1

CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

Part One: Dewey and Bobbitt

Summary of Approaches to Curriculum

Shelley Kennedy

The similarities and differences between the theories of John Dewey and Franklin Bobbitt

epitomize how viewpoints of curriculum models can become a source of contention among

educators. First, Dewey and Bobbitt have similar but differing views on the position of the

learner. These theorists seek similar outcomes for learners in that they both advocate for

preparing students for their futures, but they seek to prepare them through different models of

curriculum. Dewey (1929) positions the learner to be in control of his or her own learning,

interests, and passions. He emphasizes students should be guided to think for themselves seeing

as our future is filled with unforeseen possibilities. Though Bobbitt and Dewey share similar

prospectives that value the learners development through life experiences rather than through

easily forgotten memorization, their views on honoring students learning interest differ. Bobbitt

(1918) dismisses the interests of children to be irrelevant to the educational process (p. 5). This

rather industrial model of curriculum is formed from social need rather than the interest of the

child. Dewey (1929) states that true education demands inclusion of the social situations in

which one finds himself (p. 33). With Bobbitts perspective, curriculum becomes specialized

and less cohesive. Deweys philosophy works to avoid disconnected learning. He views students

interests to be of the upmost importance because it leads to student growth and achievement.

Dewey and Bobbitt have widely different views on the position of the teacher. Dewey

positions the teacher as the facilitator rather than the giver of knowledge. The instructor is not

simply training individual students but focuses on preparing them for life. In this curricula, the

teachers and students are part of a community where particular opportunities and influences are

created to foster discussion, solution making, and social strategies in preparation for current and
 2
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

future life situations. Dewey (1929) states, the teacher is there as a member of the community to

select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these

influences (p. 36). Bobbitt, on the other hand, develops curriculum in a scientific-systematic

manner prior to instruction. The interests of the students are not considered during the

implementation of the curriculum. Deweys theory of curriculum places a greater emphasis on

the learner in the development of the curriculum.

In their theories, Dewey and Bobbitt both prioritize the sociological experiences for

students. Bobbitt (1918) states, curriculum must train thought and judgement in connection with

actual life-situations (p. 11). Although Bobbitts curriculum approach greatly concentrates on

the social aspect, it seems to disparage the physiological process of the learner. His curriculum

design is systematic and predetermined without taking into consideration the learners interests

or developmental levels. In contrast, Dewey demands the psychological and sociological

experience be present for learners. Dewey creates a greater emphasis on the psychological

component in the curriculum. Without the two processes simultaneously functioning together,

Dewey believes a disorganized and ineffective education will develop.

Part One: Reflection

Deweys curriculum ideals began to resonate more so with my views in curriculum

formation as he emphasizes the importance of both the sociological and psychological aspects of

the learner. The foundation of a curriculum is laid with the prior experiences and interests of the

learner. Without the motivation to seek knowledge and the skill set to find answers, curriculum

design goes to waste. The sociological component of Deweys curriculum development in

conjunction with the interests and desires of the learner aids in adequately forming a solid

curriculum foundation.
 3
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

Although I subscribe more to Deweys philosophy, I see value in Bobbitts ideas as well.

Through discovering the hidden curriculum and the role it plays in ones education, Bobbitt

expresses a need to incorporate undirected training. According to Bobbitt (1918), students

receive a portion of their education through life-experiences in their communities (p. 13). Hidden

curriculum and undirected training is even more so important in todays education. Many

students lack authentic educational or life experiences conducive to a productive life. Dewey and

Bobbitt appear to share this viewpoint. Dewey says it best in School and Society (1899),

The great waste in the school comes from the childs inability to utilize the experiences

he gets outside of school in any complete and free way within the school itself; while, on

the other hand, the child is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning in school. That

is the isolation of the schoolits isolation from life (p. 67).

