I think that this book idea can be improved by making the distinction between the terms "education" and "curriculum" more clear. Also, I think that perhaps you should discuss briefly what influenced the development of the "good" curriculum in one state and not in the other. Additionally, I think that you should go into detail about the "transitional period", since you seek to adapt "A Liberating Curriculum" for use in classrooms.
In terms of "improvement" of the book, I think it would help first to somewhere include your own perspective on education, philosophy, and morality. This would assist the reader in better seeing the origin of your point of view. For example, you use "ethical" and "moral" interchangeably, but I don't know that they necessarily are. The word moral tends to have religious overtones. I think the general perception of being moral is when one asks the WWJD question of himself (what would Jesus do). A nonreligious person is going to feel that "morality" has no place in the school system. I think the term "ethics" used exclusively would reach a wider audience. At the very least, the two words need to be defined early in the writing. Also, I think it would be useful to include either a chapter summarizing the stages curriculum has gone through in this country or a timeline (maybe as an appendix) that could be referred to by the reader. There have been a lot of different camps that have come in and out of favor in the world of education, and all have had an effect on curriculum. I think the points you present with Joseph Schwab, with Tyler, and with William Reid would be more clear if a non-historian reader had something to refer to that would fill in the background that acts as the foundation for what you have.
It can be improved by being more specific on what curriculum and education mean. It should be stated in the first paragrach so that the reader can determine what the difference is before you state how they compare or VS eachother. For examlpe you refer to curriculm "As the heart of education." You need to specify how and why it is he heart of education. The language is definitly readable and copmrehendable, by this I mean I can understand what your saying and the point your trying to make. One way you can improve it though. is by being more specific.
I was a little fuzzy on your case about curriculum vs. education. You say that people use the term "education" when they are actually talking about "curriculum". You also say that "curriculum" is a moral issue and that those people in the media and in the public eye are approaching the issue without considering a moral standpoint. Then, if they are taking the morals out of it, aren't they talking about something other than curriculum? I guess, I just need a little more explanation on this issue.
I think that I agree with the statement that "curriculum is the heart of education" but I would really like to read about your reasons behind why you believe this to be true. I guess for me, the more specific and detailed the definitions and explanations are at the beginning, the clearer the argument becomes at I read the book. When you say that separating education and curriculum is dangerous, what do you mean? Do you mean that you cannot make a curriculum apart from having a purpose in mind for education?
You said that "the attempt to separate education as a social science from curriculum as a moral practice is not only impossible, but dangerous." I was really confused what that meant. What exactly is dangerous? I also think that you asked the reader a lot of questions that you were planning to answer later in your book. Maybe if I had read those answers to the questions, I would be more familiar with what curriculum was and what it's composed of.
I think this question has a lot to do with quesetion number two. I think after studying different views in class it has helped me better understand one idea. I do think it is a good idea to include different sides to your arguement and not just how you think. I am not a published author however, being in my junior year I have read a lot of boring texts books. If you are trying to reach a variety of audiences and actually want people to rea your book, give different sides, add a little comedy, and do not just make it words on a page; find a way to make the words jump out!
I think it is great so far. The language is really easy to understand. However, you make your point that you will be distinguishing between "education" and "curriculum" and you define curriculum as "the heart of education" but you don't really state your meaning of education so it is hard to dissect what you mean by curriculum is"the heart of education". I also think that if you explained your reasoning for why we need to liberate curriculum more clearly, the reader would be more intrigued and want to read on.
I think this book can be improved by explaining more why curriculum is so important. You said that “curriculum is crucial to rebuilding American education today.” But why is this more important than any other method that is being looked at today. I think addressing things like, having more money, different testing, the way we reward and punish students, and so on, does not outweigh the need to “liberate curriculum”. I also like what Emily said about the boring books. I think that adding real life situations and stories to the book as examples will keep your readers in focus, even when they are students in a college classroom setting.
I think it is a great idea and I would be interested in reading the book. To answer the question, I think it can be improved by making more sense of what you mean by cirriculum and education. Throughout the proposal there is a lot of ambiguity in the meaning of cirriculum versus education. I'm not sure if that is because you are saving it for the actual book and this is just a proposal but it left me thinking that it was just a discussion that education and cirriculum are not the same with no explanation of how.
