Educational Goals/Purposes: Curricular Vision

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Summary

In Chapter 5, the authors endorsed the development for teaching to be grounded on considerations of goal-oriented curriculum. To convey their sentiments, the authors highlighted concerns for the social purposes of education (compete in workforce; ethical issues; cultural democracy; equitable achievement), professional responsibilities and policy context (problem-solving with children and stakeholders; general welfare/educational rights of children), and the importance of teachers learning about curriculum (decisions/adaptations; accessibility for student goals; purposeful synergy). As the authors provided relative background for stimulating goal-oriented curriculum, the infrastructure of such curriculum is explained through various focal points:

• Learning experiences- engaging; extensive scaffolding; multimodal

• Planning- educational purposes (coherent progression); learning experiences (scope and sequence); and evaluation(formal/informal)

• Decisions- research-based (learning and cognition)

• Implications for teacher education- reviewing standards/practices; instructional design; review/evaluation curriculum plans and materials

• Goals/purposes- inclusivity (equitable); disciplines (why teach “this”); learning standards (linking ideas to concepts/skills)

• Designing curriculum/instruction- constructive feedback; multi-week unit; constructive feedback

• Evaluating curriculum plans/materials- self-evaluation; curriculum case; portfolio assessment

• Infusing technology- productivity and common networking tools

Reflection

While I have not had extensive experience with pre-service teachers, I can attest to the inevitable constructs of curriculum development that produce higher student learning gains through my own experiences as a teacher: performance assessments, developing curriculum units, and infusing technology,.

My school district’s planning support tools (PSTs) are always being revised to communicate how students should be supported. Most times, I am at odds with the ways that planning is promoted as individual units of information that do not focus on the purpose of teaching: a conglomeration of skills. It completely contradicts the authors’ argument of needing to provide a coherent progression of activities; however towards the end of each unit, the need to attend to providing purposeful learning experiences, becomes of prime importance! How can this be? Shouldn’t how students be learn be greatly considered as much or more than what students learn? After students have been taught to regurgitate skills and practices, they are expected to utilize them to make their learning meaningful. In regard to curricular vision, the term, scope and sequence, should have been utilized earlier to promote learning experiences. Leaders preach about making sure that we allow our students to connect to the material, but what about facilitating inquiry opportunities, rich discussion, and meaningful practice to introduce and explore concepts, instead of only reviewing or extending them?

When developing curriculum units, I have had experience in and out of my regular school setting that allowed me to have constructive feedback from multiple stakeholders and even some prospective teachers. For the past few summers, I have had the opportunity to practice building curriculum at MOSI Summer Science Camps. Through this experience, as the authors asserted, I had to ensure I relied on research-based practices and be knowledgeable of the learning standards that my students were expected to attain linking ideas between practices and skills. While I was limited by time (having each camp for only a week), I was challenged to facilitate an environment that allowed for optimal learning. During and after the unit, stakeholders, such as the camp’s administration and parents would provide me with feedback on their view of the camp in regard to student learning. I found it helpful to have multiple perspectives to inform me about how sound or responsive my plans were in accordance with student needs. Also, there would be prospective teachers (USF students) and high school seniors that would question why or how did I know to make certain learning decisions, which allowed for self-evaluation, as well! I was so grateful and elated to have so many perspectives and being able to heighten student achievement, as a result! I yearn to have more feedback from parents that would promote student learning! I mean, who knows their child better than the parent? Well, some would say the teacher, but that’s another story!

Additionally, when the authors mentioned the infusion of technology for developing effective curriculum, I was further reassured that I made the correct choice of studying instructional technology as one of my emphases for my master’s degree. Every day, I use technology in my classroom to bridge the digital divide, as my students have limited access to computers and related technology that could enhance their learning experiences. For example, as the authors promoted, independent inquiries are regularly planned and encouraged for students to explore information that I could have not provided through whole group instruction. The end goal, of course, is that our students can function and compete in society to reach their desired goals. If students are given the opportunity to explore their world through technology-infused, well-planned curriculum, we can possibly be reassured of a prosperous generation!