FRAME FACTORS

Chapter 8 (pg 189 - 201)

Doyle (1992) and Walker (1990) state “A curriculum is not implemented until a teacher uses it to teach students; that is, implementation must take the realities of teaching into consideration.” (pg 192)

Chapter 8 introduces us to five tasks to which teachers must attend and the major kinds of frame factors that restrain these tasks. The factors which constrain the teachers are:

1. Temporal Frames—the amount of content to be delivered vs the students’ mastery of said content; seasonal constraints such as statutory holidays, vacations etc., time set aside for each subject both in elementary and secondary schools.
   
2. Physical Frames—consists of the physical space in which teachers teach as well as the materials with which they teach—“the existing physical frame, regardless of the purposes for which it was intended, makes certain curricular forms likely, others unlikely, and still others impossible.” (pg 195)
   
3. Political-Legal Frames—refers to the government’s involvement in the testing of knowledge i.e. standards testing—“as might be expected, the greater the pressure for accountability, the greater the influence of the test.” (pg 196) This ultimately leads to teaching to the test rather than exploring other methods of teaching. These standards are also linked to cultural frames (see below)
   
4. Organizational Frames—based on the school district’s selection of teaching materials (textbooks) as well as the division of students into grade levels (both individual and mixed-level classes). Other factors to consider are referred to as “proximal” and consist of class size, ability levels, and streams (academic vs. vocational). Infrastructures such as school size would be considered to be “distal”.
   
5. Personal (or Personnel) Frames—include the characteristics of teachers, students, administrators, custodians and other support staff. Although these personnel may change over time, the characteristics of the replacement staff can still be rather predictable. The most salient point here is that teachers will shape the curriculum in place based on their own personal beliefs and values. The areas of subjects taught are based on the perspectives of the teachers. “The issue that you need to address is not whether teachers will accept or reject the curriculum, but how they might shape it as they attempt to make it fit their belief systems.” (pg 198)
   
6. Economic Frames—ultimately, the bottom line. How much are things going to cost in the long run? What are the benefits which need to be taken into account? There are factors such as student morale, the learning which takes place, extra-curricular activities, time and commitment by teachers, outside factors such as parental and community support. “A curriculum analysis includes an estimate of the probable costs and benefits associated with the curriculum change, including a determination of who will likely bear the costs and experience the benefits.” (pg 199)
   
7. Cultural Frames—“A curriculum depends on two different sets of cultural factors, the culture within the school and the culture of the community in which the school exists.” (pg 200) Curriculum is chock full of values and values conflicts, both internally and externally; through the culture of the school and the culture of the community.
   
   QUESTIONS:
   
   Can you, as educators, think of any other factors which might not have been considered as part of the curriculum frame?
   
   Which do you feel are the most important factors affecting the curriculum framework? How can those who set the curriculum come to understand and implement a curriculum which would be based on the needs of those doing the learning, as well as, the needs of society and big industry?

Comments to Others

Chapter 3 Theoretical Perspectives on Curriculum pgs 53-65
Structure of the Disciplines

Jacquie…

As I was reading your entry into this week’s submissions, I couldn’t help but compare myself to what you were seeing and trying to then incorporate this into my old schema—I guess a kind of constructivist notion according to Piaget and his assimilation theory.

What struck me was the fact that there are many methods of teaching at an educator’s disposal and in order to “reach the masses” has to wear many hats. We all want to reach as many students as possible, however this is an incredibly daunting task. I look at some of the ways in which I am reinforcing my own students’ behaviors (behaviourist model) and wonder if perhaps I am doing them any harm. We all have our own philosophies of teaching which also include fragments of various models. Whether that model is rooted in cognitivism, behavorism, or constructivism, ultimately, we are trying to achieve the same thing—to make learning enjoyable enough that it becomes memorable for the students and perhaps they will continue the legacy.

Curriculum Purpose and Content

Pg. 67 – 89

Overall, I would have to say this was a very enjoyable article. The main purpose is to try and give definitions to some of the terminology, in particular, education, training, aims, goals and objectives, which are tossed around within the field of education. In trying to do so, Posner exposes us, through example, to some of the more well-known people who have also tried to distinguish between the various forms of knowledge acquisition.

Posner first gives us a definition of training as “....the specific situations in which people will use what they learn” and education as “....the situations in which people will use what they learn.” (pg 70) When it comes to curriculum, we are looking at content approaches and process approaches. In many ways, the two overlap quite often and as Posner states, “....the assumptions when formulating curricula for educational contexts is that most of the situations for which we prepare students are unpredictable.” (pg 70) From a learning standpoint, knowledge of some subjects is used “associatively” and “interpretively”, whereas knowledge of other subjects is used “replicatively” and “applicatively”. The former, as explained by Posner, is education and the later is training. It is the difference between fundamental principles as one receives in education and the job-related skills one receives through training.

