Module 3

Hi everyone,
This is Mike and I will be presenting Erin’s and my presentation on the three dominant sources of curriculum content from a view of planning, instruction, and assessment.  We will also be presenting some contemporary examples of the three main sources of curriculum content. 
Whereas our content map looked at all of the connections between curriculum design and philosophies, we are just going to focus on what Evelyn Sowell deems as the three most dominant sources of curriculum content which includes Learner based designs, Society and culture based designs, and subject matter based designs. 
First, the learner based designs focus on the needs and interests of the learner. This is similar to concepts from our concept map that involve “humanistic” or “self-actualization” concepts of curriculum.  Students in this type of design are involved in the planning phase of development.  The type of instruction is student-centered and allows for students to work in teams while learning involves research and self inquiry.  Student participation and how they work with others is largely assessed.  In some cases, students can choose how they are assessed.  A real example of this type of curriculum design comes from Paula Rogovin who, in the fall of 2015 at The Manhattan New School, a public school in New York City, demonstrated that kindergarten students could become more engaged in school subjects if their questions became the curriculum.  In other words, the children chose what they wanted to learn based on things they were naturally curious about.   Questions from students were posted on a board and then students had to find ways to retrieve the answers.  Although, this does not seem like a highly organized way of structuring curriculum, the researchers noted that students demonstrated high levels of engagement and participation. 
Secondly, the society and culture based designs tend to respond to the needs of the current culture or society.  The content is not predetermined and reflects current life and events in society.  This is like the social reconstruction concept from our map.  Although, according to Sowell (2005), these designs tend to take a representative route, not a reconstructionalism route because they don’t actually intend to change society so much as represent current society.  The instruction tends to involve problem solving and focuses on student experience.  Student reflection and the completion of projects are main components of assessment in this type of design.  A great example of this type of design would be the Ursula Franklin Academy that is based in Toronto.  The last two lines of their mission statement is “We continuously develop the tools that enable us to think critically about our world and the place we want to have in it.” The enrichment program held on Wednesdays are interesting because they give the students choices on which course to take that are outside of the traditional curriculum and are taught by not only teachers, but parents, and members of the community, which is a more realistic view of society if you think than just being taught by those who went to teachers’ college.   
Lastly, we have the subject matter design, which is typically how most curriculums are created.  This curriculum design provides structure for each subject taught.  The planning involves predesigned subject learning outcomes and objectives.  Instruction involves the teacher trying to have students meet the objectives of each subject at each grade level and assessment largely involves summative evaluations such as tests, quizzes, and assignments.  This is similar to our “Academic, scholar, or rationalism” component of curriculum where the essential skills in each subject are taught.  An example of this would be any provincial curriculum that uses language like “students will…” and then gives a predetermined skill students must learn in each unit.  This type of design is very structured which can be great as it gives teachers a clear road map for how to instruct and assess students.  It does however, leave some students behind.  A personal example would be my sister Julie.  Julie had what doctors could only call the “child version of ALS.  If you remember the trending ice bucket challenge from a few years ago, raising awareness and donations for those suffering from ALS you will remember that it is a disease the paralyzes people.  Julie became paralyzed from the waist up at age 4 and where her mind was sharp, it made things more difficult in her physical education classes.  One teacher she had in grade 5 failed her for not meeting the criteria of being able to dribble a basketball.  Although this seems like the work of a horrible teacher, the teacher in fairness was just following the subject matter design which stated that in order to pass that particular unit in physical education. One must learn how to dribble a basketball.  This is the downside of having a predetermined curriculum as it does not acknowledge students skills and challenges that they may have. 
In conclusion, what we have learned throughout our first three modules, is that no matter how you design your courses.  We should always leave room for student choices at the planning, instruction, and assessment areas of curriculum design.  We should also incorporate different design elements and not just focus on one.   By focusing too much on a design such as the subject matter design, we might be forgetting to incorporate teaching and assessment practices that help students thrive in society based on their own individual needs and challenges.  A balanced approach to curriculum would be best.  Thank you so much for taking the time to view our presentation.   
 
References:
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. (Pp. 149-173). (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Limited.
Ornstein, A. C. (1990/1991). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. High School Journal,74(2). Pp. 102-109.
Rogovin, P. (2015). Kindergartners’ questions become the curriculum. Social Studies and the Young Learner (28)1, 8–11.
Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction. (Pp. 52-61, 81-85, 103-106). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ursula Franklin Academy. https://schoolweb.tdsb.on.ca/ufa/ Date Retrieved: February 2, 2019.