# data[].attributes.body
According to Freire (1970), only the oppressed have the power to change their situation and that of their oppressors from oppression to liberation. In this context, a curriculum that helps "all young people develop into responsible, productive and happy citizens" (Tyler, 1987, p. 37) would need to be created by the oppressed - or would need to be created after oppression had ended, which seems quite utopian. However, Tyler does not address the criteria or the definition of "responsible, productive citizens." Going back to Apple's question about who gets to decide what counts as legitimate knowledge, I would ask what counts as responsible and productive? The answer most likely lies in the culture or society that a given school is situated in. If that society is based on an economy driven by slave labor for example, the definition of productive citizens may include criteria such as accepting their place in society, following rules without questioning, and contributing to the wealth of their company. These are the often unasked questions that are perhaps the most important in curriculum development: what are the goals of education, and who gets to set those goals?

# data[].attributes.body
I think Papert and Harel (1991) touch on the need to decouple content/topics from cognitive skills when they describe a classroom where students have "time to think, to dream, to gaze, to get a new idea and try it and drop it or persist, time to talk, time to see other people's work and their reaction to yours" (Papert & Harel, 1991, p. 2). They were describing an ideal math classroom, but their focus on what students would be doing cognitively - not on the content they need to learn. I also believe that the essential goal of a constructionist classroom or school as defined by Papert and Harel would be to produce students who can learn things, as opposed to producing students who know things.

# data[].attributes.body
(Piaget and Vygotsky)

# data[].attributes.headline
Theme: The Roles of Individuals Within a Larger Community

# data[].attributes.subject
Theme: The Roles of Individuals Within a Larger Community

# data[].attributes.body
In the early decades of American education, learning was seen as something that had only one actor: the teacher. In current practice and, even more so, in current educational research, the idea that the learner is also an actor is widely accepted, (although there may still be significant debate on the scope of that role). However, what I have not yet seen in our readings (and hope to see in future weeks' readings) is acknowledgement of the role of interaction among actors in a learning situation. This, therefore, is a placeholder, which I will come back to after completing more of the readings for this course.

# data[].attributes.body
A key parallel between Freire (1970), Apple (1993), and Lau (2001) is the acknowledgement that what appears as "content" in Hall's Figure 1 (Hall, 1975, p. 62) is not a static entity but exists because of some selection, and that it is power which determines who makes that selection. Apple notes that "The curriculum is never simply a neutral assemblage of knowledge, somehow appearing in the texts and classrooms of a nation. It is always part of a selective tradition, someone's selection, some group's vision of legitimate knowledge," (Apple, 1993, p. 1). Lau states that in any theoretical model, " curriculum is the manifestation of the power distribution in society," (Lau, 2001, p. 29). Freire, building on the fact that the group whose knowledge is seen as legitimate is also the group with the most power, calls for a change: "No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors," (Freire, 1970, p. 54).

# data[].attributes.body
Costa and Loveall (2002) identify the need for change in the 21st century: "at issue is what and how to teach the most enduring, essential, and relevant knowledge in a society and for a world that are experiencing a meteoric knowledge explosion, unprecedented change, and an unpredictable future" (p. 57). This seems to be an intermediate step between the rigidity of pre-Thorndike beliefs that topics or subjects would develop cognitive ability, and the hypothetical counterpoint that only cognitive skills need to be taught, and the selection of topics or subjects is unimportant.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 26th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
The 26th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education

# data[].attributes.body
Tyler lists this 1927 event as the third of the five most significant curriculum events in the 20th century. The society unanimously determined that "the prevailing curriculum" in American schools was not "adequate or even appropriate to a democratic society in the modern world" (Tyler, 1987, p. 37). They called for a curriculum that "would help all young people to develop into responsible, productive and happy citizens" (Tyler, 1987, p. 37).

