Curriculum Development:
A Synthesis
Deborah Davis
Liberty University
EDUC 871
Overview
 Developing, Implementing, and
Evaluating Curriculum
 Approaches to Curriculum Development
 Implementation, Instruction, and Technology
 Evaluation and Assessment of Learning
Approaches
 Purposes the school seeks
 Educational experiences
 Organization
 Evaluation
Purposes
 Innovation
 Problem solving
 Love of learning
 Tools of analysis, expression, and understanding
 Roles
Experiences and Organization
 Building consensus
 Selecting the best
 Preparing for the future
Content and Performance Standards
 Content and Performance Standards
 Players and Methods
Implementation & Instruction
 Curriculum and/or instruction
 Models and bases
Technology
 Tech-savvy “digital natives”
 Creativity
 Differentiated learning
Evaluation
 Formative and Summative
 Self-evaluation of teaching style
 Emerging Trends
identify
choose
assess
dig
develop
examine
agree
ask why
Assessment
 Success in learning
 Differentiation of assessment methods
Conclusion
 “To keep the curriculum engine running smoothly,
regular tune-ups must be performed by highly trained
personnel who can diagnose engine problems before
they lead to actual breakdown” (Meyers, 2005/2014, p.
457).
Questions?
References
Ametepee, L. K., Tchinsala, Y., & Agbeh, A. O. (2014). The no child left behind act, the common core
state standards, and the school curriculum. Review Of Higher Education & Self-Learning,
7(25), 111-119.
Ansary, T. (2014), The muddle machine: Confessions of a textbook editor. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, &
G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs
(pp. 340-345). New York: Pearson. (Reprinted from Edutopia 1(2). (Nov. 2004)).
Boudett, K., Marnane, R., City, E., and Moody, L. (2014), Using student assessment data to improve
instruction. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for
developing quality educational programs (pp. 436-444). New York: Pearson. (Reprinted from
Phi Delta Kappan 86(9). (May 2005)).
Brown, L. (2014), The case for teacher-led school improvement. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass
(Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 346349). New York: Pearson. (Reprinted from Principal Magazine. (Apr 2008)).
References (continued)
Hass, G., (2014). Who should plan the curriculum? In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum
leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 313-316). New York:
Pearson. (Reprinted from Educational Leadership 19(1). (Oct 1961)).
Kempson, J. N. (2015). Star-crossed lovers: The department of education and the common core.
Administrative Law Review, 67(3), 595-628.
Maylone, N. (2014). TestThink?. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership:
Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 415-418). New York: Pearson.
(Reprinted from Phi Delta Kappan 85(5). (Jan 2004)).
Meyers, L. (2014).Time for a tune-up: Comprehensive curriculum evaluation. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, &
G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs
(pp. 453-457). New York: Pearson. (Reprinted from Principal Leadership 6(1). (2005)).
References (continued)
Miller, D. (2014). Assessing students with special needs in the general education classroom. In F.
Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality
educational programs (pp. 418-426). New York: Pearson. (Written for .), Curriculum
leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs. (10th Ed. 2014)).
Parkay, F., Anctil, E., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality
educational programs (Tenth ed.). New York: Pearson.
Phillips, V. & Wong, C. (2014). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction, and
assessments. In F. Parkay, E. Anctil, & G. Hass (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for
developing quality educational programs (pp. 317-322). New York: Pearson. (Reprinted from
Phi Delta Kappan19(5). (2010)).
Ralph, B. W., Thomson, D. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2014). Media multitasking and failures of
attention in everyday life. Psychological Research, 78(5), 661-669. doi:10.1007/s00426013-0523-7
Script notes
1 - During today’s presentation, Deborah Davis, who is working on her doctorate in
Curriculum and Instruction at Liberty University, will present a synthesis on curriculum
development.
Thank you for your kind welcome.
2 - Let’s start with an overview.
