to observe and record important data from the participants using this instrument without intruding on classroom instructional activities (Soukup et al., 2007).

Findings

The researchers found that (1) intellectually and developmentally disabled students requiring individualized education programs do not align well with the general education curriculum, (2) students with special needs require to be provided with accommodations and curriculum modifications (e.g., augmentations and adaptations) during instruction; however the impact of paraprofessionals in providing the needed supports may be either positive or negative depending on classroom contexts and ecological variables, (3) students with special needs are often not provided with the opportunity to learn and apply learning-to-learn or self-regulation strategies than could enhance their capacity in interacting with the general education curriculum, (4) students with disabilities who sit in the same physical arrangement with at least some of their peers, and those who work exclusively with a teacher/paraprofessional on a one-on-one situation, have greater access to the general education curriculum, and (5) being educated with nondisabled peers more than half of the instructional day is predictive of greater access to the general education curriculum (Soukup et al., 2007).

Critique

Although this study utilized a small sample size, hence compromising on the generalizability of findings to a wider population, it has obvious ramifications for curriculum-based instruction for students with disabilities.

First, the study illuminates the fact that curriculum modifications and adaptations are important tools teachers could use in designing curriculum-based instruction for students with developmental or intellectual disabilities. However, the study fails to mention which modifications and adaptations are important for this group of the population.

Additionally, the findings are clear on the importance of providing intellectually and developmentally disabled students with a learning environment that facilitates learning-to-learn and self-regulation strategies for the purpose of promoting their interaction with the general education curriculum. It is therefore clear that disabled students who employ learning-to-learn and self-regulation strategies, along with the modifications and augmentations as provided by instructors, increase access to the general education curriculum.

Lastly, the study has illuminated the need not only to include students with disabilities in the general classroom to enhance their access to the general education curriculum, but also to ensure that the physical seating arrangement is conducive to their learning (seating in the same physical arrangement with peers positively impacts upon their access to the general education curriculum), and to ensure that this group of the population works exclusively with a teacher or a paraprofessional in a one-on-one basis to provide greater access to the curriculum.

References

Payne, L.D., Marks, L.J., & Bogan, B.L. (2007). Using curriculum-based assessment to address the academic and behavioral deficits of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 16(3), 3-6.

Soukup, J.H., Wehmeyer, M.L., Bashinski, S.M., & Bovaird, J.A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 101-120.

Introduction

Preschoolers usually develop their vital skills for learning before the age of eight years in early childhood. A curriculum for preschoolers should foster skills that are developmentally appropriate for gaining academic advantages for later years. Failure to learn such skills among preschoolers can have severe consequences in later academic performance.

The role of the administrator in the program and curriculum planning is different from that of the teacher

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) notes that administrator’s roles are mainly planning, implementing, and evaluating an early care and education program (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2005). These roles entail both leadership and management activities.

The administrator offers the staff a general idea of the curriculum for preschoolers. This is mainly in the curriculum mapping for preschoolers. The administrator organizes the publication of record for all classes for enhancing collaboration and support among teachers.

The administrator’s roles become analogous in relation to the role of the teacher. In other words, the administrator clarifies the preferred performance and ensures that there are necessary conditions for achieving such performances. This may be necessary for setting a school continuum for successive years.

In some cases, the administrator may work together with teachers in order to develop a suitable activity for learners as a way of facilitating the achievement of the desired goals. This also includes the provision of the necessary resources and discussion of the curriculum map with teachers.

Administrators also provide guidance to teachers with regard to assessment of preschool learners’ performance. This maintains the relationship between school practices and the national, state, and local standards for a preschool curriculum.

The administrator may also work with curriculum developers in order to enhance a diverse approach to curriculum development and planning. This may include the decision on the scope and sequence of the curriculum content. In this context, the administrator must ensure that curriculum developers update contents as learners become dynamic. In this regard, teachers must also note that teaching is dynamic and needs continual improvement to allow preschoolers to acquire the necessary skills.

The administrator must also focus on the development of staff for learners. The administrator must ensure that teachers have adequate time and resources for staff development and training to plan for curricula implementation. In addition, he must encourage collaboration among teachers.

Finally, the administrator must also engage parents in education of their children. This may require parents to contribute positively toward learning of their children.

Learning and developmental needs of preschoolers

Preschoolers are in the process of development, and they show interests in the surrounding environment. Preschoolers use all their senses to explore the world around them, which reflect their eagerness to learn through experiences and play. Such activities help them to develop skills in various areas of learning.

Preschoolers experience physical development, social and emotional development with peers and intellectual development that allows them to express themselves.

A developmentally appropriate program (DAP) for preschoolers must address three significant areas that cover developments in children. First, DAP must have skills that preschoolers need at their age based on research findings. The program must also account for diverse needs and backgrounds of every learner.