I feel that we should know your opinion on each of the terms that you mention, such as "curriculum", "education", etc. I believe that I would understand it better if I knew what your feelings and thoughts are about each of these. Also, I feel that if you addressed some of the issues or negatives about the curriculum that are being presented in the classrooms, then maybe I would understand why you feel this way about "liberating Curriculum". But the book idea was easy to follow, and it didn't really bore me, so you're off to a great start!
I think the book is off to a great start!! I would like to know a better definition between "curriculum" and "definition." Also, what constitues a good curriclum? I would love to see examples out of your personal experiences. I would just try to write a book that would reach out to a lot of audiences. Try and use words that really grab the readers attention, and not words that cause a reader to have to read a paragraph five times because they cannot read it without falling asleep (cough cough Chubb and Moe.) All in all I think you have some really great ideas that can be expanded upon.
I am the type of reader who really is affected by opinions and experiences of other. It is very powerful thing to hear a story from someone indicating how they came to the conclusion they did. I don't think it would sound uneducated or make you an untrustworthy/biased source if you gave the readers a look at your experience with curriculum. If anything I believe it would connect the reader with your thoughts even more. If they disagree with you whole-heartedly it wouldn't necessarily sway their vote one way or the other but it may ignite a sort of respect for where you are coming from.
Maybe if you add the pragmatic approach into your writing, you can see how the 4 smaller groups incorporate into the deliberative approach. Try to include the lower class, middle class, and the upper class into your writing to grasp all areas of income levels within school. This also goes for different areas of a certain city or state or part of the country. For college education majors, you may want to center it more around the K-12 instead of the higher education.
I think that you have a great start so far! I just have the same comment that a lot of other people do. I think that if you give more detailed definition to "education" and "curriculum" then things would be less confusing. Also, I agree with Charis and Emily, I think oyu should add your expiences as a teacher in this book as well. Giving examples of how your opinions were formed will help the reader relate to you.
I think that your book could be improved greatly if you could define "education" and "curriculum" better. The book's definations are a bit hazy and leave the reader scratching his head. I hade to read the definitions several times for clarity. The word "education" is the harder definition to understand. Also, the outline states that you will give evidence of a school with a good curriculum and a bad one. What constitutes what a good or bad curriculum. How is that measured? A curriculum should be measured by the knowledge aquired by the students.
It sounds like you have this book off to a good start. I think you have definitely brought up some really interesting points, including that people often refer to education and curriculum as the same thing when they are completely different. One thing I would change is just to make it more clear what their differences are. For example, when you said that “Curriculum is the heart of education,” you also said that people often talk about education but are really referring to curriculum. I think that explaining why people mistake curriculum for education so often will help to. For me, I think this book would be easier to relate to if you gave some more examples, so that I could have a very specific picture in my mind to refer to as I read your book.
To me, this book seems like it could apply only to consolidating the existing ideas and balancing the theory-centric tendencies of the few. I think that rather than just seeking to bring peace to multiple perspectives, you should also focus on how this can affect a lay person or a non-educational entity. For instance, how will “liberating curriculum” apply to people outside of the teaching or legislative world? And beyond that, will this only apply to future generations of learners (children) or will it also apply to the average American far beyond their high school diplomas?
I definitely don't doubt that you know what you are talking about, but as a reader, you may want to be more specific when it comes to describing what the difference between education and curriculum really are. Also, you may want to give an example that can connect the reader to the classroom, curriculum and then back to the education. I felt disconnected from the the read.
I believe that this book idea can be improved by explaining the differences between college/university curriculum, high school curriculum, and middle school curriculum. I would like to know if there is any, or should there be any, correlation of the three above listed curriculums. By that I mean should curriculum be progressive or should it be isolated for each level of education? Also, in chapter five when you look at K-12 curriculum problems, I believe it would be beneficial to the problem if you made us aware of the area of the country (state) that the problem rest within. In addition to my above concerns, I would feel that it would be beneficial if you outlined a plan to take curriculum planning out of the hand of the individuals who are anti-curriculum liberation. A serious look as to how we got to the point that we are at with our curriculum would also be welcomed in my opinion.
