Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Layton (1993) is particularly effective in articulating the nature of the curriculum reform
in schools while paying tribute to technological education. The schools, in Layton's
opinion, have historically transmitted knowledge without contextualizing it:
There has been considerable debate in the education literature (Barrow, 1984; Goodlad,
1984; Pratt, 1994; Miller & Seller, 1985) about the importance and place of curriculum
theory and curriculum design. Barrow provided a useful perspective on the debate:
Curriculum design is an otiose notion: we don't want curriculum designers in the sense
of people adept at telling us formally how curricula should be set out, or laying down an
invariant order of steps to be taken in formulating a curriculum. We want people to
design particular curricula in intelligent ways. Much of the divergence between
designers and between theories of curriculum design is essentially irrelevant, since it
boils down to quibbling about how best to start tackling the problem, and how best to
make an impact, rather than arguing about what a coherent curriculum proposal should
involve. (p. 67)
The author's view, as reflected partly in the curriculum principles which follow, is that
curriculum is necessarily a complex concept that lends itself awkwardly, with equal
challenge and passion, to theory and practice. To best address that complexity, teacher
education programs may need to reassess their priorities with respect to the importance
and place of curriculum theory. Well conceived notions about how curriculum theories
guide educational change are, as Apple (1990) and Goodson (1991) point out, too
simplistic. Often what appears on the surface to be a very coherent and rational
argument for a curriculum policy direction in schools may never materialize, or if it does,
the final result differs from what was envisioned. Whether one adopts Goodson's (1991)
notion that curriculum theory, to be of use, must begin with studies of schools and
teaching, or Apple's (1990) view that our ability to illuminate the interdependence and
interaction of factors associated with curriculum reform is limited by political and cultural
forces deeply embedded in the schools, the end result is the same.
Because curriculum and curriculum change are complex, the investigators in the
University of Western Ontario teacher development project considered both curriculum
and curriculum development as teacher- and school-level phenomena that require an
eclectic and applied approach. Technological education curriculum ideology in the
above context has, until recently, been an ignored subject/program area (Layton, 1993).
The work of Zuga (1993) and Herschbach (1992) is particularly helpful in charting the
technological education curriculum theory and design terrain. Herschbach contends that
"conceptual inconsistency has been a characteristic mark of the movement
[technical/utilitarian or competency-based curriculum design variations in technology
education]" (p. 25). In his opinion, the curriculum design pattern (academic rationalism,
technical/utilitarian, intellectual processes, social reconstruction, or personal relevance)
that should underlie technology education is open to debate. Competencies, in
Herschbach's view, need to be defined more broadly than "the ability to manipulate
tools, use material and apply mechanical processes. Problem solving, critical thinking
skills, ordered ways of working-these are competencies that can also be identified" (p.