Some of the other terms Posner tries to explain are the differences between aims, goals, and objectives. Although they are often used interchangeably, there are slight differences in the meaning. The impression I got when reading Posner, was that of a funnel with aims being at the widest part and then gradually becoming more focused with goals, and finally, the most detailed with objectives. Posner also goes on to categorize them into societal goals, administrative goals and educational goals. The chart on pg 72 does a good job of incorporating the terms and showing the relationship amongst them. In this section, the most significant statement was: “as societal values have changed throughout history, the intended purpose of an education has followed suit.” (pg 74) Societal goals are those which try to change society for the better, administrative goals are those which are required by an organization, and educational goals are the result of what is supposed to take place “over the years and across the subject matters of schooling.” (pg 76) On the other hand, the more narrowly defined are learning objectives, which can be further broken down into lesson objectives and course objectives.

From learning objectives, we are them re-introduced to the likes of Bloom along with his taxonomies of learning, mainly cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, Gagne’s five major categories of learning outcomes, and Ryle’s two types of knowledge; “knowing that”, which deals with “subject matter” and “knowing how” , which deals with “skills”, and the distinct differences between the two.

Up to this point, Posner has dealt with the process of learning. In the latter part of chapter 4, he focuses on content from a behavioural psychological view, a pedagogical view, and a multicultural view (which I don’t cover here). The amazing facet of this part of the reading was the fact that depending on how you look at curriculum the way in which educators teach it will be skewed towards that view.

QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS:

1. How important is it for educators to distinguish between education and training when it comes to curricula?
2. Is education curricula, as you deliver it, primarily content or process based?
   

Concepts of Curriculum and Purposes of Curriculum Study (pg 3 - 12)

One thing is for certain after reading this particular section and it is this; the actual definition of what precisely defines a curriculum has eluded educators and pragmatics for a very long time. Instead, what we are left with is a series of questions remaining to be answered.

1. “Why engage in curriculum study?
2. What good does it do?
3. What is a curriculum? For example, is a textbook or a syllabus a curriculum?
4. What should a curriculum include?” (pg 3)

I can totally relate to Peter’s frustration and also wonder why we as educators cannot come up with an appropriate response. Posner, in trying to answer these questions, gives his own definition yet, somehow, still remains uncommitted to actually saying “A curriculum consists of blah-blah-blah.” I agree that a set of standards (as guidelines and not a doctrine to be followed) are required in any profession. This does not seem to solve the problem but rather just adds to the confusion.

Trying to understand the difference between curriculum study and curriculum seems to be quite a daunting task. No one among what Posner calls the curriculum “cultists” is able to come to agreement. Rather he supplies us with a means of deflection—a way of saying there is no correct answer based on the large number of curriculum alternatives. This “reflective eclecticism seems to be ‘at the heart’ of curriculum study.” (pg 4)

Curriculum, as argued by “others” then, seems to be "the students" actual rather than planned opportunities, experiences, or learnings.” (pg 5) The problem here then becomes whether educators embrace the idea that curriculum is either an ends or a means (depending upon, through which end of the lens you are viewing it) or else a plan or report of “actual educational events.” (pg 5) Confused yet? Well, to further add to that confusion, “outcomes are fully understood only in retrospect or as teaching unfolds” whereas, “when we focus our concept of curriculum on education plans, standards, and intended outcomes, we are taking a political stand.” (pg 5)

Even though Posner suggests a solution, that is, to “stipulate a decision and then stick to it” (pg 5), the problem is that “definitions are not philosophically or politically neutral.” (pg 5) On pages 6 and 9, Posner examines seven common concepts of curriculum, namely:

1. Scope and sequence (Figure 1.1 pg 7)
2. Syllabus (Figure 1.2 pg 8)
3. Content outline (Figure 1.3 pg 9)
4. Standards (Figure 1.4 pg 10)
5. Textbooks
6. Courses of study
7. Planned experiences

“Each of these seven definitions has different consequences in terms of accountability.” (p 12) Overall, whoever is guiding the curriculum, that is the main “stakeholders”, then, these same stakeholders are setting their own expectations as to the delivery of that curriculum. This can be through the guise of guidelines which educators must adhere to, texts which educators must follow, or through expected outcomes of learning set in place and thus, to be reached. Posner then supports this idea further when stating that the general consensus amongst the experts is the notion of “no definition of curriculum is ethically or politically neutral.” (pg 12) The fact remains there are too many cooks in the kitchen trying to decide on a menu, meanwhile, there are hungry people wanting to eat.

Questions for discussion:

1. When it comes to teaching, who should be in the driver's seat as far as the delivery of the curriculum?
2. As educators, do you see curriculum as an ends, a means, or as a plan of learner experiences?
3. Recently I saw a news item on television where parents stated they feel that students should be learning ways of interacting socially since school provides the largest time block in the day to do so. Parents are not concerned about academics. Is this a failure of the curriculum, the education system or merely a deflection of responsibility by parents? What do you think?