Differentiated instruction

Generated by eReadUps

- Differentiated instruction (wikipedia.org)

- Carol Ann Tomlinson (wikipedia.org)

- WebQuest (wikipedia.org)

- Response to intervention (wikipedia.org)

- Curriculum theory - Psychology Wiki (wikia.com)

Differentiated instruction

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. It uses material retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_instruction on 2010-07-06.

CONTENTS

About

Pre-assessment

Content

Process

Product

References

External links

Differentiated instruction
Jump to: navigation, search
Differentiated instruction (sometimes referred to as differentiated learning) involves providing students with different avenues to acquiring content; to processing, constructing, or making sense of ideas; and to developing teaching materials so that all students within a classroom can learn effectively, regardless of differences in ability.[1]

Differentiated instruction, according to Carol Ann Tomlinson (as cited by Ellis, Gable, Greg, & Rock, 2008, p. 32), is the process of “ensuring that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning”. Differentiation stems from beliefs about differences among learners, how they learn, learning preferences and individual interests (Anderson, 2007). "Research indicates that many of the emotional or social difficulties gifted students experience disappear when their educational climates are adapted to their level and pace of learning."[2]

About

In differentiated instruction students are placed at the center of teaching and learning[1]. Because each learner comes to school with a different set of learning needs, examples of which include differing educational, personal, and communal contexts[3] and varying degrees of academic skill development,[4] differentiated instruction advocates that the educator proactively plans a variety of instruction methods so as to best facilitate effective learning experiences which are suited to the various learning needs within the classroom[1]. In its pursuit of this foundational goal, differentiated instructional methods attempt to qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively, match learners' abilities with appropriate material; include a blend of whole-class, group, and individual instruction; use numerous approaches to facilitating input, processing, and output; and constantly adapt to learners' needs based upon the teacher's constant assessment of all students[1].

Often referred to as an educational philosophy, differentiated instruction is viewed as a proactive approach to instruction and an idea that has as many faces as practitioners. The model of differentiated instruction requires teachers to tailor their instruction and adjust the curriculum to students’ needs rather than expecting students to modify themselves to fit the curriculum. Teachers who are committed to this approach believe that who they teach shapes how they teach because who the students are shapes how they learn.

The perfect model of differentiated instruction rests upon an active, student centered, meaning-making approach to teaching and learning. The theoretical and philosophical influences embedded in differentiated instruction support the three key elements of differentiated instruction itself: readiness, interest, and learning profile (Allan & Tomlinson, 2000).

Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, proved that individuals learn best in accordance with their readiness to do so (Allan & Tomlinson, 2008). This theoretical influence provides a concrete foundation for differentiated instruction. The readiness of the individual should match what a student learns, how they learn it and how the student demonstrates what they learned when using differentiated instruction.

The philosophical idea that interest based options seize on intrinsic motivation, supports the second key element of differentiated instruction, student interest. According to Jerome Bruner (as cited by Allan & Tomlinson, 2000), when interest is tapped, learning is more likely to be rewarding and the student becomes a more autonomous learner.

An American psychologist, Howard Gardner, developed the theory of multiple intelligences. His theory states that people have different intelligences and learn in many different ways. Gardner’s theory suggests that schools should offer individual-centered education, having curriculum tailored to a child’s intelligence preference (Allan & Tomlinson, 2000). Essentially, Gardner supports the third key element of differentiated instruction, which accounts for different student learning profiles.

Differentiated instruction integrates constructivist learning theories, learning styles, and brain development with research on influencing factors of learner readiness, interest and intelligence preferences toward students’ motivation, engagement, and academic growth within schools (Anderson, 2007). According to educational psychologist Kathie Nunley, differentiated instruction became an essential part of US educator's repertoire as the make-up of the general classroom moved from homogeneous groupings of students prior to the 1970s to the ever increasing variety of learners seen in the heterogeneous classroom make-up in the last 40 years[5] (Nunley, 2006).

By using differentiated instruction, educators can meet all individual student needs and help every student meet and exceed established standards (Levy, 2008). According to Tomlinson (as cited by Rebora, 2008), the perceived need for differentiated instruction lies in the fact that students vary in so many ways and student populations are becoming more academically diverse. Chances are pretty good that the trend of diverse student populations will continue throughout our lifetimes.

Pre-assessment

For some teachers, the first and most important step in differentiated instruction is determining what students already know so as not to cover material students have mastered, or use methods that would be ineffective for students. A preassessment can be a quiz, game, discussion, or other activity that asks students to answer some of the questions that would be used to evaluate their performance at the end of an upcoming unit or lesson. It may also be in the form of a learning inventory, such as a Multiple Intelligences inventory (still regarded with skepticism by many researchers)[6], so the teacher will be able to determine how students within the class prefer to learn.

Some models of differentiation do not require a pre-assessment, but rather have students self-assess daily through oral defense, such as in Layered Curriculum. ([7] Nunley, 2004, 2006)

The goals of differentiated instruction are to develop challenging and engaging tasks for each learner (from low-end learner to high-end learner). Instructional activities are flexible and based and evaluated on content, process and product. This instructional approach and choice of content are driven by the data from students’ assessment results and from the outcomes of other screening tools. Meaningful pre- and post-assessment leads to successful differentiation by producing the results that communicate the students’ needs.

Content

The content of lessons may be differentiated based on what students already know. The most basic content of a lesson should cover the standards of learning set by the district or state. Some students in a class may be completely unfamiliar with the concepts in a lesson, some students may have partial mastery of the content - or display mistaken ideas about the content, and some students may show mastery of the content before the lesson begins. The teacher may differentiate the content by designing activities for groups of students that cover different areas of Bloom's Taxonomy. For example, students who are unfamiliar with the concepts may be required to complete tasks on the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension, and application. Students with partial mastery may be asked to complete tasks in the application, analysis and evaluation areas, and students who have high levels of mastery may be asked to complete tasks in evaluation and synthesis.