Finally, DAP should also reflect cultural and social backgrounds of learners. It is important for the administrator or the teacher to inquire about the “learner’s developmental history and family background” (Gadzikowski, 2013) during enrolement in the school. This assists teachers in understanding the child’s physical, social, emotional, and intellectual needs.

Addressing cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of preschoolers as well as classroom management and the daily schedule

A balanced DAP should address physical, emotional, social, and cognitive needs of preschoolers. Curriculum developers must note that all these aspects are interrelated, and teachers must implement them simultaneously for preschoolers.

The DAP must address physical and interactive needs of preschoolers because these are the major activities they do. Such activities may look like play to any observer, but a well-designed classroom encourages preschoolers to engage in social learning concerning themselves and their peers.

Preschoolers’ programs should have songs and games together with cognitive developmental contents, which can develop literacy skills. Preschoolers can engage in the following activities:

• Playing.
• Walking along straight and curved lines and learn about balancing.
• Sorting objects.
• Mixing colors.
• Engaging in stories.
• Songs and dance.
• Make objects.

Classroom management should consist of having a leader to manage some tasks like paper passer, line leader, and snack leader among others. They can change roles on a weekly basis.

The teacher should manage transition among preschoolers. The teacher can manage transition by helping preschoolers to finish their tasks as scheduled and proceed to the next activity. First, the teacher must have a set of daily activities. Setting a structure shall help preschoolers to follow routines for a smooth transition.

Second, the teacher should use a timer to control time management. He can signal learners and count for the last few left minutes to the end. Finally, the teacher can change the location of learners during different tasks. Such changes help learners to know specific locations for various activities. Teachers must plan their classroom management in advance for effective outcomes.

The daily schedule helps the teacher to manage the classroom and daily activities. The teacher must assist preschoolers to manage their time for a smooth transition from one activity to another.

The Daily Schedule

Explain how your program aligns with the philosophy, vision, and mission statements you created in Week One

Preschoolers learn best by playing and interacting with others. The DAP aims to create relaxed environments for learners that enhance their interaction, play, and retention of concepts through theme-related contents, reading, language, mathematics, songs and independent play among others.

How the program aligns with NAEYC’s indicators of an effective curriculum

This DAP is for preschoolers. Before the age of eight years, preschoolers need to develop their skills in physical, cognitive, social, emotional aspects of development.

The NAEYC’s indicators for an effective curriculum emphasizes that a good DAP should be “thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive, and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children” (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2009).

This DAP has included several activities to ensure that preschoolers are actively engaged in all learning process. There are clear aims based on evidence from effective methods of developing a curriculum for preschoolers. DAP also accounts for values in teaching as learners explore environments and play on their own.

This is a comprehensive approach to preschoolers’ learning activities, which also focus on theme-related contents from the national curriculum and align them with the local and state standards. It is likely to benefit preschoolers.

The administrator ensures training and support for teachers with the required resources. DAP gives learners roles in the classroom as leaders, promotes the use of physical learning, effective program management, and healthy habits among learners. In addition, it recognizes the role of teachers in assessing learners’ progress.

Overall, the program relies on “developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate and effective teaching approaches that enhance each child’s learning and development in the context of the program’s curriculum goals” (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2008). It is also consistent with the philosophy of preschoolers’ curriculum contents.

References

Gadzikowski, A. (2013). Administration of early childhood education programs. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Program Administrator Definition and Competencies. Web.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2008). Overview of the NAEYC: Early Childhood Program Standards. Web.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Where We Stand on Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation. Web.

The issue of supervision of curriculum and instruction becomes one of the leading directions in modern education. The critical reason that promotes it is underperformance of many American schools in several subjects, including learning comprehension, mathematics, et cetera (Tyler, 2013). There several seminal texts that were elaborated by educational scholars to align the theory and practice. One may, for instance, note such fundamental works as “Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction” (1949) by Tyler or Bloom’s “Taxonomy of Educational Objective” (1956), as cited in Tyler (2013). Both of the mentioned texts offer the instructional design for curriculum and help to understand the very essence of teaching. The above texts also provide the difference between learning and teaching styles, thus distinguishing between various educational strategies and instruments.

Speaking of the seminal texts, it is critical to pay attention to a more recent initiative such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 that established standards for curriculum and instructions supervision and evaluation (Emmer & Sabornie, 2015). Since the mentioned document considered the needs of students with disabilities, those with low English proficiency, and typical learners, it unified the regulations regarding student performance and expected achievements. Such an initiative made teachers to reconsider their approaches towards education and as supervisors to come up with innovative merit-programs as well as value-added evaluation.