I think if you are going to discuss the "moral" responsibility that comes with developing curriculum, you need to include your own clear definition of morality. I also would like to see personal accounts of your own experience with developing curriculum.
You address the question of "who" should determine curriculum. I would like to read about each person who should be involved in this process, what that person does, and for what that person is responsible.
First, I think that if your book title is going to be Liberating Curriculum, it is key to place more emphasis throughout the book on this theme. I see this addressed in your section entitled "Liberating Curriculum from What?", but after that the proposal focuses on types of curriculum traditions, key people, and curriculum creation. Just a thought.
Also, are you solely using Tyler-Schwab-Reid, or will you also be relying on any more recent players to reiterate your point about the state of curriculum?
My last suggestion would be to make sure the "how" is emphasized rather than just what is wrong or focusing on the the theoretical.
This is me grasping at straws- I think the proposal is great.
First I think you need to start out by defining what you mean by education and by curriculum. You refer to curriculum as the heart of education, but for many lay people the two words are synonymous. The interchange of these two words are vital to many of your arguments so make it clear from the beginning what your definition is of them. I also think you need to distinquish or define your terms morality and ethics. You seem to use them interchanable, but are they really the same word? Finally to make the book more readable to a general audience, make it come to life with personal anecdotes and continue to use active voice and the least amount of pedantic language as possible.
Like Susan C-T, I think a clarification of ethical v. moral is needed. Also, after looking at the proposals (2 & 3) - I much prefer 3. I also think that there needs to be something early on about the role of the curriculist. Also, although it may be too "political" to do so, have you considered addressing teacher advocacy regarding their role as the primary decision-makers in the classroom (rather than just "the mechanics" who are there to distribute today's lesson).
Because I have taken your class this semester, I was able to follow the terms and definitions. However, if I was a teacher who picked up your book with no prior knowledge of curriculum instruction, I would need more detailed definitions in the beginning.
27 comments:
Curriculum should be based upon student need and education can still be reached as a goal as long as a purpose is established for learning.
anonymous is Whitney Basil...sorry
I think that this book idea can be improved by making the distinction between the terms "education" and "curriculum" more clear. Also, I think that perhaps you should discuss briefly what influenced the development of the "good" curriculum in one state and not in the other. Additionally, I think that you should go into detail about the "transitional period", since you seek to adapt "A Liberating Curriculum" for use in classrooms.
In terms of "improvement" of the book, I think it would help first to somewhere include your own perspective on education, philosophy, and morality. This would assist the reader in better seeing the origin of your point of view. For example, you use "ethical" and "moral" interchangeably, but I don't know that they necessarily are. The word moral tends to have religious overtones. I think the general perception of being moral is when one asks the WWJD question of himself (what would Jesus do). A nonreligious person is going to feel that "morality" has no place in the school system. I think the term "ethics" used exclusively would reach a wider audience. At the very least, the two words need to be defined early in the writing.
Also, I think it would be useful to include either a chapter summarizing the stages curriculum has gone through in this country or a timeline (maybe as an appendix) that could be referred to by the reader. There have been a lot of different camps that have come in and out of favor in the world of education, and all have had an effect on curriculum. I think the points you present with Joseph Schwab, with Tyler, and with William Reid would be more clear if a non-historian reader had something to refer to that would fill in the background that acts as the foundation for what you have.
It can be improved by being more specific on what curriculum and education mean. It should be stated in the first paragrach so that the reader can determine what the difference is before you state how they compare or VS eachother. For examlpe you refer to curriculm "As the heart of education." You need to specify how and why it is he heart of education. The language is definitly readable and copmrehendable, by this I mean I can understand what your saying and the point your trying to make. One way you can improve it though. is by being more specific.
I was a little fuzzy on your case about curriculum vs. education. You say that people use the term "education" when they are actually talking about "curriculum". You also say that "curriculum" is a moral issue and that those people in the media and in the public eye are approaching the issue without considering a moral standpoint. Then, if they are taking the morals out of it, aren't they talking about something other than curriculum? I guess, I just need a little more explanation on this issue.