When a teacher differentiates content they may adapt what they want the students to learn or how the students will gain access to the knowledge, understanding and skills (Anderson, 2007). Educators are not varying student objectives or lowering performance standards for students. They use different texts, novels or short stories at a reading level appropriate for each individual student. Teachers can use flexible groups and have students assigned to alike groups listening to books on tape or specific internet sources. Students could have a choice to work in pairs, groups or individually, but all students are working towards the same standards and objectives.

Process

The process of how the material in a lesson is learned may be differentiated for students based on their learning styles, taking into account what standards of performance are required for the age level. This stage of differentiation allows students to learn based either on what method is easiest for them to acquire knowledge, or what may challenge them most: some students may prefer to read about a topic (or may require practice in reading), and others may prefer to listen (or require practice in listening), or acquire knowledge by manipulating objects associated with the content. Information may be presented in multiple ways by the teacher, and may be based on any available methods or materials. Many teachers use areas of Multiple Intelligences to provide learning opportunities.

Commonalities in the assessment results lead to grouping practices that are planned designed to meet the students’ needs. "How" a teacher plans to deliver the instruction is based on assessment results that show the needs, learning styles, interests, and levels of prior knowledge. The grouping practices must be flexible, as groups will change with regard to the need that will be addressed. Regardless of whether the differentiation of instruction is based upon student readiness, interests, or needs, the dynamic flow of grouping and regrouping is one of the foundations of differentiated instruction. It is important for a differentiated classroom to allow some students to work alone, if this is their best modality for a particular task. (Nunley, 2004)

Differentiating by process refers to how a student comes to understand and assimilate facts, concepts and skills (Anderson, 2007). After teaching a lesson, a teacher might break students into small “ability” groups based on their readiness. The teacher would then give each group a series of questions, based on each group's appropriate level of readiness-skills, related to the objectives of the lesson. Another way to group the students could be based on the students’ learning styles. The main idea behind this is that students are at different levels and learn in different ways, so a teacher can’t teach them all the same way.

Another model of differentiation, Layered Curriculum, simply offers student a choice of assignments but requires demonstration of learning in order to pass of the assignment. This eliminates the need for pre-assessment and is useful for teachers with large class loads, such as in high school. (Nunley, 2004).

Product

The product is essentially what the student produces at the end of the lesson to demonstrate the mastery of the content: tests, evaluations, projects, reports, or other activities. Based on students' skill levels and educational standards, teachers may assign students to complete activities that demonstrate mastery of an educational concept (writing a report), or in a method the student prefers (composing an original song about the content, or building a 3-dimensional object that explains mastery of concepts in the lesson or unit). The product is an integral component of the differentiated model, as the preparation of the assessments will primarily determine both the ‘what’ and ‘how’ instruction will be delivered.

When an educator differentiates by product or performance, they are affording students various ways of demonstrating what they have learned from the lesson or unit (Anderson, 2007; Nunley, 2006). It is done by using menu unit sheets, choice boards or open-ended lists of final product options. It is meant to allow students to show what they learned based on their learning preferences, interests and strengths.

Examples of differentiated structures include Layered Curriculum, tiered instruction, tic-tac-toe extension menus, Curry/Samara models, RAFT writing activities, and similar designs.(see external links below)

In differentiated instruction, teachers respond to students’ readiness, instructional needs, interests and learning preferences and provide opportunities for students to work in varied instructional formats. A classroom that utilizes differentiated instruction is a learner-responsive, teacher-facilitated classroom where all students have the opportunity to meet curriculum foundation objectives. Lessons may be on inquiry based, problem based and project based instruction.

References

1. ^ [a] [b] [c] [d] Tomlinson, Carol (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Differentiated Instructions provides access for all students to the general education curriculum. The method of assessment may look different for each child, however the skill / concepts taught will be the same. Classrooms (2 ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN 0871205122.

2. ^ Neihart, Maureen ed., with Reis, Sally; Robinson, Nancy; and Moon, Sidney, (2002). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? National Association of Gifted Children (Prufrock Press, Inc.). p. 286

3. ^ Taylor, Lorraine; Catharine Whittaker (2003). Bridging Multiple Worlds: Case Studies of Diverse Educational Communities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0321086694.

4. ^ Levine, Mel (2002). A Mind at a Time. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743202228.

5. ^ Nunley, K. 2006. Differentiating the High School Classroom, Corwin Press. pg 8

6. ^ Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review 18, 263-270.

7. ^ Nunley, K. (2006). Differentiating the High School Classroom. Corwin Press

This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (February 2008)

Allan, S. D., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54.

Ellis, E., Gable, R. A., Gregg, M., Rock, M. L. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164.

Rebora, A. (2008). Making a difference. Teacher Magazine, 2(1), 26, 28-31.

Nunley, K. (2004). Layered Curriculum. 2nd ed. Brains.org: Amherst, NH

Nunley, K. (2006). Differentiating the High School Classroom: Solution Strategies for 18 Common Obstacles. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

External links

- Learning Styles Questionnaire - The JAS Group

- Best Practices: Pieces of the Puzzle

- Dimensions of Differentiated Learning.

- Explanation of Dimensions of Differentiated Learning

- Example of a tiered lesson

- An example of a tic tac toe extension menu

- Information on developing RAFT activities

- Example of a Curry/Samara grid

- Carol Tomlinson: Differentiation Expert

- Differentiation - National Association of Gifted Children

- Differentiated Instruction - Reading Rockets and American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

Carol Ann Tomlinson

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. It uses material retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Ann_Tomlinson on 2010-07-06.

Carol Ann Tomlinson
Jump to: navigation, search
Carol Ann Tomlinson is an American educator, author and speaker. She is best known for her innovative work with Differentiated instruction education techniques. Tomlinson is a reviewer for eight journals and has authored over 200 articles, books, and other professional development materials.

Her books on Differentiation, translated into eleven languages, include How to Differentiate Instruction in a Mixed Ability Classroom, The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, and Leadership for Differentiated Schools and Classrooms. She has recently co-authored a book with noted educational expert Jay McTighe titled Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. [1]

Carol also participates in several web-related professional development services, including webinars with EdWeek.org [2] and an online Differentiated Instruction course with Knowledge Delivery Systems [3]

Tomlinson has a background in German, English, education, technological studies in youth education and drama, reading, speech pathology, gifted education, and curriculum and instruction for creative and critical thinking. [4]

1. ^ http://www.caroltomlinson.com/

2. ^ http://www.edweek.org/

3. ^ http://www.kdsi.org

4. ^ http://www.nvcc.edu/loudoun/CTE/id62.htm

WebQuest

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. It uses material retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebQuest on 2010-07-06.

