Nick Calvin_5-6-15_MAT Thesis Project_Defense_Final
1.
Relevance and Application: Developing a Curriculum for a World Literature Course
A Thesis by
Nicholas Paul Calvin
Chapman University
Orange, California
College of Educational Studies
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts in Teaching
April 2015
Committee in charge:
Dr. John Gunderson (chair)
Dr. Jim Brown
Dr. Gerri McNenny
2.
The thesis of Nicholas Paul Calvin is approved.
John Gunderson, Ph.D. (chair)
Jim Brown, Ph.D.
Gerri McNenny, Ph.D.
April 2015
4. iv
ABSTRACT
Relevance and Application: Developing a Curriculum for a World Literature Course
by Nicholas Paul Calvin
This study examines the nature of the relationship between curricular content and
an affective connection to that content. It attempts to provide an example as to how
educators can better structure their curricular frameworks so that they take into account
the interests and lives of their students. This study is placed within the context of the
increasing debate on the nature and purpose of English Language Arts curricula. The
cognitive and affective domains from Benjamin Bloom’s educational objectives are
crucial aspects to the curricular development discussed in this study. According to
Bloom, there are great benefits to finding ways of connecting students with curricular
content based on interest and application. Particularly, in light of the Common Core State
Standards and other curricular reform initiatives, this study hopes to provide a foundation
to educators seeking out a more relevant and applicable curriculum. This study was
conducted by a 12th
-grade World Literature teacher recently who took on the leadership
role for the curriculum overhaul at his school site. The author uses current research and
anecdotal data from his own observations to inform the curricular frameworks explained
herein. In the analysis of the current, antiquated framework, this study also suggests a
shift in curricular focus, moving from text-centered to theme- or idea-centered units. One
major finding of this study is the idea that a relevant and interest-based curricular
framework can make a difference in the affective connection students have with their
curricular content and overall educational experiences. The framework proposed for this
study is designed specifically for the author’s school site, taking into account the
5. v
challenges and limitations experienced throughout his own curriculum development
process; the author explains, however, that the framework itself can be used as a
foundation for any shift toward a relevant curricular focus. This study concludes that the
benefits of a curricular framework made up of fewer, more relevant units, with
differentiated means of assessment, outweigh the curricular challenges and sacrifices that
result in this type of curricular shift of focus.
Key words: Curriculum development, World Literature, Affective Objectives,
Cognitive Objectives, Relevance, Application, Benjamin Bloom
6. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….1
Curriculum Development from the Beginning of the 20th
Century.............1
Purpose of the Research…………………………………...………………3
Developing a World Literature-specific Curriculum……………………...4
Curricular structure………………………………….…………….5
Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………….………8
The Purposes of Applicable and Relevant Education………….…….……8
Understanding Curricular Expectations and Frameworks……………….14
From ANAR to CCSS…………………………………………....14
Curricular improvements within the CCSS……………………...17
Bloom’s Taxonomy……………………………………………………...19
Cognitive domain…………………………………………..........20
Affective domain…………………………………………...........25
Summary of Major Themes………………………………………….......31
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………….32
Background for the Study…………………………………………..........32
Critical Lens à la Bloom…………………………………………………34
Cognitive domain………………………………………………...34
Affective domain.……………………………………...................35
7. vii
Lexile Rankings and Difficulty……………………………………..........35
Organization and Analysis of Data……………………………………....36
Curriculum mapping……………………………………..............37
Considering the Curricular Aspects……………………………………...38
Unit structure and text selection………………………………....38
Summative assessments…………………………………….........39
Personal Biases and Research Background……………………………...40
Methods of Providing Analysis…………………………………….........42
Chapter Four: Analysis………………………………………………………......43
Breakdown of Curriculum……………………………………………….43
Original Unit 1…………………………………………………...43
Proposed Unit 1…………………………………………………..44
Original Unit 2……………………………………………….......47
Proposed Unit 2…………………………………………………..48
Original Unit 3…………………………………………………...50
Proposed Unit 3…………………………………………………..51
Original Unit 4…………………………………………………...54
Proposed Unit 4…………………………………………………..55
Original Unit 5…………………………………………………...56
Proposed Unit 5…………………………………………………..57
Original Unit 6…………………………………………………...59
Proposed Unit 6…………………………………………………..60
8. viii