# data[].attributes.body
Dewey says that in traditional education, "The subject-matter of education consists of bodies of information and of skills that have been worked out in the past; therefore, the chief business of the school is to transmit them to the new generation" (Dewey, 1938, p. 1). This maps directly to Hall's "popular picture of curriculum," shown in figure 1 (Hall, 1975, p. 62). There is no selection of content, and the question of what "counts as legitimate knowledge" (Apple, 1993, p. 1) is seen as already settled and irrelevant to curriculum development conversations. There is also no active role for the student as actor or agent, and no attention to the context of learning, from either a micro- (e.g., student-teacher relationships) or macro- (e.g., racism in the community or society) lens.

# data[].attributes.body
WHITE posts summarize content from class readings.
PURPLE posts identify connections between content.
BLUE posts describe themes I've perceived in the readings.
YELLOW posts include content from sources outside of class readings.
PINK posts are all other posts (this key, references cited, etc).
ORGANIZATION: Posts progress from the upper left to the right and to the bottom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Theme: Decoupling Content Topics from Cognitive Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Theme: Decoupling Content Topics from Cognitive Skills

# data[].attributes.body
Tyler (1987) describes the early history of curriculum development, noting that for "many, many years curriculum discussions focused on the presumed educational values of different subjects and the place of each in the curriculum. The study of geometry was believed to develop the logical faculty of the mind; the study of Greek and Latin was believed to develop the verbal faculty" (p. 36), and so on. It was not until "Thorndike's studies" that this view began to lose its prominence (Tyler, 1987, p. 36); Tyler does not cite a specific paper, but Thorndike's earliest work on this topic seems to be a 1901 paper (Woodworth & Thorndike, 1901). Tyler also cites 1893 as a significant year in the demotion of this belief. So, until the turn of the previous century, the specific subject or topic of instruction was thought to be inherently tied to specific cognitive skills, strategies, or tasks. I believe this has changed over time. Today, as technological advances have made the memorization of facts exponentially less necessary than ever before, we may see even more focus on teaching "how to know" rather than "what to know."

# data[].attributes.body
(Hall, 1975, p. 65)
1. What educational purposes should the educational establishment seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organised?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

# data[].attributes.body
"[This figure] illustrates a popularly held belief that education merely consists of facts which have to be examined" (Hall, 1975, p. 62).

# data[].attributes.headline
Freire (1970): Pedagogy of the Oppressed

# data[].attributes.subject
Freire (1970): Pedagogy of the Oppressed

# data[].attributes.body
Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make  sense? Discourse, 14(1), 1-16.

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-

Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K., Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 11-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing  House, 83(2), 39-43.

Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in  classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59-67.

Brown, A. L., Metz, K. E., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget and Vygotsky. In A. Tryphon & J. Vonèche (Eds.), Piaget-Vygotsky: The Social Genesis of Thought (pp. 145-170). Psychology Press.

Cahill, C., Kuhn, A., Schmoll, S., Pompe, A., & Quintana, C. (2010, June). Zydeco: Using mobile and web technologies to support seamless inquiry between museum and school contexts. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 174-177). ACM.

Costa, A. L. & Loveall, R. A. (2002). The legacy of Hilda Taba. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(1), 56-62.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum.

Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving  processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22.

Gweon, G., Jun, S., Lee, J., Finger, S., & Rosé, C. P. (2011). A framework for assessment of student project groups on-line and off-line. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing Interactions in CSCL: Methods, Approaches and Issues (pp. 293-317). Springer, Boston, MA.

Hall, W. C. (1975). Models for curriculum development. Vestes: Australian Universities' Review, 18(1), 62-9.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum:

Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.

Lau, D. C. M. (2001). Analysing the curriculum development process: Three models. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(1), 29-44.

Luckin, R. (2008). The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 449-462.

Lyons, L. (2018). Supporting informal STEM learning with technological exhibits. In F. Fischer, C. E.

Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 234-245). Routledge.

Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21-30.

Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.

Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630-634.

Tissenbaum, M. & Slotta, J. D. (2014, June). Developing an orchestrational framework for collective inquiry in smart classrooms: SAIL Smart Space (S3). In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2014) (pp. 831-838). Boulder, CO: ISLS.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-13.

Tyler, R. W. (1987). The five most significant curriculum events in the Twentieth Century. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 36-38.
Woodworth, R. S., & Thorndike, E. L. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). Psychological Review, 8(3), 247-261.