26). In contrast to Herschbach's desire to see technology education develop a "process
design pattern," Zuga (1993) advocates a diversity of theories. While recognizing the
need to modify Kliebard's (1992) categories (social efficiency, human development,
social meliorism) to encompass the emergence of a post-modern philosophy, Zuga
argues that technology education programs, for the most part, exemplify the social
efficiency paradigm:
I believe that our theory needs to diversify. A problem is the positivist notion of one
truth, one right way, one theory, one unified profession. Positivist theoretical
underpinnings in the social efficiency theory never serve the diverse needs of a diverse
population; rather, positivist theory attempts to force everything into a homogeneous
blend… . I see no reason for a single curriculum theory underpinning technology
education. (p. 62, 63)
The premises for establishing guiding principles for curriculum development practice in
such a context are crucial. First, a conceptual framework within which to plan learning
activities and design curriculum may be a more significant element in a teacher's
preparation than is currently acknowledged (Feiman-Nemser, 1990). The teacher
education literature has not given curriculum design the attention it deserves (Haughey,
1992; Pratt, 1994; Sanders, 1990). Second, aspiring technology teachers should have
an opportunity to reflect on their own attitudes and beliefs about learning (Hansen,
1995). The understanding gained by having some way to conceptualize personal
attitudes and beliefs about learning, according to Feiman-Nemser, is a crucial element
in a teacher's development. This is especially so in technological education because of
the eclectic nature of the belief systems held by technologists/technicians with business
and industry backgrounds or ideological tendencies. Third, there is a need to explore an
epistemological foundation for technological education. The "technological method"
(Savage & Sterry, 1990) notwithstanding, the difference between knowing and doing in
the building of an epistemological and pedagogical rationale for technological education
is important for education practitioners to understand. Fourth, the curriculum
development process needs to be more clearly understood, fully appreciated, and
consistently applied at all levels in school systems. The task analysis method of
developing curriculum (Fryklund, 1970) has been an integral part of technological
teacher education for years. Despite the outdatedness of task analysis, more needs to
be done to expose the lineage of scientific curriculum making (Kliebard, 1992) and test
its applicability in today's technocentric society. Lauda (1994), while he does not use the
term technocentric, refers to the need for a global understanding which rightly has the
study of technology at its core. Finally, and perhaps most salient, is the premise that
aspiring teachers need to understand the political realities associated with curriculum
development work. Politics in education is a field of study that is overlooked in the
teacher education curriculum. It is least understood and discussed, and yet it is critical
to the successful adoption of curriculum.
The structure of this paper conforms to the five premises articulated above. Each
premise is explored and a principle for improving practice in curriculum design is
developed. While each principle is described as a separate entity for emphasis and
clarity (somewhat like a literary sketch), the reader may make useful connections
between and among them. The guiding principles articulated above (i.e., the need for a
conceptual framework, opportunities to reflect on attitudes and beliefs, exploration of the
epistemological foundation of the subject, an understanding of the curriculum
development process, and an understanding of the political realities) represent
signposts from which bearings, related to curriculum study and practice, may be
charted.
The experiential base for this paper was a technological teacher development project
completed recently at The University of Western Ontario. The project involved a
program modification that altered the way technological education teachers were
recruited, prepared, and placed in the school systems of southern Ontario. One result of
the action research component of the project was a critical look at the teacher
development process in technological education. Among several areas identified for
study and reflection, helping technology teachers become curriculum writers was
paramount.
Pratt's view about the place of theory in understanding the curriculum design process,
clarifies the theory/practice dichotomy. Curriculum development, in his opinion, is a
practical phenomenon that does not couple well with theory (i.e., theory does not drive
curriculum development and curriculum development does not drive theory). Pratt is
convinced that curriculum cannot be governed by theory alone.
Pratt defines design as a deliberate process of devising, planning, and selecting the
elements, techniques, and procedures that constitute an organized learning endeavor.
Embedded in the notion of designing, according to Pratt, is a deeper set of
understandings that imply the production of something that is conceptual as well as
material (p. 5). "The curriculum designer … must develop priorities to guide the
selection of tasks to be performed, as well as be able to perform them" (p. 10).
Over the past thirty years much of curriculum practice has been driven by theory (e.g.,
behavioral psychology) in which interaction between teachers and students has been
defined in scientific terms like behaviorism or cognitivism. Such theory has driven a
curriculum design process that starts with behavioral learning objectives, proceeds with
content decisions, and finishes with instructional methods. However, while behavioral
theory derives its credibility from scientific knowledge about human behavior, it does not
penetrate the complexity of what takes place when a person learns something
meaningful. An alternative to the social efficiency model would be to adopt a human
development/phenomenological design. A phenomenological approach would proceed
based on the needs of learners; it would draw from the teacher's experience with, and
knowledge of, human development. In this case the planning or curriculum design
sequence would start with an understanding of how people learn, continue with
instructional methods that match learning styles, then progress to content.
