ct898 Dietmeier Standardcaep4
ct898 Dietmeier Standardcaep4
ct898 Dietmeier Standardcaep4
Taylor Dietmeier
Kansas University
CT 709
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
Abstract
be a formula, ultimately neglecting opportunities for students to express themselves and solve
meaningful real-world problems. This paper explains the importance of structure, project-based
learning, and multicultural education in order to raise up a generation of quality thinkers and
world changers.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
Part 1
Ralph W. Tyler and Jerome S. Bruner were early curriculum theorists whose works - Basic
Principles of Curriculum and Instruction by Ralph W. Tyler and Man: A Course of Study by Jerome
S. Bruner – critiqued scientific curriculum-making and revealed a dedication to and belief in the
study of the learner for the basis of curriculum. Although both were seeking to understand the
learner, Tyler and Bruner’s intended reasons for studying learners were strikingly different. Tyler
sought to study deficiencies in behavior and understanding, while Bruner aimed to discover and
Tyler and Bruner’s theories came to life in their writings about pedagogy and content
implementation. Tyler highly emphasized objectives and linear outcomes, using deficiencies to
guide objectives (Tyler, p. 71). Bruner, on the other hand, believed that teachers should be
facilitating learning, presenting puzzles, games, and contrasting ideas to invoke conversation,
relationships, and discoveries in students (Bruner, p.91). In Man: A Course of Study, Bruner wrote
that a successful teacher is one that makes the content interesting, relevant, and interactive
(Bruner, p. 79), and educators should discover areas of curiosity in students when deciding what
content should be taught (p. 78). He emphasized metacognition, saying, “Children should be at
least as self-conscious about their strategies of thought as they are about their attempts to
commit things to memory” (p. 89). In short, Tyler is concerned about the product and Bruner is
Throughout the course, my perspective of Ralph Tyler has changed quite dramatically.
Initially as I was reading his work, I felt my head nodding in agreement, reflecting to my earlier
days at a chaotic project-based school that was lacking so much structure that they weren’t sure
whether or not students were passing or failing. Being an analytical thinker, I enjoyed Tyler’s
emphasis on structure and outcomes. His writing felt like a perfect formula; first analyze the
student for gaps, then make an objective, then test for outcomes. Everything in me was saying,
“YES! A formula!” I had found exactly what I wanted; a simple answer. But I knew deep down
It seems that simplicity is exactly what has been behind the political high-stakes testing
movement. But when politicians, educators, and institutions choose one aspect of a theorist and
use it in isolation, it becomes simplified and surface level, and we fail to achieve our ultimate
goal: learning. Through the course, I have discovered that students, schools, diversity, and
curriculum are complex, and the ideals of a given theorist are not intended to stand alone, but
work in conjunction with other beliefs. I have realized that Ralph Tyler’s work was not only
ground-breaking and pivotal, but it was incredibly influential. He’s one of the few theorists
whose work is emphasized daily in practically every school in the world. Objectives, gaps, and
assessment are words repeated profusely by educators and administrators alike. I’m afraid,
however, that we have taken Tyler’s linear outcomes-based strategies and completely neglected
the complexity of the classroom. We’ve isolated it and traded it for true, meaningful learning.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
The last presentation in the course stated that each new theorist brings new ideas to the
world of curriculum, and no consensus has been made. As critical theorists, we must recognize
that curriculum is complex, and we should be careful to implement multiple practices that
support meaningful student learning. At the beginning of the course, I argued that it is possible
to be a teacher that implements the ideologies of both theorists, Tyler and Bruner. Now, more
than ever before, I believe that an excellent teacher must strive to be an educator who maintains
aspects of both theorists. Structure, objectives, and outcomes can and should exist at the same
Part 2
Many students in Kenya have been setting their schools on fire out of frustration for not
being heard (Mabel, p.1). In response, schools have been enforcing even stricter discipline,
increasing practice exams, and eliminating arts programs. Teachers, administrators, and policy-
holders are making decisions because they want to help their students get on a path for success.