Focusing on the historical foundations of the supervision of instruction and curriculum, it is essential to state that there was some uncertainty in educational instructions. Marshall (2013) argues that one theory overcame another one, and the roles of educators and administrators were ambivalent. The supervisory role was transformed as a result of new theories that emerged in the 20th century. In particular, the assumptions expressed by Bobbit along with Barr, Burton, and Brueckner swung the pendulum towards the integration of such roles as coaches and evaluators (as cited in Marshall, 2013). Furthermore, Hunter developed a model called the Instructional-Theory-Into-Practice (ITIP), which became the leading reform in the national education (Marshall, 2013). It presented a series of instructional stages, beginning with engaging learners and ending with continuous progress monitoring. The anticipatory role promoted by Hunter encountered a new developmental supervisory role, where supervision of curriculum and instruction was seen as belonging to evaluators and collaborators, respectively.

The past practices differ from supervisory activities utilized today. According to Emmer and Sabornie (2015), curriculum management in the past was associated with the subject area curriculum, when administrators played the role of information providers through a lecture format. The key disadvantage of such an approach was its inability to determine whether learning is effective or not with regards to students. Likewise the present practices, the main subjects contained reading, writing, mathematics, learning comprehension, English, philosophy, and music. It should be stressed that the past supervision procedures proved to be unsuccessful since students’ grades fall and they lost interest in education. Wallender (2014) reckons that in this regard, a new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were suggested to be implemented in order to address the mentioned challenges. The current supervision of curriculum and instruction is closely related to the above document. As argued by Wallender (2014), the historical underpinnings of CCSS consist of the creation of unified standards for students, emphasis on quality education, and increased school rigor.

Among the predominant themes and issues regarding the supervision and evaluation of instructions, it is possible to identify the issue of collaboration versus evaluation (Gibbons, Boling, & Smith, 2014). On the one hand, the cooperation between teachers and administrators is significant to ensure close relationships and contribute to the continuous enhancement of instructional design (Kamens, Susko, & Elliott, 2013). On the other hand, the need to assess teachers’ performance seems to be a democratic one, which poses the question of whether evaluation and supervision are corresponding aspects or not (Murphy, Hallinger, & Heck, 2013). In this connection, supervision and evaluation may be highlighted as two more themes that are relevant to nowadays educational system. The former is understood as the consultation with an instructor for the purpose of improving a student’s achievement and instructions. The latter refers to the evaluation of teachers in order to make individual decisions (Murphy et al., 2013). Thus, it becomes evident that the above roles are quite different.

Data collection is another important theme that should be specified in terms of teacher assessment and curriculum supervision. The very procedure of information gathering on teacher performance causes some controversies. In particular, if supervision is aimed at teacher performance growth, then it is expected to collect tailored data; in case a supervisor evaluates a teacher, then environment in its entirety should also be involved in data obtaining. In other words, it is difficult to simultaneously outperform both functions, and administrators may struggle while selecting between the mentioned issues. Therefore, it is critical for administrators to clearly identify and share their purpose of lesson observation with a teacher being either evaluated or coached. Since both roles may be accomplished by one person, teachers may feel reluctant to build relationships with them.

Speaking of the foundations of the supervision of instruction and curriculum, one should also pinpoint current and future trends in the identified field. Focusing closer on teacher evaluations, one may note the theme of value-added assessment. In the recent article, Berliner (2013) states that specific tests exist to assess students’ achievement, and those who have higher grades should be educated by more skilled teachers, while poorer teachers should have students with lower educational progress. In case skills and knowledge provided by teachers proved to be effective via tests, such teachers are entitled to receive rewards, while they are to be fired otherwise. Berliner (2013) argues that such an approach cannot ensure fair and valid teacher performance evaluation since several factors such as student engagement, attitudes, school environment, and so on may affect their grades.

As for future trends, Liebtag (2013) states that CCSS is already adopted by plenty of schools and it would continue being the fundamental document in the given field. One may anticipate that it would be helpful in calibrating curriculum and instruction supervision. CCSS may be considered as the most complete standard-based initiative that may be enhanced in the future to meet the changing needs of students and teachers and advance the education ion a larger scale. Another trend that is worth turning one’s attention to is associated with aligning instruction, curriculum, and student learning. Grant and Gareis (2013) reckon that teacher-made assessment is likely to guide teachers in elaborating their own classroom tests to evaluate student performance. The above developing trend seems to be integrative to learning and teaching, thus serving as a comprehensive and supplementary tool to the supervision of curriculum and instruction.

References

Berliner, D. C. (2013). Problems with value-added evaluations of teachers? Let me count the ways! The Teacher Educator, 48(4), 235-243.

Emmer, E., & Sabornie, E. (2015). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gibbons A.S., Boling E., & Smith K.M. (2014). Instructional design models. In Spector J., Merrill M., Elen J., Bishop M. (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.

Grant, L., & Gareis, C. (2013). Teacher-made assessments: How to connect curriculum, instruction, and student learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kamens, M. W., Susko, J. P., & Elliott, J. S. (2013). Evaluation and supervision of co-teaching: A study of administrator practices in New Jersey. NASSP Bulletin, 97(2), 166-190.

Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 56-70.

Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349-354.

Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wallender, J. (2014). The Common Core State Standards in American public education: Historical underpinnings and justifications. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4), 7-11.

Question 1

What are your fears about teaching primary science and technology? Point out 5 difficult concepts and/or ideas that you think are challenging to you as a prospective teacher. Explain why you believe these concepts are difficult to teach and/or learn.

Answer

Although the curriculum for primary science and technology is very basic, teaching it may require facing a range of challenges, which are linked to the specifics of the school environment, children’s background, and teachers’ proficiency. My fear is failing to motivate students to learn and being unable to help them to develop scientific curiosity. Furthermore, there are several concepts that I find difficult to address in the classroom setting.

Specifically, I fear that it will be quite complicated to teach students about energy transformations due to the complex nature of the potential energy. Also, the concept of atmospheric pressure is a difficult subject since students may have trouble grasping the idea. For the same reason, the phenomena of speed and electricity might be not quite easy for students to embrace.

Question 2

According to you, what is science? What is technology? How do you think the two are connected?

Answer

I believe that science is a system of knowledge about the world built on observations and experiments, which allows one to understand the nature of a variety of objects and phenomena. Technology, in turn, incorporates an array of tools that can be used to cognize the universe, determine the connections between seemingly irrelevant factors, and perform a detailed analysis to derive new knowledge. Therefore, science and technology are linked closely together, the latter being an important tool in making observations, scientific inquiries, and experiments required to draw inferences and build scientific theories.

Question 3

According to you, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using the 5Es for teaching primary science and technology?

Answer

The 5E instructional model has gained a sizeable amount of popularity in the modern education system, with a range of schools deploying it as the basis for teaching students. In the context of the Science and Technology class, the 5E framework provides several opportunities for improving the learning process. Specifically, with the focus on engaging and exploring, the model will motivate students to develop a scientific inquiry and analyze the outcomes of their observations.

Thus, students will acquire crucial skills that will help them to think critically and develop independence in their research. As a result, learners will gain the essential knowledge of how scientific theories are built and how theoretical knowledge is translated into practice. Moreover, students will delve into the nature of the reciprocal connection between theory and practice, thus understanding that practical outcomes inform the further development of theory.

Question 4

According to you, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using ICT for teaching primary science and technology? List 5 ICT tools and present one possible use for each (use could be content-specific or content independent)

Answer

Due to the avalanche of technological innovations that have been introduced to education recently, teachers have a range of ICT tools for improving the quality of education. However, the available ICT devices can be seen as both an asset and an obstacle to successful education since their disadvantages are as numerous as advantages. Among the benefits that ICT offers to teachers, one should mention the improved student-teacher and parent-teacher dialogue.

Thus, the individual needs of each learner might be met due to the enhanced communication process. However, not all learners may have access to the necessary technological devices and tools, which may become a hindrance to their learning process. To ensure that technology is used to its maximum potential in class with no student left behind, a teacher should consider several options. These include applications for collaborative learning to enhance cooperation, MOOC platforms for lectures, simulations for skill training, mobile apps for taking notes, and social networks for maintaining consistent communication.

Question 5

Present 1 website that you can use in your primary science classroom and list at least 3 features that you find most important/helpful for you and/or your students.

Answer

In the environment of a primary science classroom, one could use the site that provides crucial information about ICT devices, their effects on the learning process, and the means of incorporating them into the Science and Technology curriculum. Therefore, the site created by the Education Standards Authority of the new South Wales Government can be explored in-depth as a potential resource for building a coherent ICT framework.

The site gives critical information about the standards of the Science and Technology Curriculum in Australia, which will help a teacher to structure classes properly (Education Standards Authority). Also, the site provides an in-depth overview of the ICT devices that can be deployed in the designated academic setting. Finally, both teachers and students can learn more about the skills that are deemed necessary for further academic progress.

Work Cited

Education Standards Authority. “Technologies in Kindergarten to Year 10.” EducationStandards.NSW.edu.au, 2017. Web.

Introduction

When children attain the age of going to school, parents have the obligation to take them to school. This crucial duty of parents is part of the children’s fundamental rights. The government has an interest in ensuring that all children have access to quality education. When parents take their children to school, they expect them to be taught by qualified teachers using a state-enforced and authorised curriculum.

Who influences the process of making curriculum? What roles does it serve? Who makes the important decisions on what is to be taught? These questions hardly appear in the parents’ minds. This suggests that people take children to school or any institutions of higher learning without adequate knowledge of who controls the decisions that involve the curriculum within a nation or a state.

This paper reveals that curriculum comprises immense political battlegrounds in any education system of a nation. The battle on what a curriculum needs to deliver emanate from all directions in society. Various business groups, religious organisations and/or groups, and educational radical reformers among other groups have stakes in a curriculum. They want it to fulfil their interests by offering programs and subjects which meet their interests.