The nature of instruction in the two cases may be appreciably different. In the first case
the goals and objectives of learning come from experts who believe they know best
what should be taught and how it should be taught. Such instruction is predicated on a
top-down, linear model, in which knowledge is static and is passed along or transmitted
to the young. The second represents a blended model in which the needs of the student
come first, knowledge is thought to be dynamic, and learning how to learn is as valid an
outcome of schooling as the transmission of existing knowledge.
I have no time whatever for any system which recruits high-powered thinkers to contrive
and foist a curriculum on the schools. This cannot work unless we believe that the
teacher of the future is to be a low-grade technician working under someone else's
instructions rather than a professional making his [sic] own diagnosis and prescribing
his [sic] own treatment. (p. 9)
The view reached by a teacher development group (Hansen et al., 1992) at The
University of Western Ontario is that curriculum development, as a practical
phenomenon, does indeed contain distinct and identifiable elements. Those elements
are similar to those identified by Pratt (1980): (a) the ability to design a set of learning
activities within general provincial/state guidelines; (b) consult with community groups,
school leaders, fellow teachers, students; and, (c) given the resources available to the
teacher and a set of tried and proven curriculum principles, prepare a curriculum
prospectus that provides parameters for budget allocation, resource availability,
decision making, professional roles, and administrative contingencies.
The systematic inclusion of higher order learning outcomes (e.g., critical thinking) into a
curricular strategy provides an example of how conceptualizing attitudes and beliefs
about learning can be useful. Previous curriculum theory has been bereft of
explanations on how to connect higher order learning outcomes and everyday learning
practices (Wotherspoon, 1987). Technological educators have felt for years that their
experiential pedagogical models were very productive in teaching inquiry and problem
solving skills. Perhaps a belated rationale for that intuitive belief is now possible.
Learning materials and activities or subjects can be arranged in patterns that allow for
maximum flexibility. The belief that schooling needs to be problem-centered rather than
subject-centered is one for which teacher candidates need context. Knowing about the
evolution of schooling around separate subjects, and how an integrated curriculum
makes it possible to explore relationships between ideas and concepts in different
subjects [the transaction position], may free teacher candidates to develop curriculum
more creatively. Technology teachers may not initially understand the consequences of
integrating curriculum, but they are better off for having a framework through which to
classify their actions and decisions about learning activities. Technological education is
well served, in this context, by its eclectic nature and pedagogical tradition.
Understanding one's own attitudes and beliefs about learning and schooling gives
context to the instructional process. It also makes it easier to understand the views
about learning held by others.
The attitudes and beliefs principle is relatively easy to conceptualize in the abstract. It is
much more difficult to put the conceptualization into practice. Further study and debate
among technology teacher educators with knowledge and experience in teacher
development is necessary to refine this principle.
Principle 3: An Epistemological Rationale
Epistemology, that branch of philosophy that deals with the origin, nature, and
limitations of knowledge, has fueled debate in education for years. The argument over
academic versus utilitarian curriculum, for example, can be found in the education
literature today (Goodson, 1987), as well as at the turn of the century (Dewey,
1916/1966). The duration of the debate is testimony to the potency and relevance of the
nature of technological knowledge as an issue.
Dewey's views on problem solving, according to Miller and Seller, are almost household
knowledge. "According to Dewey, intelligence is developed through the individual's
interaction with the social environment, particularly through solving problems" (Miller &
Seller, 1985, p. 65). The distinction between an academic and utilitarian curriculum can
be described as the difference between having knowledge [academic] and being able to
demonstrate or apply that knowledge [utilitarian]. Learners in school settings are asked
to demonstrate retention of factual information (i.e., short term knowledge, through
tests, exams, quizzes, or some form of recall). Do they get a chance to apply that
knowledge?