CONTENTS

How to develop a WebQuest

Developments in WebQuest Methodologies

Use in Education

Elementary Education

Secondary Education

Tools

External links

References

WebQuest
Jump to: navigation, search
A WebQuest, as implied by the name, is an inquiry-based, on-line learning activity. During this activity students work in groups, dividing assignments among each other, so that everyone participates in a group-assigned role. The objective of the activity is to promote "transformative" learning outcomes, accomplished through the reading, analysis, and synthesis of Web-based information. Webquests were invented by Bernie Dodge and Tom March at San Diego State University in 1995.

According to Dodge's original publication a WebQuest is "an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all of the information that learners interact with comes from resources on the internet, optionally supplemented with videoconferencing" (Dodge, 1995a; Dodge, 1995b).

How to develop a WebQuest

This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (December 2009)

Learners typically complete WebQuests as cooperative groups. Each learner within a group can be given a "role," or specific area to research. WebQuests may take the form of role-playing scenarios, where students take on the personas of professional researchers or historical figures.

A teacher can search for WebQuests on a particular topic or they can develop their own using a web editor like Microsoft FrontPage or Dreamweaver. This tool allows learners to complete various tasks using other Cognitive tools (e.g. Inspiration, MS Word, PowerPoint, Access, Excel, and Publisher). With the focus of education increasingly being turned to differentiated instruction, teachers are using WeQuests more frequently. WebQuests also help to address the different learning styles of each students. The number of activities associated with a WebQuest can reach almost any student.

WebQuests may be created by anyone; typically they are developed by educators. The first part of a WebQuest is the introduction. This describes the WebQuest and gives the purpose of the activity. The next part describes what students will do. Then is a list of what to do and how to do it. There are usually a list of links to follow to complete the activity.

Finally, WebQuests do not have to be developed as a true web site. They may be developed and implemented using lower threshold (less demanding) technologies, (e.g. they may be saved as a word document on a local computer).

Many Webquests are being developed by college students across the United States as a requirement for their K-12 Planning e-portfolio.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (February 2007)

Developments in WebQuest Methodologies

The WebQuest methodology has been transferred to language learning in the 3D virtual world Second Life to create a more immersive and interactive experience[1].

Use in Education

Elementary Education

A WebQuest is an instructional model that was developed in 1995 by Bernie Dodge. A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity where students gather information from a variety of Internet sources and then apply the new knowledge to explain a concept. Experiences from real life provide learning opportunities and motivation for students. By integrating technology into classroom instruction, students get involved in real life learning.

Research demonstrates that using WebQuests at the elementary level can be beneficial to students. Depending on the age group of the learners, teachers can design WebQuests that are more general or specific in nature. The key to designing an effective WebQuest is to have a clear purpose and objective in mind.

WebQuests can be designed to be an effective use of student time by being organized and focused on using information instead of searching for it. These two factors contribute to ensuring that students remain on task while online. WebQuests extend the students' thinking to the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy; analysis, synthesis and evaluation. WebQuests also support a variety of instructional and cognitive practices such as critical thinking and problem solving through authentic assessment, cooperative learning, scaffolding and technology integration.

Teachers may incorporate WebQuests into their instruction to introduce a unit or to conclude a unit, as a culmination activity. WebQuests may also be used to foster cooperative learning through collaborative activities with a group project. Teachers use WebQuests to encourage independent thinking and to motivate students; thus increasing learning. Finally, WebQuests can be designed to help enhance students’ technological competencies.

Webquests are valuable tools for differentiating instruction. Teachers are able to provide multiple websites to use as reading content, allowing students to use the resource that works best for their level of understanding. Gifted students are able to research a topic deeply, while other students are exposed to the same websites. Students can then utilize the appropriate information for their abilities in order to complete the WebQuest. Providing a choice of final product to demonstrate understanding is another form of differentiation imbedded into a WebQuest. Webquests also encourage accountability. Specific task guidelines and/or rubrics are provided from the beginning of the WebQuest project, so that all students are aware of exactly what is expected of them. [2] [3]

Secondary Education

Webquests in secondary education include the same components as in primary education. Focus is on understanding a concept through the use of the Internet. Students have met the objective when they have gathered information and are able to show what they have learned. Webquests at the secondary level can be used across the curriculum. Secondary teachers can choose to adapt an existing Webquest some examples can be accessed at the following sites: [4] [5] [6] Secondary teachers can also make their own Webquest. Developing a good webquest requires that teachers analyze several webquests to become familiar with the components and format. [7]

"The more meaningful, the more deeply or elaboratively processed, the more situated in content, and the more rooted in cultural, background, metacognitive, and personal knowledge an event is, the more readily it is understood, learned, and remembered." (Iran-Nejad, McKeachie, and Berliner, 1990, p. 511)

WebQuests are reflective, fluid, and dynamic. They provide teachers with the opportunity to integrate. Internet technology into the course curriculum by allowing students to experience learning as they construct their perceptions, beliefs, and values out of their experiences (Beane, 1997). A WebQuest activity presents students with access to a plethora of resources that have been pre-screened by the WebQuest's creator. The way the activity is designed discourages students from simply surfing the Web in an open-ended, unstructured manner. The WebQuest activity is a useful tool for enhancing the development of transferable skills and helping students to bridge the gap between school and "real world" experiences. WebQuests provide a practical way for students to acquire information, debate issues, participate in meaningful discussions, engage in role play simulations, solve problems, and, perhaps most importantly, become connected and involved learners. While the use of WebQuests in the middle school curriculum presents an opportunity for classroom teachers to take a fresh approach toward meeting the demands of the curriculum, it is important to remember that their use constitutes one tool among many to be used in the classroom.