I think that I agree with the statement that "curriculum is the heart of education" but I would really like to read about your reasons behind why you believe this to be true. I guess for me, the more specific and detailed the definitions and explanations are at the beginning, the clearer the argument becomes at I read the book.
When you say that separating education and curriculum is dangerous, what do you mean? Do you mean that you cannot make a curriculum apart from having a purpose in mind for education?
You said that "the attempt to separate education as a social science from curriculum as a moral practice is not only impossible, but dangerous." I was really confused what that meant. What exactly is dangerous? I also think that you asked the reader a lot of questions that you were planning to answer later in your book. Maybe if I had read those answers to the questions, I would be more familiar with what curriculum was and what it's composed of.
I think this question has a lot to do with quesetion number two. I think after studying different views in class it has helped me better understand one idea. I do think it is a good idea to include different sides to your arguement and not just how you think. I am not a published author however, being in my junior year I have read a lot of boring texts books. If you are trying to reach a variety of audiences and actually want people to rea your book, give different sides, add a little comedy, and do not just make it words on a page; find a way to make the words jump out!
I think it is great so far. The language is really easy to understand. However, you make your point that you will be distinguishing between "education" and "curriculum" and you define curriculum as "the heart of education" but you don't really state your meaning of education so it is hard to dissect what you mean by curriculum is"the heart of education". I also think that if you explained your reasoning for why we need to liberate curriculum more clearly, the reader would be more intrigued and want to read on.
I think this book can be improved by explaining more why curriculum is so important. You said that “curriculum is crucial to rebuilding American education today.” But why is this more important than any other method that is being looked at today. I think addressing things like, having more money, different testing, the way we reward and punish students, and so on, does not outweigh the need to “liberate curriculum”. I also like what Emily said about the boring books. I think that adding real life situations and stories to the book as examples will keep your readers in focus, even when they are students in a college classroom setting.
I think it is a great idea and I would be interested in reading the book. To answer the question, I think it can be improved by making more sense of what you mean by cirriculum and education. Throughout the proposal there is a lot of ambiguity in the meaning of cirriculum versus education. I'm not sure if that is because you are saving it for the actual book and this is just a proposal but it left me thinking that it was just a discussion that education and cirriculum are not the same with no explanation of how.
I feel that we should know your opinion on each of the terms that you mention, such as "curriculum", "education", etc. I believe that I would understand it better if I knew what your feelings and thoughts are about each of these. Also, I feel that if you addressed some of the issues or negatives about the curriculum that are being presented in the classrooms, then maybe I would understand why you feel this way about "liberating Curriculum". But the book idea was easy to follow, and it didn't really bore me, so you're off to a great start!
I think the book is off to a great start!! I would like to know a better definition between "curriculum" and "definition." Also, what constitues a good curriclum? I would love to see examples out of your personal experiences. I would just try to write a book that would reach out to a lot of audiences. Try and use words that really grab the readers attention, and not words that cause a reader to have to read a paragraph five times because they cannot read it without falling asleep (cough cough Chubb and Moe.) All in all I think you have some really great ideas that can be expanded upon.
I am the type of reader who really is affected by opinions and experiences of other. It is very powerful thing to hear a story from someone indicating how they came to the conclusion they did. I don't think it would sound uneducated or make you an untrustworthy/biased source if you gave the readers a look at your experience with curriculum. If anything I believe it would connect the reader with your thoughts even more. If they disagree with you whole-heartedly it wouldn't necessarily sway their vote one way or the other but it may ignite a sort of respect for where you are coming from.
Maybe if you add the pragmatic approach into your writing, you can see how the 4 smaller groups incorporate into the deliberative approach. Try to include the lower class, middle class, and the upper class into your writing to grasp all areas of income levels within school. This also goes for different areas of a certain city or state or part of the country. For college education majors, you may want to center it more around the K-12 instead of the higher education.
I think that you have a great start so far! I just have the same comment that a lot of other people do. I think that if you give more detailed definition to "education" and "curriculum" then things would be less confusing. Also, I agree with Charis and Emily, I think oyu should add your expiences as a teacher in this book as well. Giving examples of how your opinions were formed will help the reader relate to you.
