Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction
Curriculum and Instruction Curriculum is basically “what” is taught while instruction in Olive, ) defines the instruction as the interaction between someone who does in close association with instruction narrows the concept of curriculum. Find new research papers in: Physics · Chemistry · Biology · Health Sciences. Essay Preview. Designing curriculum, instruction, and assessments are steps teachers use to help them make sense of the concepts they teach and helps drive . subsequently gauged by a short answer comprehension test and an essay on . standing of the links between instructional content, instructional discourse, and.
Is academic knowledge facts and theory more important than technical knowledge practical and applied? In a specific sense, is English and History more important than shop class and home economics? Throughout history, the educational system has also been used as a socializing agent whereby students are indoctrinated into a belief and value system.
In these cases, school is used as a social change agent. The curriculum is designed in order to mold students thinking in areas such as ethnicity, religion, a shared national myth and many different agendas including: In these cases the curriculum is created to ignore or minimize facts, technique, and practical learning and is written in such a manner that the affective, moral and ethical aspects of thought are targeted.
Instruction refers to the way in which the content will be delivered. There are various questions that educators consider in order to design instruction. In other words educators need to discern who their student audience is in order to tailor the instruction to best suit their needs and socio-economic situation. Educating One and All: Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform. The National Academies Press. They define the breadth and depth of valued knowledge that students are expected to learn, and they are intended to reduce the curriculum disparities existing across schools and school districts.
For students with disabilities, the degree to which a set of content standards is relevant to their valued educational outcomes and consistent with proven instructional practices will determine how successfully they will participate in standards-based reform. At the present time, 48 states and the District of Columbia have content standards or are in the process of developing them Gandal, To provide a context for understanding the implications of these standards for the education of students with disabilities, this section examines the assumptions about post-school outcomes, curriculum, and instruction contained in current state content standards.
Purposes of Content Standards As described in Chapter 2content standards have three purposes, all intimately related to outcomes, curriculum, and instruction.
Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction
First, they help frame the education reform debate by publicly identifying what is important for schools to teach and for students to be able to demonstrate McLaughlin and Shepard, In a sense, then, content standards signal the outcomes that the public, policy makers, and educators consider valuable for students to exhibit at the end of their secondary schooling.
Second, content standards guide public school instruction, curriculum, and assessment in an organized and meaningful manner—essentially providing a map of where the curriculum should go and enabling schools and teachers to tailor their instruction to fit the needs of diverse learners.
Finally—and ideally—they can guide the allocation of instructional resources by clarifying the goals of instruction and motivating districts to identify how to use their resources to achieve these goals McLaughlin and Shepard, Thus, content standards are not simply a list of important knowledge and skills. Rather, they are a ''vision of what … curriculum should include in terms of content priority and emphasis.
Content standards should provide a coherent structure to guide curriculum and instruction" McLaughlin and Shepard, The emphasis is on guiding, not constricting, teaching, and learning Council for Basic Education, Varied Characteristics of State Content Standards As discussed in Chapter 2states are taking various approaches to developing content standards; consequently, their standards tend to differ by level of Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: Some state content frameworks focus on big ideas rather than specifics Elmore and Fuhrman, In civics, for instance, the Oregon Department of Education has developed relatively broad general guidelines; one example calls on students to "understand and apply knowledge about governmental and political systems, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens" Oregon Department of Education, By comparison, the Michigan Department of Education has developed more prescribed content standards for civics, such as: Some state content standards are so specific as to designate a particular piece of literature that must be covered at a certain grade.
Some states attach specific standards to grade levels; other provide more general outcomes that must be met at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
The degree of variation among the state content standards and their politically charged nature have led states to call their content standards by different names, including goals, standards, examples, benchmarks, guidelines, and frameworks Council of Chief State School Officers, A term being introduced by numerous states is expectations.
The Kentucky Department of Education's state standards are actually called Kentucky's Learning Goals and Academic Expectations and consist of broad goals to be achieved and demonstrated prior to graduation Kentucky Department of Education, Colorado defines its model content standards as setting "high expectations in these areas for all students" Colorado Department of Education, It is difficult to capture the extent of state variation in content standards.
Extant surveys of state standards are limited by both the criteria used for reporting and evaluating the standards and when the data were collected. Two areas that were of particular interest to the committee were the content domains addressed by the standards and the pedagogical implications.Formative and Summative Evaluation, concept, nature and purpose
Although there have been several national surveys of state standards development, the most recent evidence pertaining to areas in which standards are developed is available from the Council of Great City Schools Based on information obtained from 48 states, this survey indicated that almost every state was developing or had completed standards in the four core areas of mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts.
Furthermore, only the core academic areas are currently being assessed. The only in-depth analysis of the pedagogical implications of standards was conducted in the areas of mathematics and science by the Council of Chief State School Officers Blank and Pechman, The results of this review of state standards indicated that recently developed state standards frameworks link math Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: Despite the variation in the specificity, level of application, and labels used for content standards across the nation, similarities do occur across many states.
For example, most states require students to be able to write well, apply prior knowledge to understand texts, demonstrate an ability to organize information, work with others, relate different experiences, integrate English skills throughout the curriculum, and demonstrate cultural sensitivity Council for Basic Education, To obtain a richer picture of the types of standards being developed by states across content domains, the committee examined more closely the content standards documents developed by seven states that represent both early and more recent developers of content standards, as well a regional mix.