Tools

WebQuest can be created using common word processing software such as NotePad, Microsoft Word and Open Office as well as with web editing software such as Dreamweaver and FrontPage. Webquest templates allow educators to get a jump start on the development of WebQuest by providing a pre-designed format which generally can be easily edited. Templates are characterized by frame-type: Framed or Unframed and by the placement of the navigation bar: Top Navigation, Bottom Navigation, Left Navigation, and Right Navigation. [8] [9]

External links

- WebQuest.org, Bernie Dodge's WebQuest site.

- Questgarden.com, QuestGarden, by Bernie Dodge

- Best WebQuests.com, Tom March's WebQuest site.

- www.Zunal.Com, Zunal Free WebQuest Application and Hosting, by Zafer Unal, Ph.D.

- Webquest.es, Free WebQuest Application and Hosting with drupal, by Silvia Martinez.

- Create a WebQuest

- [9], education search engine.

- http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html Discovery School website

References

1. ^ Vickers, Howard (2007-10-15). "SurReal Quests: Enriched, purposeful language learning in Second Life". The Knowledge Tree. http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-15/surreal-quests-enriched-purposeful-language-learning-in-second-life. Retrieved 2007-12-05.

2. ^ [1]

3. ^ [2]

4. ^ [3]

5. ^ [4]

6. ^ [5]

7. ^ [6]

8. ^ [7]

9. ^ [8]

- Dodge, B. (1995a). Some thoughts about Webquests. retrieved November 16, 2007 from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html

- Dodge, B. (1995b). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10-13.

Response to intervention

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. It uses material retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_to_intervention on 2010-07-06.

CONTENTS

Description

School-wide screening

Progress monitoring and Tiered service delivery

Fidelity of implementation

Classification of RTI

Relationship between IDEA and RTI

Response to RTI

Notes

External links

Response to intervention
Jump to: navigation, search

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2009)

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

In education, Response To Intervention (commonly abbreviated RTI or RtI) is a method of academic intervention used in the United States which is designed to provide early, effective assistance to children who are having difficulty learning. Response to intervention was also designed to function as one part of a data-based process of identifying learning disabilities. This method can be used at the group and individual level. The RTI method has been developed by proponents as an alternative to identifying learning disabilities with the ability-achievement discrepancy model, which requires children to exhibit a discrepancy between their ability, often measured by Intelligence Quotient|IQ testing and academic achievement as measured by their grades and standardized testing. Further, proponents claim that the RTI process brings more clarity to the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) while opponents claim that RTI does not identify SLD (usually called LD) but instead identifies low achieving students. Proponents of RTI sometimes state that SLD (LD) has been referred to as a residual category for children with moderate learning problems.[1] while opponents of RTI as a method of identifying LD, and others view LD as a valid construct supported by practice and more recent scientific studies of the functioning of the brain.

RTI seeks to prevent academic failure through early intervention, frequent progress measurement, and increasingly intensive research-based instructional interventions for children who continue to have difficulty. Students who do not show a response to effective interventions are likely (or, more likely than students who respond) to have biologically-based learning disabilities and to be in need of special education.[2]

The traditional means to identify children with learning disabilities has been through the discrepancy model which looks at the difference between ability as sometimes measured by a child's scores on both subsets of an IQ evaluation (such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) and an evaluation of achievement as indicated by the student's grades, teacher evaluations and testing (such as the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT)[3] There are criticisms associated with the discrepancy model, for example, that the model does not allow for early identification and intervention.[4] Another criticism includes the lack of a universal definition or formula for identifying a significant IQ-Achievement discrepancy.[5] For children with learning disabilities, proponents claim that RTI may assist schools in avoiding the so-called "wait-to-fail" method by providing intervention as soon as children exhibit difficulty, while opponents of RTI claim that RTI may delay the specialized instruction and the provision of legal rights to students and their parents provided by IDEA only after a parent or teacher formally requests an evaluation under IDEA.

One criticism of the RTI method suggests that RTI is really a means for limiting access to special education services. The intervention model puts the onus on individual teachers to prove that they have done everything possible in the classroom before the child can be assessed. Because the RTI model is often implemented across years, assessment and classification of a student can be unreasonably delayed or never provided when each new year the student has a new teacher and a new RTI. Critics charge that requiring an extensive and lengthy paper trail prior to evaluation of a child is primarily used as a bureaucratic means for delaying that evaluation. They point to the fact that the cost of special ed services is a powerful incentive for districts to systematically delay services to as many children as possible as long as possible. It should be noted that IDEA 2004 prevents schools from receiving federal funds based on identifying more students although proponents of RTI claim that public schools tend to receive more federal and state dollars the more students they identify as qualifying for special education.[neutrality is disputed] RTI may delay receipt of funding at the school level and delay the identification of a student as having a Learning Disability.

Which set of financial contingencies tend to influence the special education identification and referral policies of school district administrators has yet to be fully documented and researched; therefore, it would seem prudent, especially given that the process or results of RTI are rarely documented in a manner that allows for the evaluation of either implementation integrity or effect, and given that the financial gain of not identifying students as needing special education services far outweigh the monies gained from State and Federal sources, to err on the side of the argument that RTI is used as a budget management tool seems prudent. That is, until the null hypothesis can be demonstrably shown.[neutrality is disputed]

An additional criticism of this program is associated with the model that it replaces. Because the RTI model only results in evaluation of the most critical failures in the regular classroom, proponents of RTI claim that students in special education classrooms are less likely to succeed generally. The previous model which addressed discrepancy cast a net to students who could be said to possess areas of relative strength and were more likely to benefit from services. However, the body of relevant research suggests that slow-learners likewise benefit from services.

Description

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a philosophy that encompasses alternative assessment which utilizes quality interventions matched to student needs, coupled with formative evaluation to obtain data over time to make critical educational decisions[6] .[7]

RTI follows the following core assumptions[6]:

1. that the educational system can effectively teach all children

2. that early intervention is critical to preventing problems from getting out of control

3. that the implementation of a multi-tiered service delivery model is necessary

4. that a problem solving model should be used to make decisions between tiers

5. that research based interventions should be implemented to the extent possible

6. that progress monitoring must be implemented to inform instruction

7. that data should drive decision making.