I, too, want my students to be successful, but I believe using a slightly different approach will get
disturbed by the lack of respect for and belief in learners, and I hypothesize that my school’s
action steps, namely to eliminate arts education, are going to produce stronger resistance – and
creativity in the arts, and ultimately their success. My recommendation was that we make one
of the values at Uhuru Academy “Student Empowerment,” because I genuinely believe that their
success depends on it. Practically, I proposed the following: 1) art/music courses offered one
period per week for all students during normal class hours, 2) weekly afterschool
art/music/dance clubs, 3) forums for students to voice complaints and considerations. Students
are tired of the strict way of thinking that only has time for irrelevant curriculum to be transferred
from one person to another (also known as naïve thinking by Freire, p. 149, Flinders & Thornton,
2009). We need to support our students for the exam, while at the same time giving them space
(Greene, p. 158, Flinders & Thornton, 2009). We need to ignite our students’ background
knowledge and experiences, to give them openings that help them weave a web of connection
which births meaning and mastery. I want to empower them with confidence, expression, voice,
Towards the end of this course, particularly during Elaine Chan’s case study about
diversity and values, I discovered that there are times where a teacher’s beliefs and values are
pointedly different from a parent or colleague. Throughout my time in Kenya, I’ve had to discern
between pushing an American value and standing up to defend students. The very idea of
colleagues know that I value student empowerment and that I unabashedly bring that into my
workplace. The question I still have, however, is whether or not that is wrong.
I once co-led a parenting seminar for parents of scholarship students in one of the
displaced people camps where some of my students reside. We talked about adolescence,
particularly the physical and social changes that cause adolescents to go through behavioral
changes. At the end of the seminar, one parent said that she had learned that she should no
longer hit her daughter, but she believed strongly that her daughter needed to be submissive and
should not directly speak to her mother or father in the home. That wasn’t a value I was
comfortable quietly accepting, nor did I think it was appropriate for me to argue in that moment.
In the same way, a few months ago, students were complaining that a group of students
had been stealing everyone’s uniforms while they were drying on the line. The student council
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
members came to the principal and me with utter excitement. “We came up with a brilliant plant
to stop the thieving! A Wall of Shame! When a thief is caught, we will announce them in the
assembly and post their picture on the Wall of Shame outside of the school office.” My value of
positive culture chimed in and suggested a different solution to the thieving problem. That time,
I couldn’t hold back my beliefs about empowerment and positive school culture, and I refused to
allow a Wall of Shame at the school, even if it was a common practice in Kenya.
Every day, I face difficult situations that reveal that my values and beliefs are remarkably
different from the beliefs of my colleagues, students, and community. And yet, because they are
my values, they feel like they are right and worth fighting for.
I wouldn’t say that this course has caused me to change my values or beliefs, but it has
definitely helped me solidify them with research and consider carefully how I express them in a
culture that holds different values. With writings from Noddings, Dewey, Montessori, and more,
I was able to grow in my belief that education is more than grades and exams, which was a
principle I have held for several years. Through readings from Sleeter and Stillman, Eisner, and
Sumara and Davis, I was able to better evaluate my own practice in how I convey my beliefs and
values, and determine to what extent it impedes on another’s value system. I look forward to
Part 3
disciplines together and encourages local problem-solving. Like Nel Noddings, I believe that we
live in a critical “age when attention must be given to the problems of resources (especially
post-industrial work, the conditions of minorities, and globalization… People must work together,
communicate effectively, be willing and able to solve problems without undo self-interest, and
be flexible in the face of change” (Noddings, p. 79). Students should not simply know or
memorize irrelevant curriculum that has been transferred from the teacher’s mind to the
students’ paper (Freire, p. 149); rather, students should engage, explore, justify, analyze and
apply newfound knowledge. Knowledge is a very powerful gift that, if used and applied to solve
real-world problems, can make incredible changes in the community. Like Eisner, I believe
excellent schools should be able to answer the question, “What opportunities do students have
to work cooperatively to address problems that they believe to be important?” (Eisner, 332).