During today’s presentation, we will walk through the process of developing,
implementing, and evaluating curriculum. This will include some of the approaches to
curriculum development as well as the steps of implementation, instruction,
technology, evaluation, and assessment. Our primary resource for today’s presentation
is a work by Parkay, Anctil, and Hass (2014).
3 - Parkay, et al. (2014) reminded us, “Clearly there is no single right way to develop a
curriculum” (p. 297). Further, Parkay et al (2014) cites the Tyler rationale, asking
specifically about four issues: 1) the educational purposes; 2) the educational
experiences that are likely to achieve those purposes; 3) the necessary organization of
those experience; and 4) some method of evaluation to ensure purposes have been
met.
Script notes (continued)
4 - Within the Parkay et al (2014) text, there are a number of essays. One writer, Hass
(1979/2014) presents that these elements are “The curriculum we need” (p. 313). And that there
are roles for everyone engaged in the development process. Parents and other members of the
community are and should be guiding forces for determining the direction of the curriculum -innovation. Scholars in various fields know the best methods for developing situations in which
students will learn – problem solving. Students know whether or not the curriculum encourages
them to learn and to love learning. Educators understand what is required to implement a
curriculum, and can aid in developing tools that will enhance understanding and expression. As
Hass (1979/2014) said, “Who should plan the curriculum? Everyone interested in the future . . . “
(p. 316).
5 - Nobody knows what happens in a classroom better than the teacher and students in that
classroom. Consequently, while input from the students is important, input and engagement of
teachers is critical. Brown (2008/2014) presents this notion as building “instructional capacity and
instructional consensus among school staff” (p. 347). In embracing the construct that those most
engaged know what is best, this does not limit design options to the staff at the school. Instead, it
allows for community engagement on the highest order. Individuals, such as the Gabler’s in Texas
who founded Educational Research Analysts, can direct the future of our curriculum through
argument with textbook editors and the state review process (Ansary, 2004/2014). The key of
improved curriculum is a willingness to be non-traditional, student-oriented, and careful
reviewers of the voluminous data available (Brown, 2008/2014).
Script notes (continued)
6 - The last piece in the approaches to curriculum segment deals with standards. The idea that
someone out there in the big wide world, who frequently has no connection with day-to-day
classroom activities is enough to make any educator cringe. The ideal of a common set of state
standards to prepare all students equally for college-ready standards sounds like a wonderful ideal
(Phillips & Wong, 2010/2014). The reality has been less than wonderful. Granted the goal of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 100% proficiency was unattainable, but the federal mandate for
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is certainly no less so (Kempson, 2015). Since before the
days of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the government has been engaged in the educational
process. Indeed, most state constitutions have a provision for compulsory education. On the face
of it, governmental mandate to ensure children have a right to an educational base is decidedly
favorable. As usual, however, the devil is in the details. Presumably, CCSS was written to “fully
prepare students to compete successfully in the global economy” (Ametepee, Tchinsala, & Agbeh,
2014, p. 115). Of course, the details of CCSS are enough for a days-on-end conference, but suffice
it to say, the idealized purpose is one to be embraced, but the methodology, time constraints, and
engagement of boots-on-the-ground players leaves much to be desired.
7 - The differences between curriculum and instruction are noteworthy, though the two are not
mutually exclusive. While curriculum provides what to teach, instruction is how to teach it
(Parkay, et al., 2014). Any experienced or skilled educator knows that the models of teaching are
not exclusive, but intertwined and invoked as needed for the enhanced skills of the student.
Models also have bases: behavior psychology, Human development, cognitive processes, and
social interaction (Parkay, et al., 2014). It can be said the educational purposes are met if the
student understands the subject, can apply it to new issues, and wants to keep learning.