In this regard, RTI is not simply a set of interventions but a systematic model within general education and special education areas. In addition, RTI should be viewed as a systematic process for providing preventive, supplementary instructional services to students who are having challenges meeting benchmark levels.[neutrality is disputed] RTI is superior to the mathematical discrepancy approach in that it takes the focus away from within-child deficits to issues relative to the context of instruction or the extent to which a student has had the opportunity to learn.[neutrality is disputed] The assumption that a student cannot learn is typically attributed to some neurological or processing disorder residing within the child. This assumption fails to account for the possibility that interacting variables such as the lack of good instruction, the lack of an opportunity to learn, cultural variables, and/or language proficiency levels in the second language, for example, might be reasons for the lack of academic progress. Proponents of RTI claim that the literature is clear that the traditional psychometric discrepancy model does more harm to students and actually has created a special education system that serves a disproportionate number of minority students.[neutrality is disputed]

What follows is an opinion from a person with 30 years experience in the public school system[who?]

The statement above about disproportionality is questionable; there are many categories of disability that are recognized in IDEA legislation as making a student eligible for Special Education (for example - blindness, deafness, mental retardation, autism, emotional disturbance, speech/language impairments, orthopedic impairments, specific medical syndromes (such as ADHD), etc.

Learning Disabilities are only one of about a dozen such categories. No LD definition by itself could "create" a discriminatory Special Education system. The net effect of some actions to address the statistic that a higher proportion of minority students in some school districts are classified as eligible for Special Education can itself be discriminatory; that is, if minority students with similar educational profiles to non-minority students become less likely to be classified out of a misplaced concern about proportions, the minority students could actually be denied services that their tax dollars pay for. But what are the possible sources of disproportionate classification? That is the real question here. The discrepancy model of LD, even with its flaws, was not the culprit. In some school districts where pre-referral interventions are not an economic option, Special Ed has provided the most intensive and individualized services to students who are not making it. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, not fact. RTI has its own major limitations and perhaps unintended consequences as well. RTI as currently defined applies mainly to reading (decoding and comprehension). But there are writing LDs as well (encoding) and math LDs that affect some students. The RTI requirements for tiered services makes documenting non-reading LDs nearly impossible, because schools generally do not have staff to address writing and math with multiple levels of remedial services; the funding does not exist for such things, especially in urban and lower income areas. Remember how schools are funded (local property taxes). Until there is more government support for education, richer neighborhoods will have better schools. However RTI is a subtle way for Special Education legislation to affect non-Special Ed (general ed) practices in a major way. Notice that the steps prior to classification affect the way every school must handle their general education remedial reading programs. How prepared are lower income school districts to fund such services, which must be paid for out of local monies (because remedial programs fall within general ed; additional state funding is available only for Special Ed programs). An unintended consequence of RTI definitions of LD is that anyone at a below average IQ level could be considered LD if they have received the various tiers of instruction and fail to progress. Such traditional "slow learners" were previously ineligible for Special Ed when classification as LD was based on a discrepancy model. Be prepared for larger overall numbers of classified students once the slow learner population becomes eligible for Special Ed under RTI.)

RTI is conceptualized as a multi-tiered service delivery model including primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of support.[8]The primary, or first tier is focused specifically at the school core curriculum level, meaning that the target level of intervention is the core curriculum. In this tier approximately 80% to 85% of the general student body should be able to meet grade level norms without additional assistance. The 15% to 20% of students who consistently show a discrepancy between their current level of performance and that of the expected level of performance are then given Tier 2 or secondary, supplementary instruction services (not to be confused with special education) targeting the problems the student is having. Of the students who are provided with intervention services at Tier 2, approximately 3 to 6% of them will continue to have difficulties and continue to show resistance to intervention. At this point in time, these students will then receive Tier 3 intervention services, which some proponents of RTI state is not to be confused with special education, while others such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) state should be special education. [6] Hence, the intensity of intervention increases as the severity of the problem increases.[9]

RTI has three basic components: School-wide screening, Progress monitoring and Tiered service delivery, and Fidelity of implementation

School-wide screening

For a screening measure to be useful, it should satisfy three criteria: a. It needs to identify students who require further assessment b. It needs to be practical c. It needs to generate positive outcomes (accurately identifies students without consuming resources that could be put to better use) A screening procedure must be brief as well as simple enough to be implemented reliably by teachers. Screening measures can use either a criterion referenced or normative comparison standard of performance. In the former, a specific criterion level of skills is specified as indicating an acceptable level of proficiency or mastery. In the normative comparison, the screening results are compared to an appropriate peer group (e.g., other students in first grade). Criterion measures are preferred because they give more accurate information about performance on relevant skills. Screening is not a one-time process but an iterative system during the school year and across grade levels. During the course of primary instruction (Tier 1), the school uses school-wide screening (consistency) in essential academic areas to identify each student’s level of proficiency (usually three times per year).[10] The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities recommends that schools use school-wide screening in combination with at least five weeks of weekly progress monitoring in response to general education to identify students who require preventative intervention. Their rationale is that one-time universal screening at the beginning of the year can over-identify students who require preventative intervention.

Progress monitoring and Tiered service delivery

Progress monitoring is a set of assessment procedures for determining the extent to which students are benefiting from classroom instruction and for monitoring effectiveness of curriculum. Progress monitoring is the scientifically based practice of assessing students’ academic performance on a regular basis for three purposes:

- To determine whether children are profiting appropriately from the instructional program, including the curriculum

- To build more effective programs for the children who do not benefit

- To estimate rates of student improvement.

The three tiers of SRBI are in place to incorporate the key components of RtI and to ensure the academic growth and achievement of all students. The first tier in the SRBI model clearly states that all students receive core classroom instruction that is differentiated and utilizes strategies and materials that are scientifically research-based. Assessment in the classroom is ongoing and effective in that it clearly identifies the strengths and weaknesses for each learner. Any necessary interventions at this level are within the framework of the general education classroom and can be in the form of differentiated instruction, small group review or one-on-one remediation of a concept. Professional development for teachers is provided consistently throughout the year.