variety of perspectives through activities and discussions. Even if all of the students seemingly
look the same and come from similar backgrounds, celebrating their individual heritage and
identity gives them meaning and self-expression. At the same time, students need to learn the
language and culture of power to be successful, which was explained in the Module 7 video
discussion between Lisa Delpit and Christine Sleeter (A326Group, 2010). I have seen that at my
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
school, we fail to do either target well. Students from Uhuru Academy represent about 42
different tribes, which each have a unique language and culture. One of the school rules is to
speak English at every moment during the week. Swahili is allowed on the weekends but tribal
language is banned in schools as a national law. This rule exists because English is the language
of power in Kenya, and tribal language is the language of war. English brings jobs, it helps one
pass her national exams, and it is the language of University, while tribal language brings conflict
and division. Students consistently push the boundaries and break these rules, to the point
where teachers have given up enforcing the rules (though I suppose it is vice-versa). On one
hand, we are failing at teaching our students a language of power. On the other hand, we are
more flexibility in the curriculum. We can’t possibly “cover” all of the content and expect
students to transform their communities and consider everyone’s perspectives and values.
Reading Nel Noddings Curriculum for the 21st Century brought me so much peace about the
challenges I see in curriculum today. Like Noddings, I have often wondered what it would be like
disciplinary and truly multicultural? What if we didn’t have the traditional disciplines, but
provided problems in today’s society that require students to work together, necessitating
multiple disciplines and skills in order to solve the problem? It will never work, I have thought,
the system is far too drenched in traditional disciplines and testing at every level. Our students
won’t be equipped for their next level of education, which will likely be traditional.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
When I consider how to practically prepare students for further education while still
Noddings. She suggested that the traditional disciplines which organize the rubric for curriculum
“be stretched from within, that we push back the boundaries between disciplines and ask how
each of the expanded subjects can be designed to promote new aims for the 21 st century”
(Noddings, p. 81). There simply isn’t enough time or freedom within the curriculum to create an
environment that inspires students to think deeply. Noddings argues that we should not “cover”
so much materials, but we should push back the boundaries of the disciplines to discuss topics in
history, religion, biography, and politics even in the science classroom (Noddings, p. 80).
My goal as an educator is to raise up students who can think on their own and express
their perspectives confidently. At the same time, the 21st century requires them to work
collaboratively and respectfully. Lastly, our society is hungry for people to utterly transform the
world by the quality of their thinking and problem-solving. We do not need another generation
of people whose only skill is to regurgitate facts on an exam. Pushing back boundaries of
disciplines will create more time for project-based, critical- and creative-thinking, and
multicultural education.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
References
A326Group. (2010, Dec. 10). Lisa Delpit and Christine Sleeter. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVBvxfdM1A4&feature=youtu.be.
(eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 15-22. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bruner, J. S. (2009) Man: A Course of Study. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum
Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 78-93. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (2009) My Pedagogic Creed. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum
Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 34-42. New York, NY: Routledge.
Flinders, David J. & Thornton, Stephen J. (2009) The Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.).
(eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 15-22. New York, NY: Routledge.
Glenn, B. (2011). The Impact of Arts Education in the Developing World (Master’s Dissertation).
Greene, M. (2009). Curriculum and Consciousness. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.),
Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 78-93. New York, NY: Routledge.
Philosophy of Curriculum: Final Paper
Mabel, W. (2016). List: Over 100 Schools Burned in Kenya in Two Months. Retrieved from
https://www.tuko.co.ke/160676-list-school-fires-reported-in-kenya-in-2016-per-
county.html.
Montessori, M. (2009) A Critical Consideration of the New Pedagogy in its Relation to Modern
Science. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp.
Noddings, N. (2007). Curriculum for the 21st Century. In: Educational Studies in Japan:
Tyler, R. W. (2009) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. In: D. J. Flinders & S. J.
Thornton (eds.), Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed.), pp. 69-78. New York, NY:
Routledge.