The American curriculum has been dominated by social, political, and economic motivations since early 1900 up to date. Cognition of this battle makes any curriculum leader explore the struggles of curriculum from four main approaches, which have taken a central dominance in shaping the American curriculum throughout its history. These include the humanistic approach, developmentalism, social efficiency, and social meliorism.

Each of these schools of thought has its concerns on what the curriculum should deliver. Consequently, “curriculum leaders who are grounded on the understanding of cultural politics and curriculum theory recognise any curriculum as a complicated conversation and decisions…and must have such understanding to navigate within a broader and increasingly conservative political sphere” (Ylimaki, 2012, p.305). This paper analyses the curriculum as a cultural-political undertaking based on Ylimaki’s claim raised above.

Making Curriculum Decisions

Making curriculum decisions is a splendid and a monumental task. In this process, curriculum developers have to take into consideration various opinions of economic, social, and political actors who have an interest on what curriculum should deliver.

This reduces the entire process to involve complicated conversations and decisions, which are similar to political acts. Making political decisions requires decision-makers to ensure that the decisions made fulfil the interests of all interested parties. Curriculum leaders experience a similar dilemma while making curriculum decisions.

From one dimension, curriculum leaders are required to address the concern of social efficiency paradigms of curriculum theoretical approaches. Proponents of the social efficiency school of thought struggle to have curriculum address and serve the principal functions of meeting economic needs (Richards, 2005, p.242).

Curriculum leaders need to implement curriculum in a manner that prepares people to perform efficiently and effectively in the work environment. While this concern is essential for curriculum leaders to pay attention, they also have to consider the curriculum from the context of political issues raised by social meliorism.

The advocates of this school of thought argue that the curriculum needs to serve the function of bringing about social changes through fostering societal improvements. School curriculum should then produce political, social, and economic reformers. Social meliorism also advocates for the school curriculum to serve the function of solving prevalent problems in societies such as drug and substance abuse, racism, and sexism, among others.

The political nature of the process of making curriculum decisions is more pronounced where curriculum leaders have to make decisions to satisfy the interest of two groups subscribing to two opposite schools of thought on the functions of curriculum.

For instance, the humanist theoretical paradigm claims that the curriculum has the central prerogative to expose students to their cultural traditions (Brady & Kennedy, 2010, p.29). They reject in totality the idea of social efficiency proponents that school curriculum needs to prepare students for the workforce.

One of the most challenging tasks for a curriculum leader is to ensure that any curriculum satisfies the concerns of cultural politics. These politics emerge from different anticipations for the purpose and need that a curriculum should serve in the society.

While meliorists want school curriculum to serve the needs of the society in general, developmentalism argues that the curriculum should lead to individual development of learners. Thus, it should principally focus on individual needs (Brady & Kennedy, 2010, p.33). School curriculum leaders should ensure that the curriculum is integrative of all concerns of the potential sources of influence. This concern subjects them to engage in curriculum politicking.

For instance, a dilemma emerges on whether to contend with proponents of humanistic, social efficiency, and social meliorism that developmentalists’ approach to school curriculum is invalid due to the lack of intellectualism together with the provision of learners with vital skills to work and live in a society. The main issue that curriculum leaders have to address is identifying one of the four theories as the best in the approaches of curriculum development and implementation process.

Political aspects are substantial contributors of the curriculum theory that determines the type of curriculum in operation at any particular time. Different theories take central roles in influencing curriculum depending on the prevailing economic and political conditions.

In a politically charged environment, curriculum leaders cannot fail to appreciate that curriculum must serve the current political regime’s philosophies and ideologies. External groups also influence curriculum implementation and development decisions. For instance, parents who have been known traditionally to support schools unconditionally now demand schools to resolve various issues that influence their children in the future (Richards, 2005, p.245).

In the modern scenes of education, political action manifests itself in the form of lobbying and incidental persuasions in making curriculum decision. This makes curriculum for district schools immensely politically motivated and manipulated (Richards, 2005, p.248).

Curriculum leaders should learn to operate within such an intensive political atmosphere. However, political interventions emanating from a myriad of sources that are not checked can influence negatively the quality of education. Nevertheless, global societies are shaped by politics. Consequently, consideration of political ropes may increase the ability of curriculum leaders to strengthen curriculum.

In a politically motivated process of curriculum implementation and development, enormous differences exist on what pressure groups and professionals in education view as requisite requirements for any curriculum. Curriculum leaders can take advantage of political contributions in the process of curriculum development and implementation to initiate changes that can make the curriculum more responsive to the needs of the society.

Political Discourses in Curriculum Development

The process of making curriculum encounters an immense influence from various groups with stakes. Investigating the current curriculum leadership and discourses, Ylimaki (2012) argues that policies for curriculum reforms are highly influenced by a specific set of ideologies, which acerbate conservatism (p.307).