In Tier 1, progress monitoring procedures serve several functions. First, progress monitoring displays individual student growth over time, to determine whether the student is progressing as expected. The steps in Tier 1 are: data is collected, students are identified using benchmark scores, and measurable goals are set for next data collection point for the class and students displaying difficulties. Then, the team problem-solves to determine scientifically research-based interventions for at-risk students that will work in whole-class instructions. Observations are conducted to ensure the fidelity of the classroom instruction. The teacher implements the interventions and the team reviews progress of students.

The second tier of SRBI closely resembles the first with the exception that supplemental interventions may occur within or outside of the general education classroom. Core instruction is still delivered by the classroom teacher. Small groups of similar instructional levels may work together under the teacher’s instruction and guidance. This type of targeted instruction is for a minimum of 30 minutes per day, two to four days per week and for a minimum of nine weeks. This targeted instruction may occur in the general education setting or outside in a smaller group setting with a specialized teacher such as a Literacy Support teacher for struggling readers.

In Tier 2, the main purpose of progress monitoring and beyond interventions is to determine whether the intervention is successful in helping the student learn at an appropriate rate. Decision rules need to be created to determine when a student might no longer require Tier 2 and beyond services and can be returned to the general classroom (Tier 1), when the intervention needs to be changed, or when a student might be identified for special education. The steps in Tier 2 are: see if the child has not met benchmarks in Tier 1, has significantly lower performance levels, exhibit significant deviation from their grade-level peers in academic or behavioral issues, and are learning at a much slower rate and falling farther behind. Tier two interventions

Tier 2 and beyond consists of general education instruction plus specialized intervention that has the following features: Size of instructional group. Tier 2 and beyond instruction is provided in small groups (two to four students). Cut scores identified on screening measures and continued growth as demonstrated by routine progress monitoring are indicators of content mastery. Although recommendations vary, weekly to three times per week monitoring of progress is typical. Tier 2 and beyond interventions last for nine to 12 weeks and can be repeated as needed. Tier 2 and beyond provides for three to four intervention sessions per week, each lasting 30 to 60 minutes. Instruction is conducted by trained and supervised personnel.

Tier three is for students who require more intense, explicit and individualized instruction. This type of targeted instruction is delivered for a minimum of two 30-minute sessions every day for nine to twelve weeks. The interventions in this tier may be similar to those in tier two except that they are intensified in frequency and duration. The instruction in tier three is typically delivered outside of the general education classroom. If tier three is not successful, a child is considered for the first time as potentially disabled.

Tier 3 demands more intense interventions. The steps are: see if the child is having marked difficulties and have not responded to Tier 2 interventions, requires more frequent, intense interventions and more frequent progress monitoring.

In Tier 3, special education instruction is provided to individual students or small groups. Special education programs, strategies, and procedures are designed and employed to supplement, enhance, and support Tier 1 and Tier 2 and beyond instruction by remediation of the relevant area and development of compensatory strategies. Mastery is relative to the student’s functioning and determined by individualized education program (IEP) goal setting and through results of comprehensive evaluation. Continuous progress monitoring informs the teaching process. Special education instruction likely will be considerably longer than the 10 to 12 weeks of supplemental instruction delivered in Tier 2 and beyond. The frequency of special education instruction depends upon student need. Special education teachers deliver the instruction. Exit criteria are specified and monitored so that placement is flexible.

Fidelity of implementation

In an RTI model, fidelity is important at both the school level (e.g., implementation of the process) and the teacher level (e.g., implementation of instruction). Although both common sense and research support the concept of fidelity of implementation to ensure an intervention’s successful outcome, the practical challenges associated with achieving high levels of fidelity are well documented. Factors that reduce fidelity of implementation[11]:

- Complexity. The more complex the intervention, the lower the fidelity because of the level of difficulty. (This factor includes time needed for instruction in the intervention).

- Materials and resources required. If new or substantial resources are required, they need to be readily accessible.

- Perceived and actual effectiveness (credibility). Even with a solid research base, if teachers believe the approach will not be effective, or if it is inconsistent with their teaching style, they will not implement it well.

- Interventionists. The number, expertise, and motivation of individuals who deliver the intervention are factors in the level of fidelity of implementation.

Classification of RTI

In the educational literature, RTI is either referred to as a Standard Protocol Approach or as a Problem Solving Model.[12] Both models incorporate problem solving to identify the academic problem the student is having. The main difference among these approaches is that the former uses a systematic, universal screening procedure during Tier 1 to determine which students are having difficulties meeting age or grade level benchmarks for a specific skill. Typically, Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), or other methods are used to flag the students who are not meeting expected levels of performance. In the problem solving model approach, the teacher typically refers the student to the student success team or multidisciplinary team to ascertain the challenges a student is having within the classroom. Using information collected from the classroom teacher, observations, etc, the team determines what additional supports the student might need to address the learning gap.

Response To Intervention (RTI) is a method, or process, of educational intervention which includes, but is not limited to: reading tutoring, peer tutoring, phonological awareness, and phonics interventions. Key to the RTI method is the application of scientifically-based interventions that have been demonstrated to work in randomized controlled trials. The RTI method assumes accountability to the consumers of an educational program by ensuring the application of programs that work rather than programs that simply look, sound, or feel good. In terms of its methods, after the intervention, collecting of data on change in student performance is undertaken. Curriculum Based Measurement[13] (CBM) is often used to collect data on interventions and their effectiveness. CBM has over 30 years of scientific support (www.studentprogress.org). Response to intervention is based on discovering what works best for an individual student, not what might be the 'best' intervention for everyone. Additional methods are tried until students 'respond' to the intervention and improve their skills. Students that do not respond, or respond at significantly low rates, are deemed to have biologically-based learning disabilities, not simply learning difficulties.

RTI provides an alternative or additional means of gathering information to be used when classifying students for special education. When a student is identified as having difficulties in school, a team provides interventions of increasing intensity to help the child catch up with the rest of his or her peers. After interventions have been tried and proven ineffective, the child may then be referred for additional, special education services (IDEA). Proponents of RTI claim that RTI is a way to ensure each student is afforded the opportunity to learn. Opponents of RTI say it is a way to allow some school districts to avoid or delay identifying students as needing special education.