Script notes (continued)
8 - This image, available at guide2digitallearning.com is also in Parkey, et al. (2014, p. 366). While
it is difficult to view this way, I have included it because it is difficult. It represents the plethora of
digital communities to which a student is likely connected. And this is just those related to the
education of that student! The opportunities gained by the use of technology are plentiful. The
challenge is to aid the student in finding the ones that work the way that student learns. While
students today are considered to be “digital natives” because they were born into an age of digital
media abutting their every nerve, it does not mean that they are truly tech savvy. Many of them
know how to do most anything on their phones or game systems, but those skills do not always
transfer into the classroom setting. A study by Ralph, Thompson, Cheyne, and Smilek (2013) finds
that “media multitasking may be specifically related to problems in inattention” (p. 661). It isn’t
that students have more or less cognitive understanding, it is that they are so used to the rapid
fire engagement of their attention via the media that they do not know how to focus on one
activity, thought, or need for an extended period of time. That said, the educator of these
students must stay current on educational technology to engage the students and find their
individual learning methods. This way, the students can be taught the way they can best learn.
Script notes (continued)
9 - Evaluating curriculum is an ongoing process, or it should be. Those who use the curriculum
should be consistently determining if it works, if it works well, or if it needs modification.
Formative evaluation is the result of application. It allows an educator to determine if the
curriculum provided what the students needed to learn. As a consequence, teachers may change
they way they teach the curriculum. In summative evaluation, teachers are determining if the
students are ready to move forward at the end of the term. If a thorough use of curriculum leads
to an entire class ready or not ready to move forward, something can be presumed about that
curriculum.
Ongoing formative evaluation allows the teacher to evaluate personal teaching style. It presents a
cognitive factor into what can become a rote method. Turning the method can throw off everyone
in the classroom, and in doing so, can elicit a new excitement for learning the material. The cycle
pictured here comes from Boudett, Murnane, City, and Moody (2005/2014) and represents an
emerging trend in curriculum evaluation -- an improvement cycle: identify patterns in data
gleaned from assessments; choose patterns to explore for areas of improvement; dig deeper into
the data to assess problem areas; agree on a problem for action; ask why it is a problem; examine
current practices in that area; develop an action plan to solve that problem; implement the action
plan for that particular issue; assess the action plan for efficacy; and begin again on that problem
or another.
Script notes (continued)
10 - Assessment is more than just the test. Proper assessment allow “educational leaders to
determine the degree to which curriculum goals are being attained . . . and to develop strategies
for curriculum reform and improvement” (Parkay, et al., 2014, p. 403). Everyone values success,
but everyone has a different definition of success. In a world where the monetary factor is
overwhelming, sometimes it is hard to value success in the classroom as learning for the sake of
learning. One way to engage students in the assessment process is to differentiate the assessment
methods. While multiple choice may be easy to grade, written responses, portfolios, or project
work may show more of the students’ understanding. One consequence of mandated assessment
testing has been to lower the percentage required to pass (Parkay, et al., 2014). One solution is a
greater emphasis on performance-based assessments. Maylone (2004/2014) presents that those
who foist the standardized test requirements would be unwilling to take the tests themselves.
Test anxiety is a very real factor and warrants consideration. Another very real factor is the
inclusion of students with disabilities into the pool of test-takers. Some students with disabilities
are high-functioning and with few accommodations can rank high within the standardized testing
scales. Some, however, do not function in a manner that allows for such a measurement. As
presented by Miller (2014/2014), “Specific assessments for students with disabilities as described
in their IEP add another layer of complexity to the assessment picture” (p. 423).
Script notes (continued)
11 - Curriculum development is not a straightforward issue. It is a winding path that branches in
many directions. While it may seem direct or cyclical, it is not. Educators, however, in their many
skills and facets, are the key to ensuring that the curriculum meets the needs of all those engaged,
and that is everyone in the community. All told, the goal is met is the student understands the
material, can apply it to new learning, and wants to learn more.
12 - Thank you so much for your attention. Are there any questions for me?
Please note that my scripted references follow this slide and behind that is the script of this
presentation.