Earlier studies, for instance, Apple (1996), confirms that the battlefield of curriculum development and leadership is influenced by ideological theoretical perspectives such as neoliberal, neo-nationalist, and neoconservative theoretical approaches to curriculum policy-making processes.

Ideological perspectives prescribe certain pedagogical elements concerning curriculum leadership in schools (Ylimaki 2012, p.307). The ideological perspective that gains the highest stake in influencing the curriculum formation and implementation process is dependent on political forces and philosophies of the political regime in administration.

Curriculum leadership cannot be alienated for political influences. Indeed, the history of curriculum struggles in different nations often narrow down to curriculum function interpretations based on political ideologies. Literature on curriculum development discourses strongly supports the contribution of politics in curriculum development and leadership. The first endeavour to interpret curriculum from the context of political discourses depended on the concepts of correspondence together with reproduction (Pinar & Bowers, 1992, p.164).

For instance, Pinar and Bowers (1992) quote Bowles and Gintis as having interpreted the process of the functioning of schools as being influenced heavily by the superstructure stratum established through economic bases of various societies (Pinar & Bowers, 1992, p.164). This suggests that the process of curriculum leadership is highly hierarchical in the sense that causality took place in only one direction depending on power allocation levels in the superstructure.

The above approach to curriculum leadership replicates the concept of power struggles between various political hierarchies characterising the authoritative political system of administration. In such a system, the curriculum leaders are required to lead the process of curriculum development and implementation so that it satisfies the needs of the society while at the same time complying with political pressures.

The interrogative that a curriculum leader has to face is the purpose that a curriculum should serve. Should it satisfy the needs of the society while ignoring the political pressures, or should it meet the ideologies and philosophies of the political regime? However, it is essential to note that a political system is a key player to the determination of the kind of public goods to be delivered to the society and the procedure or process that is used to deliver them.

Education is one of such public goods whose process of delivery is determined by what is taught in schools as stipulated in the curriculum. This interplay of curriculum leadership and politics reveal why curriculum leaders need to understand that a curriculum embraces conversations and debates organised around political acts.

Curriculum dictates the functions of education. People construct such functions based on their understanding of what is required in the environment that students are exposed to after they finish various educational levels.

This environment is shaped by economic, social, and political values. Pinar and Bowers support this assertion by insisting, “structures of social relations in education not only nurture students to the discipline of the workplace, but also develop the types of personal demeanour, modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social class identification that act as crucial ingredients of job adequacy” (1992, p.164).

The interpretation of the purpose of education favours the social efficiency school of thought on the purpose of education within any state or nation. As revealed before, various schools of thought that address the function and purpose of education and/or how curriculum should be organised are either validated or invalidated by political acts and philosophies of the current political regimes.

The principle of correspondence is crucial in the interpretation of curriculum from the political context. Scrutiny of the formal organisational approach of schools confirms an organisation that replicates the hierarchies of social labour divisions (Pinar & Bowers, 1992).

A school is characterised by vertical lines of authority flowing from school leaders to teachers, ending at the lowest level that constitutes the students. Similar to citizens who lack control of political decisions, students do not have control of the curriculum. Hence, curriculum hardly serves to achieve the individual needs of students.

Curriculum is designed to ensure that education improves the standards of living of students. In this sense, curriculum is influenced by various ideologies. Pinar and Bowers (1992) are also inclined to this line of thought by maintaining, “curriculum itself is conceptualised as ideological mystifications” (p.165). Political aspects are the key players in the formation of various ideologies and pedagogies of curriculum interpretations.

Curriculum dictates the learning outcomes in schools. In the determination of the outcome, culture and ideologies possessed by the dominant classes of people within society play a big role in influencing the ideas on the desired goal of education reflected in the curriculum content. In a Marxist nation, as an element of political mighty and an indicator of economic status of different people, power determines social classes. Hence, it determines the levels of dominance of different classes of people.

The ideas on the function of education in different states as they are incorporated in the curriculum development and implementation process are politically motivated and hence a manifestation of political influences in the curriculum development and leadership. Therefore, curriculum leaders and implementers manage the process of successful implementation of curriculum in schools to meet the ideologies of the dominant social groups, which are political in nature.

Through the deployment of the arguments of Bowles and Gintis, Pinar and Bowers (1992) cite four main practices of the society. The first category of social practices encompasses the appropriate practices, which the authors assert their main goal is to generate projects that are useful to societies as a whole (Pinar & Bowers, 1992, p.166). Society also engages in political practices with the intention of enhancing their transformations.

Cultural practices serve the function of transforming various tools and discourses that define the society’s existence. The last category of social practices is distributive functions. Distribution practices “alter the distribution of power and income” (Pinar & Bowers, 1992, p.166). These four practices indicate that society is ever in a continuous search of the processes of enhancing their cultural, political, and even economical transformation.