Figure 1
Technology educators have a rich tradition of balancing the cognitive, psychomotor, and
affective elements of individual development. Little is available in the literature,
however, to describe and give credence to that balance. Lewis (1993) describes the
technological education epistemological issue in terms of curriculum authenticity. "The
validity of human endeavor as the basis of knowledge in its own right has, to a large
extent, to do with the authenticity of the curriculum. How authentic is the curriculum if it
denies everyday existence … if it relegates human practices supportive of life to an
inferior plane?" (p. 19). The curriculum authenticity notion is one that aligns well with the
need for learning that is contextualized.
The word praxis is helpful in describing what it means to apply knowledge or to know
how to do something. Praxis, according to Pratt (1980), typifies experiential learning (p.
11). The importance of the connection between current action, future consequences,
and alternative action cannot be overstated. Can knowing ever be separated
from knowing how if real learning is to take place? Pring (1976), made the distinction
between knowing that (i.e., belief-type knowledge) and knowing how (i.e., procedural-
type knowledge) when he stated that "I feel that the neglect of this distinction is
responsible for so much dead weight in the curriculum… . We are so concerned with
`knowing that' that we forget that much of this kind of knowledge is a very sophisticated
reflection upon `knowing how,' an attempt to make explicit and put into statements the
principles that are already operating in successful practice" (p. 19).
Given the rapidly changing social needs and conditions facing North American school
systems, it is difficult to imagine curriculum planning taking place only at the macro
level. Pratt warns about the pitfalls of removing the planning process too far from the
learner. He asserts, "in most schools, the programs offered reflect the areas of expertise
and interest of teachers rather than an analysis of the needs of learners" (p. 52). Pratt
(1989) is convinced senior educators act too arbitrarily on behalf of the many
constituents served by schooling:
Curriculum planning that is guided or informed by some rational process would seem to
merit the attention of all educators. Before curriculum can be formulated, the curriculum
designer must take into account a combination of constituent needs-including
community, schools, teachers, and students. Because communities and regions are
very different, student groups vary, schools differ, and teachers are not all alike, the
idea of one prescribed curriculum for everyone is limiting.
With respect to the individual learner, one observation is central to curriculum planning;
learning is an interactive process. Constructivist learning theorists (Driver & Bell,
1985; Scott, 1987) may have a valid argument when they claim that learners have a
base of experience through which new meaning can be constructed. They also may be
right in assuming that people are purposive beings who set their own goals and control
their own learning. In short, learning is best characterized as an adaptive process as
articulated in principle number three, in which learners interact with their environment.
The role of instructor is an intermediary one.
Another element in the curriculum planning process involves program evaluation. Few
issues among education practitioners garner as much attention as assessment of
student achievement and the relation of such assessment to program effectiveness. It is
risky to make easy generalizations about the study and practice of program evaluation
(macro or micro level). Measuring student achievement and determining the
effectiveness of planned learning activities are, right or wrong, integral elements of
schooling as it has evolved. Kramer (1990) provides an interesting perspective for
consideration and a provocative illustration of how assessment of student achievement
might be portrayed.
Kramer (1990) advocates that an evaluation scheme that (a) recognizes hard work, (b)
provides opportunities for students to interact formally and informally, (c) promotes
engagement between instructors and students, and (d) creates avenues for out-of-class
use of skills. The object of curriculum planning, according to Kramer, is not to make an
obstacle course. Schools and technology teachers would do well to consider Kramer's
four rules of engagement:
The underlying assumption in this view is that reality is socially created and sustained
and often dissected or deconstructed (sometimes with ulterior motives in mind).
Technology educators will need to ask whether or not any interest group has or is
framing/constructing a new reality in which technological education is either credited or
discredited. MacKenzie and Wajcman (1985), sociologists of technology, argue that
technologists and technology educators have perilously ignored social concerns for too
long.
The Need for Further Analysis
In labeling and describing the five principles, the author has attempted to analyze
curriculum development practice in technological education. Several questions have
been raised, some of which may lead to further research, analysis, and reflection. The
technological education teacher development project recently completed at the
University of Western Ontario (Hansen et al., 1992) demonstrated that rationalizing
curriculum and curriculum development in technological education and technological
teacher education is a challenging process. Technology teachers come to the
profession from a broad range of specializations and with an equally diverse range of
values. Meeting the needs of such a group is demanding. The very fact that curriculum
is so contested and curriculum development is such a dynamic process compounds the
problem. Identifying a finite set of principles which can be applied widely is a daunting
task.