I have often viewed the responsibility to promote experiences, even those which are obtained

outside the classroom, as an additional task of teaching. Dewey reiterates this idea when he says

that school and life should not be isolated from one another. The cohesion of life experiences and

school experiences are vital for this generation of learners. This generation of students parents

often work, many come from a single parent or family guardian household, and they have a

wider variety of experiences and home situations. Students bring many variables to the

classroom, some of which potentially hinder or promote their learning. Family dynamics and

academic expectations in school today greatly differ from the early curriculum theorists schools

of their era. Educating todays youth expands beyond knowledge acquisition or development of

technical skills. Educators have a greater responsibility now than ever before.
 4
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

Part Two: Summary of

Creative-Integrated Curriculum

In this time of standardization, it is necessary to reawaken the imagination and

natural curiosity of learners by injecting creativity into reading, mathematics, writing, science,

and all learning content areas. The challenge faced when developing a creative-integrated

curriculum is the demand to relate every lesson to a measurable standard or objective. To assist

teachers with implementation, Susan Brookhart provides multiple assessment options ranging

from performance tasks to rubrics with integrated creativity components. Brookhart (2013)

explains that before educators can assess creativity, they need to make sure the tasks they set for

students are conductive to creativity (p. 30). Creativity assessments could include open-ended

responses, opportunities to make connections with content, and choices in expression.

Assessments should provide opportunities for students to express their authentic ideas,

reconstruct old ideas, and elaborate on new ideas. Creativity cannot be standardized alone;

however, it can seamlessly connect with reading, mathematics, science, writing, and other

components evaluated for student progress.

Creative-integrated curriculum is a process that first requires the development of a safe,

encouraging classroom environment that fosters creativity. The ideal environment is one in

which creativity is given recognition and appreciation. Maxine Greene (2013) expresses this well

when she states,

Such living enables us to release our social imaginations in order to take action against

the very standards of measurement and evaluation that are separating us from one another

and from our ability to learn and teach in differing, and yes, creative ways (p. 252).
 5
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

Providing a creative-integrated curriculum would require a great effort from educators who must

be intentional with creativity. Training, experience, and a new way of thinking would be

necessary to execute a creative curriculum. For teachers who are inclined to implement such a

curriculum, creativity can become effortless with time when integrated with other content areas

that focus on learners interests and styles of learning.

Part Two: Reflection

As I contemplate the creative-integrated curriculum, I continue to think about the great

responsibility and initiative required of educators to promote this curriculum. Nel Nodding

(2013) greatly emphasizes in her article, Standardized Curriculum and Loss of Creativity, If

people want to promote creativity in students, they should also encourage it in teachers (p. 210).

Creative teacher training would need to occur in per-service training for educators. New and

seasoned educators would require professional develop which involves full participation,

enthusiasm, and time. Hindering the implementation of a creative-integrated curriculum, is the

limited time available for teachers to fully plan out creative interactions with students in

meaningful ways. Intentional creativity needs thoughtful planning and consideration of

possibilities for students.

Instructional time is precious and often protected for core subjects such as reading and

mathematics. This calls even more so for creativity to be integrated intentionally for all content

areas. Students are more actively involved and engaged in activities promoting creativity;

therefore, subjects typically less appealing to students become more interesting.

I have come to understand many schools promote creativity thinking through their

curriculum, particularity with project-based learning methods. Project-based learning involves

 6
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

student investigations stimulating problem-solving, communication, cooperative learning,

inquiry, and decision making (Ertmer & Park, 2008; Kaldi & Filippatou, 2010). Using this

method of teaching promotes solution discovery, inquiry learning, critical thinking, dialogue, and

cooperation.

A Curriculum Framework Aspired by

John Deweys Curriculum Ideals

This theoretical framework extends from John Deweys curriculum theory with a holistic

focus on the learner. The curriculum is composed of three essential components involving the

formal curriculum, teacher curriculum, and environmental curriculum. Curriculum developers

and educators must seek coherence when developing all curriculum components. That is to say,

many educators and schools need to broaden their views of curriculum so that they analyze the

lessons that they are teaching via their pedagogies, staffs, and environments (Simpson et al.

2011, pg. 139). The three components are each identifiable within the curriculum, yet cannot

successfully stand alone.

The first component consists of the formal curriculum: the core content areas such as

reading, mathematics, language, science and vocational trades. Each serves a particular role in

the success of students in their quest as lifelong learners to understand the world around them.