Thus, any tool of enhancing such transformation is handled based on achievements of these four practices. Education is one of the tools claimed by all nations as reliable for enhancing social transformation through the provision of skills and knowledge required to live in this changing world. Curriculum leaders should anticipate curriculum to be influenced by the four societal practices.

Surprisingly also, political aspects tie all the four practices together through the determination of the mechanisms of allocation of resources, power, and governance approaches within a society. Hence, the use of education as the tool for social transformation implies that the curriculum is more influenced by political ideologies and social practices relative to any of the other three social practices.

Modern approaches to curriculum development and leadership replicate politically motivated and instigated ideological influences. For instance, according to Brady and Kennedy, the purpose of education is to make every student, irrespective of race or disability, grow into their full potential and capacity since education encompasses the creation of a means of opening barriers and minds, thus making it possible to convert impossibilities into possibilities (2010, p.104).

This means that there is an ideological perception of what students need to become in the future. The perception is articulated in the school curriculum. The curriculum in the US seeks to instil a strong foundation on key areas of learning, including numeracy, teamwork, creativity, social competence, literacy, and self-management, among other areas.

The main objective is to enable all American students to stand a chance of learning through the multi interdisciplinary environment with the intention of developing new and efficient expertise that meets the hefty demands of the 21^st century’s job market. Education is deployed as a tool of helping to solve politically challenging issues that have historically ailed the American people, such as racism, sexism, and cultural diversity, among others.

Various theoretical approaches to curriculum development inform the curriculum deployed in various district schools in the US. The theories borrow widely from process-product models and procedural models. Such models include Tyler and Skilbeck’s situational analysis models. Tyler’s model borrows its basis from logically developed sequences. “The models begin with the objectives through content to the method and then to evaluation/assessment” (Brady & Kennedy, 2010, p.41).

Skilbeck’s situational analysis model seeks to provide a process of examining the contexts that are deemed appropriate for the operation of the curriculum. The need to evaluate the contexts for operation of a curriculum is a proof of the different opinions among people who develop and implement curriculum. This manifests the interplay of politics and curriculum leadership.

Federal policies, which are normally politically motivated, advocate for conservative paradigms in the approaches of educational leadership. These paradigms emphasise curriculum leadership that is guided by “performance outcomes and curriculum reforms defined by standardisation” (Ylimaki, 2012, p.309). The federal government has an interest in the outcomes of the curriculum implementation process in schools.

The declaration of the consequences of failure to attain specific curriculum outcomes evidence that the curriculum is best understood as a political text. For instance, NCLB act placed a requirement for schools to attain “a goal of 100 percent proficiency in state tests by 2012” (Ylimaki, 2012, p.309). The act or the policy implied that the consequences of non-compliance were also provided in the act. Schools risked being changed to charter status, with their staff being restructured or reconstituted (Ylimaki, 2012, p.309).

For curriculum leaders, this provides substantive evidence that curriculum implementation process has sound components of political influences. Thus, they can best understand the curriculum as embracing complex political conversations together with complex decisions that manifest themselves in the form of political acts.

Cultural Political Discourses in Curriculum Development

In a study to determine the impact of cultural politics on the curriculum in the US, Ylimaki (2012) interviewed four principals. The aim was to determine their understanding of the curriculum leaders on issues of curriculum leadership together with the elements that shape their approaches to curriculum implementation.

The researcher concluded that addressing various issues of “cultural-political context and how the politics apply to particular school settings” (Ylimaki, 2012, p.341) is necessary to create an understanding of the whole concept of curriculum among school curriculum leaders.

This suggests that curriculum leaders in schools cannot be relied upon to give neutral interpretations of the meaning of curriculum. Their curriculum leadership approaches are influenced by the existing cultural-political shifts. The interpretation of curriculum by the curriculum leaders is important since principals are the chief agents of curriculum communication. Ylimaki (2012) agrees with this assertion by adding that education administrators dictate what is practiced in the classroom (p.317).

In this sense, understanding of curriculum transcends beyond the classroom practice to give a substantive meaning of curriculum from the context of subjects and self-formation processes of students together with social transformational effects of the curriculum. Such an understanding is developed in the context of the prevailing political administration social policies. Hence, curriculum leaders interpret curriculum besides giving directions of its implementation in the classroom practice based on preconceived desired end states.

The above position implies that what is put in practice in schools does not essentially reflect 100 percent of the curriculum contents. Curriculum is written down. However, its meaning is subject to the manner in which it is interpreted by its implementers. The interpretation process is conducted in an environment that is influenced by cultural politics as to what curriculum should deliver to both learners and the society.