I think that your book could be improved greatly if you could define "education" and "curriculum" better. The book's definations are a bit hazy and leave the reader scratching his head. I hade to read the definitions several times for clarity. The word "education" is the harder definition to understand. Also, the outline states that you will give evidence of a school with a good curriculum and a bad one. What constitutes what a good or bad curriculum. How is that measured? A curriculum should be measured by the knowledge aquired by the students.
It sounds like you have this book off to a good start. I think you have definitely brought up some really interesting points, including that people often refer to education and curriculum as the same thing when they are completely different. One thing I would change is just to make it more clear what their differences are. For example, when you said that “Curriculum is the heart of education,” you also said that people often talk about education but are really referring to curriculum. I think that explaining why people mistake curriculum for education so often will help to. For me, I think this book would be easier to relate to if you gave some more examples, so that I could have a very specific picture in my mind to refer to as I read your book.
To me, this book seems like it could apply only to consolidating the existing ideas and balancing the theory-centric tendencies of the few. I think that rather than just seeking to bring peace to multiple perspectives, you should also focus on how this can affect a lay person or a non-educational entity. For instance, how will “liberating curriculum” apply to people outside of the teaching or legislative world? And beyond that, will this only apply to future generations of learners (children) or will it also apply to the average American far beyond their high school diplomas?
I definitely don't doubt that you know what you are talking about, but as a reader, you may want to be more specific when it comes to describing what the difference between education and curriculum really are. Also, you may want to give an example that can connect the reader to the classroom, curriculum and then back to the education. I felt disconnected from the the read.
I believe that this book idea can be improved by explaining the differences between college/university curriculum, high school curriculum, and middle school curriculum. I would like to know if there is any, or should there be any, correlation of the three above listed curriculums. By that I mean should curriculum be progressive or should it be isolated for each level of education? Also, in chapter five when you look at K-12 curriculum problems, I believe it would be beneficial to the problem if you made us aware of the area of the country (state) that the problem rest within. In addition to my above concerns, I would feel that it would be beneficial if you outlined a plan to take curriculum planning out of the hand of the individuals who are anti-curriculum liberation. A serious look as to how we got to the point that we are at with our curriculum would also be welcomed in my opinion.
I think if you are going to discuss the "moral" responsibility that comes with developing curriculum, you need to include your own clear definition of morality. I also would like to see personal accounts of your own experience with developing curriculum.
You address the question of "who" should determine curriculum. I would like to read about each person who should be involved in this process, what that person does, and for what that person is responsible.
First, I think that if your book title is going to be Liberating Curriculum, it is key to place more emphasis throughout the book on this theme. I see this addressed in your section entitled "Liberating Curriculum from What?", but after that the proposal focuses on types of curriculum traditions, key people, and curriculum creation. Just a thought.
Also, are you solely using Tyler-Schwab-Reid, or will you also be relying on any more recent players to reiterate your point about the state of curriculum?
My last suggestion would be to make sure the "how" is emphasized rather than just what is wrong or focusing on the the theoretical.
This is me grasping at straws- I think the proposal is great.
First I think you need to start out by defining what you mean by education and by curriculum. You refer to curriculum as the heart of education, but for many lay people the two words are synonymous. The interchange of these two words are vital to many of your arguments so make it clear from the beginning what your definition is of them. I also think you need to distinquish or define your terms morality and ethics. You seem to use them interchanable, but are they really the same word? Finally to make the book more readable to a general audience, make it come to life with personal anecdotes and continue to use active voice and the least amount of pedantic language as possible.
Like Susan C-T, I think a clarification of ethical v. moral is needed. Also, after looking at the proposals (2 & 3) - I much prefer 3. I also think that there needs to be something early on about the role of the curriculist. Also, although it may be too "political" to do so, have you considered addressing teacher advocacy regarding their role as the primary decision-makers in the classroom (rather than just "the mechanics" who are there to distribute today's lesson).
Because I have taken your class this semester, I was able to follow the terms and definitions. However, if I was a teacher who picked up your book with no prior knowledge of curriculum instruction, I would need more detailed definitions in the beginning.
Post a Comment