This curriculum extends beyond mere knowledge acquisition to promote creative thinking,

refection, inquiry and project-based learning. Assessing ones learning is rich, intentional, and

meaningful. Students are evaluated through projects, portfolios, and other means of qualitative

measures rather than quantitative means. Teachers provide assessments that extend beyond the

surface, deep, and stretch students to apply knowledge in creative and applicable ways. Students
 7
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

and teachers continually reflect upon assessment data to guide the curriculum at the pace

necessary for mastery.

The second aspect is the teachers involvement in the curriculum. This component

emphasizes the teacher impact on student learning and the vital role of educators. Dewey

positions educators to have,

A depth of understanding in at least one field of inquiry or creativity; understand students

and their communities; recognize the value of inquiry based learning and problem

solving; integrate the life of the student and society into the educational activities of

school; exhibit a passion for teaching and learning; and think reflectively and

imaginatively about her or his responsibilities as a professional educator (Simpson et al.

2011, p. 142)

In an effort to provide creative teaching, sufficient time is devoted to professional development

in research-based programs promoting critical thinking, multiple forms of assessments, project-

based learning, technology, and multicultural awareness. Teachers and staff investigate the home

environment, religious beliefs, culture, and learning styles of their students each school year

through a neighborhood walk-through and family questionnaire. This allows for teachers to

immerse themselves in the experiences of their learners to provide relatable lessons and

opportunities conducive to their interests and background. This theoretical curriculum allows for

teacher creativity and autonomy to provide quality and relative learning opportunities. The

educator must first learn the student in order for the learner to learn to his or her fullest potential.
 8
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

The final aspect, the environmental curriculum, encompasses the conscious and

unconscious experiences occurring in the school environment (Simpson, et al. 2011, p. 143). This

curriculum is the most influential among the three aspects of the theoretical curriculum.

Environmental curriculum is essentially the school environment and the lessons inadvertently

learned from school experiences. To truly implement this dimension of the curriculum, educators

must foster a community of learners comfortable to express themselves and function as a body of

learners. The teachers, administration, board, and district must provide sufficient funds,

opportunities, and time for students to participate in learning opportunities that extend beyond

the formal curriculum in areas such as the arts, health, and athletics. Teachers permeate care for

students and the community in all aspects of their teaching to promote a desire in students to take

into consideration the beliefs, ideas, and purpose of others and the vital role of community.

Curriculum theorists continue to redefine the educational experiences for learners. They

have created a rich curriculum history encouraging one to think more critically, examine

assumptions more thoroughly, consider others perspectives, and inquire more deeply on the key

questions of curriculum (Simpson, et al. 2011, p. 155). In the study of curriculum theorist, such

as Franklin Bobbitt, John Dewey, Maxine Greene, and Nel Noddings, the theoretical curriculum

framework encompasses the formal, teacher, and environmental curriculum. This approach

provides a more holistic focus on the learner with each curricular component being essential in

the development of lifelong learners who are caring, productive, and involved in the community.
 9
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

References

Bobbitt, F. (1918). Scientific method in curriculum-making. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton

(Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (4th edition). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Assessing creativity. Educational Leadership, 70 (5), 28-34. Retrieved

from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb13/vol70/num05/

Assessing-Creativity.aspx

Dewey, J. (1899). School and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum

studies reader (4th edition). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ertmer, P. A., & Park S. H. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based

learning: using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 39 (4), 631-643. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x

Greene, M. (2013). Afterword: The turning of the leaves: expanding our vision for the arts in

education. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 251-252.

Kaldi, S., & Filippatou, D. (2010). The effectiveness of project-based learning on pupils with

learning difficulties regarding academic performance, group work and motivation.

International Journal of Special Education, 25 (1), 17-26. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890562.pdf

Noddings, N. (2013). Standardized curriculum and loss of creativity. Theory into practice, 52,

210-215. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2013.804315

 10
CURRICULUM PHILOSOPHY

Simpson, D. J., Almager, I. L., Beerwinkle, A. L., Celebi, D., Ferkel, R. C., Holubik, T. E.,

Tomlinson, T. A. (2011). Toward a neo-deweyan theory of curriculum analysis and

development. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5, 135-167. Retrieved from http://files.eric.

ed.gov/fulltext/EJ942573.pdf