The work of documenting and reaching consensus on the principles by which curriculum
can be fashioned was accomplished at UWO through the introduction of curriculum
studios (Hansen, 1995). Technology teacher candidates were/are required to complete
three studios (communication technology, engineering graphics, design studies), each
providing an opportunity to design and write innovative technological curriculum.
Through hands-on experience, experimentation, and analysis of educational materials,
student teachers, faculty members, and associate teachers in the schools collaborate to
generate learning units/modules/showcase projects. The creating and building of
curricula, moreover, occurs concurrently with the development of the principles
underlying and explaining it.
The challenge for technology instructors and scholars was articulated by Layton (1993),
when he characterized the historic role played by schools as institutions that
decontextualize knowledge. If the pedagogical imperative in schools is to contextualize
all knowledge that is transmitted or transacted, the experiential pedagogical practice of
technology educators may have more value than is currently recognized. The origins of
those practices need to be articulated and internalized before increased value can
accrue. The utility of technology as a means of adaptation, expression, and fulfillment
for young people deserves to be more widely publicized and celebrated.
The five principles, as a collective and as specific entities, provide a backdrop against
which curriculum planning, in teacher education settings and in schools, can be made
and against which the nature of technology and technological education can be
showcased. Ideological and practical curriculum work in education have a unique
association. While curriculum theories and ideologies about curriculum evolve, the
relation of those ideologies to practice is difficult to extricate. One's curriculum
development experience, circumstance, and understanding of curriculum development
principles, ultimately determine curriculum design. The unions and connections which
evolve through practical curriculum writing and development experience in technological
education may give schooling and curriculum practice the form, content, spirit, and
direction Layton foresees.
Author
Hansen is Assistant Professor and Coordinator, Curriculum Division, Technological
Education, The University of Western Ontario.
References
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Bell, D. (1989, Spring). The third technological revolution. Dissent, pp. 164-176.
Commonwealth of Virginia, (1992). Design and technology: Teacher's guide for high
school technology education. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education.
Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1985, March). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A
constructivist view. School Science Review. pp. 443-456.
Goodson, I. (1987). School subjects and curriculum change. London: The Falmer Press.
Hansen, R., Fliesser, C., Froelich, M., & McClain, J. (1992). Teacher development
project: Technological education, Final report of the Teacher Development Project.
London, ON: Faculty of Education, The University of Western Ontario.
Lewis, T. (1993). Valid knowledge and the problem of the practical arts. Curriculum
Inquiry, 23(2), 175-202.
Lewin, K. (1975). Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press. (Originally published in 1951)
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology: How
the refrigerator got its hum. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum design and development. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (1990). A conceptual framework for technology education - part
1, The Technology Teacher, 50(1), 6-11.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Tracy Gilmore
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v32n2/hansen.html
1. Nama pengarang. Penulisan nama pengarang sama seperti aturan penulisan nama pada
daftar pustaka biasa, yaitu nama depan ditulis di belakang.
2. Judul. Judul tulisan diberi tanda kutip.
3. Tanggal Akses
4. Alamat situs atau blog. Alamatnya harus berupa URL (Uniform Resource Locator) alias:
Rngkaian karakter menurut suatu format standar tertentu, yang digunakan untuk
menunjukkan alamat suatu sumber seperti dokumen dan gambar di Internet. Seperti
ini: http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL
Contoh Penulisan Daftar Pustaka Dari Internet:
Aini, Ratu. “Cara Beternak Itik Lampung”. 15 Januari 2001.
http://ternakindo.com/2008/12/literasi-informasi-ternak-itik-nasional.html.