Ylimaki (2012) supports this line of thought by further asserting, “the point of the public school curriculum is understanding the relations among academic knowledge, the state of society, and the processes of self-formation” (p.318). Questions emerge here whether indeed the development of the national curriculum is imperative, considering that its interpretation and areas of emphasis are different based on the cultural-political inclination of the curriculum leaders.

The response to the above query is perhaps well addressed by Michael Apple in his book Cultural Politics and Education. Apple argues, “national curriculum provides the framework within which national testing can function” (Apple, 1996, p.32). Hence, national curriculum serves the function of forming the basis of indicating educational quality. Its wider meaning or implication to the society and learner is subject to the manner in which the curriculum leaders who attach meaning to it through cultural-political architectures interpret it.

In the actual sense, national curriculum is deemed successfully addressed when students pass their exams since test results act as ‘quality tags’. No matter the theoretical paradigms deployed to explain curriculum anticipation by the society through national tests, the impacts produced by the curriculum on the learner remains unmeasured.

The most unforgiving way of making curriculum leadership free from cultural politics residing within curriculum leaders is by allowing it to interpret itself. However, this approach is impossible in both theory and practice. Curriculum involves the transfer of meaning. In this process, curriculum leadership actors must be involved. Such actors cannot also be alienated and detached from cultural influences and politics, which give each curriculum leader a different interpretation of the function of education, and hence the curriculum.

While administering curriculum in a complex society, one has to consider the history of curriculum leaders based on situations in which they cannot play fowl of their cultural-political understandings.

In a complex society in which the deferential power manifests itself through the person who is in charge of curriculum leadership, “…the only possible cohesion is the one which overly recognises differences and inequalities” (Apple, 1996. p.67). The inequalities are the products of different views of the needs of the society together with how such needs can be met.

Education is perhaps one of the mega ways in which societies can be transformed into better future state. The perception of a ‘future good state’ varies from one curriculum leader to another based on what influences the understanding of the concept. Hence, the interpretation and communication of the curriculum are likely to be done from the peculiar understanding and perception of a given curriculum leader based on what a future state the curriculum should foster. Cultural politics shape such perceptions.

Consequently, the curriculum should not be presented as an objective. Rather, it must constantly subjectify itself (Apple 1996, p. 81). This calls for curriculum leaders to acknowledge and understand that curriculum is ingrained in the roots, culture, and history of people who have a constant urge of looking for mechanisms of leading social developments to realise both objective and subjective individual and communal interests. In this sense, curriculum involves complicated debates and conversations of cultural politics.

Through appreciation of the roles of cultural politics in shaping the understanding of curriculum in different schools, opportunities exist seeking collective ways of giving curriculum the desired meaning that is far from personal influences shaped by individualistic cultural and political history. Educational leaders possess immense opportunities to derail and alter their ideological construction of the function and purpose of curriculum and curriculum development.

A good example of such a change is exemplified in the case of Juidici and Hughes discussed by Ylimaki (2012). In these two cases, curriculum leaders inform curriculum understanding from the context of cultural politics as explained by “the differences in their curriculum development processes, emerging agency and consciousness of cultural-political shifts and discourses, and community-based curriculum work” (Ylimaki, 2012, p.344).

However, leaders also portray individualised processes of curriculum development implying that the necessity of collective action in the approaches of curriculum leadership was important even though cultural politics were cutely managed.

Conclusion

Curriculum leaders have noble roles to ensure successful implementation of curriculum in schools. Successful implementation of curriculum requires them to understand the process of curriculum development in the effort to ensure that they have adequate information on the desired goal of the curriculum. Understanding the goals of the curriculum involves the attachment of meaning to the expectations of the curriculum.

While there are various contexts that can be deployed by curriculum leaders to interpret it, the paper focused on interpreting curriculum as a cultural-political text. The determination of what needs to be taught in schools, by whom, and at what time has political influences attached to it, thus supporting the different schools of thought on the purpose of education in a society. In this end, the paper maintained that curriculum reflects ideologies of certain groups of people in a society.

Such people are normally the powerful and economically well endowed who also happen to be the politically powerful people. Attempting to understand the curriculum as a political text means that curriculum leaders have the obligation to deliver curriculum in a manner that satisfies the current political regime’s ideologies and philosophies of the function and purposes of public goods such as education.

For curriculum leaders who are inclined to the methodology of interpreting curriculum from the context of curriculum theory together with curriculum cultural politics, the paper maintained that they have cognition that curriculum involves complex conversations enshrined within the domains of political acts.

Reference List

Apple, M. (1996). Cultural Politics and Education. New York, NY: London Teachers Press.

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2010). Curriculum Construction, (4th Ed.). French’s Forest: Pearson.

Pinar, W., & Bowers, C. (1992). Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies and Significance of Critical Perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 18(1), 163-190.

Richards, C. (2005). Culture, Politics and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(3), 241-251.

Ylimaki, R. (2012). Curriculum Leadership in a Conservative Era. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(2), 304-346.