RTI proponents claim that when interventions work, fewer children, particularly minority children, are referred for special education, and that the RTI model acts as a safeguard, insuring that a child is not given a label of a disability inappropriately. Opponents of RTI claim that delay of services is denial of needed services and that RTI often only delays needed specialized instruction. RTI proponents state that RTI also helps school districts by eliminating unnecessary referrals, which drain time and resources.[14] RTI opponents say that in attempting to eliminate unnecessary referrals RTI also delays and eliminates necessary referrals which may mean that a student is not receiving the intensive services needed.

Relationship between IDEA and RTI

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was revised and signed into law in 2004 and became effective in July, 2005. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA makes mention of Response to Intervention only as an optional method of part of the process of identifying LD, although proponents of RTI claim it is mentioned as a pre-referral intervention model and encourages its implementation in three significant ways:

1. In diagnosing learning disabilities, LEAs are no longer required to use the discrepancy model. The act states that, “a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability…”

2. Response to Intervention is specifically mentioned in the regulations in conjunction with the identification of a specific learning disability. IDEA 2004 states, "a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures".

3. Early Intervening Services (EIS) are prominently mentioned in IDEA for the first time. These services are directed at interventions for students prior to referral in an attempt to avoid inappropriate classification, which proponents claim an RTI model does. IDEA now authorizes the use of up to 15% of IDEA allocated funds for EIS.[15]

RTI was included in the regulations due to considerable concerns raised by both the House and Senate Committees regarding proponents of RTI claims about the use of IQ tests to identify learning disabled students. There was also recognition in these committees of a growing body of scientific research supporting methods of pre-referral interventions that resolved learning difficulties short of classification.

The IDEA Committee Conference Report (CCR) discusses the use of scientifically based early intervention programs, describes a model Response to Intervention program, and recommends the development of the most effective implementation of responsiveness to intervention models. The report describes such a model as an essential service for reducing the need to label children as disabled.[16]

Response to RTI

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)

As RTI has recently entered U.S. schools, some teachers believe that it has brought about tension between regular education teachers and special education teachers. In other schools, RTI has led to increased cooperation and understanding between regular education teachers and special education teachers. Regardless of teachers' responses, proponents of RTI claim that students are benefiting from the RTI process. Opponents of RTI point to delays in identifying students needing special education, the massive amount of training needed by general education teachers, and the lack of resources devoted in most schools to all the technical requirements of RTI.

RTI has brought more than tension into the regular education teacher's classroom. It is a whole new way of doing things, including evidence-based instructional practices and more focus on students individual needs (which ultimately create more stress for today's teachers). RTI proponents claim that teachers are used to referring students to special education who they 'can't get through to' and that RTI forces teachers with little or no experience teaching children with learning disabilities to keep these students in their classrooms and to search for research-based ways to help them. All in all, it requires additional work from already overworked teachers than the old discrepancy model; this perhaps unreasonable change in expectations represents perhaps the greatest resistance towards RTI.[17]

Among the school psychologists, multi-tiered progress monitoring approaches have been around as early as 1977 (Kovaleski, 2007). For school psychology, RTI is not so much a revolution as a return to the problem-solving that RTI proponents claim they should've been going on all along.[18]

One shortcoming of RTI is that while its core assumptions include "that the educational system can effectively teach all children," the approach does not account for gifted education. An inverted pyramid showing analogous increasing interventions for gifted children could be added to the model so that all children are addressed. A framework for such an approach has been developed by the Montana Office of Public Instruction.[19]

Notes

1. ^ Haager, Diane et al. Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention, Brooks Publishing, 2007

2. ^ Cortiella, Candace, Response-to-Intervention — An Emerging Method for LD Identification, Schwab Learning http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=840, Retrieved August 2, 2007.

3. ^ Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing Between Children With and Without Reading Disabilities: Evidence for the Role of Kindergarten and First-Grade Interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39 (2), 157-169.

4. ^ Restori, A. F., Gresham, F. M., & Cook, C. R. (2008, January 1). "Old habits die hard:" past and current issues pertaining to response-to-intervention. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from The Free Library: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22Old%20habits%20die%20hard:%22%20past%20and%20current%20issues%20pertaining%20to...-a0197363403

5. ^ Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 18 (3), 157-171.

6. ^ [a] [b] [c] National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE, Inc.

7. ^ Rachel M. Stewart, Ronald C. Martella, Nancy E. Marchand-Martella and Gregory J. Benner (2005): Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior. JEIBI 2 (3), 115- 124. [1]

8. ^ Rachel M. Stewart, Ronald C. Martella, Nancy E. Marchand-Martella and Gregory J. Benner (2005): Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior. JEIBI 2 (3), 115- 124. [2]

9. ^ Gresham, F.M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33, 326-343.

10. ^ Jenkins, J.R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the NRCLD Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/sympo¬sium2003/jenkins/index.html.

11. ^ Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.

12. ^ Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157-171.

13. ^ Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.

14. ^ AE Farstrup (2007). RTI: A vital concern for reading professionals. Reading Today, 25.3, 17.

15. ^ ed.gov: Q&A on Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services

16. ^ Response to Intervention in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2004 [3]

17. ^ Richards, C., et al., Response to Intervention: Building the Capacity of Teachers To Serve Students with Learning Difficulties. Issues in Teacher Education v. 16 no. 2 (Fall 2007) p. 55-64

18. ^ Kovaleski, J. F. Response to Intervention: Considerations for Research and Systems Change. The School Psychology Review v. 36 no. 4 (December 2007) p. 638-46

19. ^ http://www.opi.mt.gov/PDF/Gifted/RtI_GTFramework.pdf

External links

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links or by converting links into footnote references. (February 2009)

Articles

- D Fuchs, LS Fuchs (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, Why, and How Valid Is It?. Reading Research Quarterly,

- JK Klingner, PA Edward (2006). Cultural Considerations With Response to Intervention Models. Reading Research Quarterly, .