The content standards we looked at include more than global statements of valued knowledge or skills; most are multilevel documents that begin with a goal statement, then further define the goals, sometimes through several levels of standards, expected performances, or sample demonstrations. Our examination suggested that standards vary greatly across and within states in terms of organization and level of specificity.
None of the standards documents seemed to provide the full scope and sequence required of a curriculum. Instead, all provide frameworks for defining the essential or enduring knowledge expected to be demonstrated by students at various stages in their education.
Mirroring the results of the state-by-state survey, the completed standards for the states we examined were predominantly academic. All seven states have completed math, science, and social studies standards as well as standards in areas of reading and writing or language arts.
Two additional states embed the arts within other standards e. Within the academic areas, the content standards seemed to range from a focus on basic knowledge and skills e. Most of the standards appeared to emphasize more abstract applications.
In only two states did reading standards include specific reference to basic literacy skills. One such standard, "Students read and understand a variety of materials," included the expectation that students will use comprehension skills such as previewing, predicting, comparing and contrasting, re-reading, and self-monitoring as well as word recognition skills such as phonics, context clues, picture clues, word origins, and word order clues.
In a second state, the standard, "Comprehend a variety of printed materials," included the ability to recognize, pronounce, and know the meaning of words using phonics skills, language structure, context clues, and visual skills. Across all seven states, social studies, history, and related standards included references to specific knowledge or skills, such as ''relate historical events of the 17th and 18th centuries in chronological order" or "use maps and globes to trace the migration of various groups during specific periods of time.
Although the references varied across the standards, the standards did suggest at least two implications for instruction. First, with respect to content, most of the standards call on students to be able to apply, demonstrate, or use some set of knowledge and skills, rather than just to know isolated facts or be able to perform basic computations or operations.
- Looking for other ways to read this?
Second, in terms of instructional format, the standards refer to group problem solving and cooperation, to specific projects or demonstrations students are expected to develop, and to specific materials, resources, and technology students are expected to use.
These pedagogical features noted by the committee in its examination of state standards appear to be part of a larger trend across national and state content standards. The review of math and science standards by the Council of Chief State School Officers Blank and Pechman, indicated that within the 40 state standards frameworks reviewed, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards, the AAAS benchmarksand the National Research Council's science education standards were represented.
A total of 32 of the frameworks provided pedagogical guidance within the standard and 30 of them included pedagogical strategies that were considered as "constructive and active" lessons. This pedagogical influence reflects recent cognitive research on such questions as how to present and sequence information, how to organize practice, how to motivate students, and how to assess learning.
Findings from cognitive research have challenged the traditional view that most knowledge can be transferred more or less intact from teacher to learner.
This research proposes that, in order for some kinds of learning to occur, students must play an active role in Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: This cognitive approach to instruction, called constructivism, asserts that the learner is the most important element in the teaching-learning situation—more important than materials, lessons, teachers, and other external factors.
The influential standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM exemplify how many of the new standards have embraced pedagogical principles such as constructivism: The NCTM standards call for problem solving to become the basis of instruction.
They also recommend increased attention to areas such as teaching students to develop a sense of what numbers signify, to understand the meaning behind mathematical operations, to develop strategies for learning basic facts, and to be able to justify their thinking p. Examples of areas to receive decreased attention include isolated treatment of paper-and-pencil computations, use of clue words to determine which math operations to use, an emphasis on one right answer and one correct method, and teaching by telling.
Similar principles are evident in the national science standards, which reflect a more experiential approach to learning National Research Council, It is important to note that the impacts of content standards on actual classroom curriculum and instruction are largely unknown at this time and are likely to be influenced by the extent to which the standards are mandated or voluntary and whether they are linked to assessment.
This section describes the post-school outcomes traditionally valued in special education for many students with disabilities and their instructional implications.
Curriculum and Instruction | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™
It also provides an overview, drawn from empirical literature, of the characteristics of effective instruction for many students with disabilities. Student Outcomes and Their Relationship to Curriculum Historically, many of the outcomes expected of human service programs for people with disabilities were primarily oriented to protection and care.
This philosophy resulted in services that often isolated the individual and provided physical care rather than preparation for life in a heterogeneous world. With the civil rights movement of the past two decades, one aspect of which focused on educating students with disabilities in public schools, traditional outcomes were reconceptualized to encompass: This broader set of outcomes aims to better prepare students with disabilities to become productive and independent adults.
The importance of explicitly focusing the education of students with disabilities on the transition to adult life has been well documented Rusch et al. The model has eight outcome domains: According to this model, the actions taken place in the classroom greatly differs from or even ignores the plans available in the curriculum. Retrospectively, the curriculum planners tend to ignore the agents in the schools and, in turn, what happens in the classroom is taken place under the control of the teachers Olive, As also Pinar mentions, since the school personnel have little influence on the curriculum making and instruction and learning are quantified in the test scores, the curriculum is ignored by them and the schooling process splits the curriculum from instruction.
As for interlocking model, instruction and curriculum are interwoven and neither one of them perfectly dominates each other. Neither objectives nor teaching methods are given the whole importance but they are interrelated. This may be occurred in two ways.
Either instruction may have the predominant role or the curriculum. For instance, the teaching methods wholly direct the curriculum or the objectives wholly direct the teaching methods. This may raise many questions because as McKernan suggests, in education, the process of curriculum making or instruction should be included in the whole unity due to potential lack of teacher development issues.
The unity according to him, the separation as well does not yield to produce healthy results. The last model to be discussed is the cyclical model where the instruction and curriculum do not have a common room but separately affect each other lending feedback to each concept in a continuous manner.