- FM Gresham, et al. (2004). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response to intervention perspective. The School Psychologist (cssponline.org)

- PA Edwards (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly. (reading.org)

- AM VanDerHeyden, SR Jimerson (2006). Using Response-to-Intervention to Enhance Outcomes for Children. California School Psychologist. (caspsurveys.org)

- DW Barnett, EJ Daly III, KM Jones, FE Lentz Jr (2004). Response to Intervention. Journal of Special Education. (questia.com)

- Shinn, M. R. (2007). Identifying Students at Risk, Monitoring Performance, and Determining Eligibility Within Response to Intervention: Research on Educational Need and Benefit from Academic Intervention. School Psychology Review , 36 (4), 601-617.

- Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Response to Intervention at School: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden, Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (pp. 3-9). New York: Springer.

- Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, D. (2005). Early Literacy Interventions for English Language Learners: Support for an RTI Model. The California School Psychologist , 10, 55-63.

- Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making "Secondary Intervention" Work in a Three-Tier Responsiveness-to-Intervention Model: Findings from the First-grade Longitudinal Reading Study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabiltiies. Read Write , 21, 413-436.

- Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A Framework for Building Capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review , 35 (4), 621-626.

Websites

- AIMSweb.com

- arizonarti.net

- atlasinitiative.org for free RTI videos

- AutoSkill.com

- easycbm.com

- EPS Publishing

- gosbr.net

- idea.ed.gov

- isteep.com

- Joewitt.org - STEEP and other RTI topics

- nasponline.org National Association of School Psychologists

- [4]

Curriculum theory - Psychology Wiki

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. It uses material retrieved from http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Curriculum_theory on 2010-07-06.

Curriculum theoryedit this page

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language
Personality | Philosophy | Methods | Social | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial

Educational Psychology: Assessment · Issues · Theory & research · Techniques · Techniques X subject · Special Ed. · Pastoral

Curriculum theory is a way of describing the philosophy of certain approaches to the development and enactment of curriculum. Within the broad field of curriculum studies, it is both a historical analysis of curriculum and a way of viewing current educational curriculum and policy decisions. There are many different views of curriculum theory including those of Kliebard and Schiro, among others.

Kliebard takes a more historical approach to examining the forces at work that shape the American curriculum, as he describes those forces between 1893 and 1958. Schiro takes a more philosophical approach as he examines the curriculum ideologies (or philosophies) that have influenced American curriculum thought and practice between ca 1890-2007. Kliebard discusses four curriculum groups that he calls humanist (or mental disciplinarians), social efficiency, developmentalist (or child study), and social meliorists. Schiro labels the philosophies of these groups the scholar academic ideology, social efficiency ideology, learner-centered ideology, and social reconstruction ideology.

The following is a synopsis of the curriculum theory perspective of Kliebard.

Mental Disciplinarians and Humanists believe in all students' abilities to develop mental reasoning and that education was not intended for social reform in itself but for the systematic development of reasoning power. Good reasoning power would lead to the betterment of society. Harris described the subjects to be taught as the “five windows” into the soul of the student: “grammar, literature and art, mathematics, geography, and history” and prescribed it in that order to be taught (Kliebard,2004,p. 15). Some critics view this group as having too much emphasis on the "classics" as determined by the dominant groups in a society (and particularly in history by the Committee of Five and Committee of Ten in the late 19th century). In today's society this group is may be seen as having a cultural bias toward the upper class, as well as, the caucasian majority in the United States.

Social Meliorists believe that education is a tool to reform society and create change of the better. This socialization goal was based on the power of the individual's intelligence, and the ability to improve on intelligence through education. An individual’s future was not predetermined by gender, race, socio-economic status, heredity or any other factors. “The corruption and vice in the cities, the inequalities of race and gender, and the abuse of privilege and power could all be addressed by a curriculum that focused directly on those very issues, thereby raising a new generation equipped to deal effectively with those abuses” (Kliebard,2004, p.24). Some critics view this group has goals that are difficult to measure and are a product that has slow results.

John Dewey felt that the curriculum should ultimately produce students who would be able to deal effectively with the modern world. Therefore, curriculum should not be presented as finished abstractions, but should include the child’s preconceptions and should incorporate how the child views her own world. Dewey uses four instincts, or impulses, to describe how to characterize children’s behavior. The four instincts according to Dewey are social, constructive, expressive, and artistic. Curriculum should build an orderly sense of the world where the child lives. Dewey hoped to use occupations to connect miniature versions of fundamental activities of life classroom activities. The way Dewey hoped to accomplish this goal was to combine subject areas and materials. By doing this, Dewey made connections between subjects and the child’s life. Dewey is credited for the development of the progressive schools some of which are still in existence today.

Social Efficiency Educators (Theorists Ross, Bobbitt, Gilbreth, Taylor, Thorndike) were aiming to design a curriculum that would optimize the “social utility” of each individual in a society. By using education as an efficiency tool, these theorists believed that society could be controlled. Students would be scientifically evaluated (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their predicted role in society. This involved the introduction of vocational and junior high schools to address the curriculum designed around specific life activities that correlate with each student’s societal future. The socially efficient curriculum would consist of minute parts or tasks that together formed a bigger concept. This educational view was somewhat derived with the efficiency of factories which could simultaneously produce able factory workers. Critics believe this model has too much emphasis on testing and separating students based on the results of that testing.

Developmentalists focus attention to the development of children's emotional and behvioral qualities. One part of this view is using the characteristics of children and youth as the source of the curriculum. Some critics claim this model is at the expense of other relevant factors. One example of an extreme Hall advocated differentiated instruction based on native endowment and even urged separate schools for “dullards” in the elementary grades.

Curriculum Theory and Its Application

Some believe that the current American Educational system is primarily guided by the theories of the social efficiency movement or factory model with some influence of humanism. As we begin the 21st century the influence of all theories can be found in schools in addition to the Standards Movement and Social Justice educational philosophies.

References:

H. Kliebard (2004) The Struggle for the American Curriculum,1893-1958,RoutledgeFalmer, New York

M. Schiro (2007) Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Vistions and Enduring Concerns. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

This page uses content from the English-language version of Wikipedia. The original article was at Curriculum theory. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Psychology Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.