Original Unit 7…………………………………………………...61
Proposed Unit 7…………………………………………………..62
Original Unit 8…………………………………………………...63
Proposed Unit 8…………………………………………………..64
Original Unit 9…………………………………………………...65
Connection to Bloom…………………………………………………….66
Cognitive domain………………………………………………...66
Affective domain….……………………………………………...68
Other Aspects of Curricular Change……………………………………..71
Structural changes………………………………………………..71
Focus on purpose.………………………………………………...71
Non-European focus.……………………………………………..72
Depth over breadth….……………………………………………72
Writing assessments…..…………………………………………..73
Summary of Analysis……………………………………………………74
Curriculum Map Comparison……………………………………………75
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………….79
Importance of the Study………………………………………………….80
Implications of the Study………………………………………………...81
Personal Limitations……………………………………………………..84
Collaboration…………………………………………………….84
Resistance to change……………………………………………..85
10. x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Bloom’s Cognitive Domain and Student Skills and Expectations……….21
Table 2. Comparison of the Original and New Bloom’s Taxonomy.......................24
Table 3. The Affective Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)…………………..26
Table 4. Curriculum Framework Side-by-Side Comparison……………………...75
11. 1
Chapter One: Introduction
"Give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a
nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results." – John Dewey
Statement of the Problem
Interest drives motivation and engagement: if we like something, we are more
likely to stick with it, despite any increased rigor or difficulty. Unfortunately, this
sentiment, idiomatic and simple though it may seem, has failed to permeate one of the
most impactful yet ubiquitously dreaded aspects of the American life: the public
education system. Student interest has been historically unpopular in mainstream
conversations regarding curricular focus (Goodlad 1984; Ravitch 2010). This study will
provide an exploration of the hypothesis that student interest and relevance can positively
impact curricular development, and that even for a 12th
-grade World Literature course, it
is plausible to step away from the long-lived traditions of the English curricular
framework, rote memorization and multiple-choice assessments, and develop something
that is rigorous and applicable to the lives and the interests of the students.
Curriculum Development from the Beginning of the 20th
Century
In the early 20th
century, American public education system functioned much like
a business. Coming out of the industrial revolution, many people quickly adopted the idea
that school’s role was to produce students who possessed intelligence, much like a
factory produced a product (Goldstein, 2014). Author and researcher Dana Goldstein
(2014) suggested that as students went through the assembly line of the curricular
framework, gaining exposure to math, history, language, and so on, it became apparent to
some educators that the system was not working toward the benefit of all children.
12. 2
Namely, educators such as John Dewey (1938) became fed up with the limited scope and
lack of purpose in the current educational framework. In his writing, he argued that a
truly beneficial education was one that appealed to the interests of students and helped
them better function in the world outside of the classroom (Dewey, 1915: 2001).
Dewey promoted progressive education as a response to this notion. Progressive
education was meant to allow students opportunities to access educational experiences
that were connected to their experiences in the real world (Goldstein, 2014). Knowing
how to build a car and understanding multiplication tables were equally important in
Dewey’s eyes (Dewey, 1938; Goldstein, 2014). However, Dewey’s progressivism was
seen as kind of distraction in the increasingly businesslike, results-focused system of
education that was developing across the country (Labree, 2005). One major curricular
response to Dewey’s progressivism came in the 1930s when educational researcher
William Bagley conducted research that found American schools “academically inferior”
to their European counterparts (Gutek, 1981, p. 15). Bagley championed the “essentialist”
movement, whose goal was to move the focus of American education away from
progressive life skills and back toward a focus on the “basic elements of human culture”
such as history, arithmetic, and reading comprehension (p. 14). Slowly, the essentialist
platform began to overshadow that of the progressives, and the country went through
numerous policy adjustments such as the 1983 report by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, “A Nation at Risk,” and the “No Child Left Behind” act
(National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2001), with the hope of developing a
curricular structure that was effective and competitive with the rest of the world. It was
not until recently, though, with the help of educators such as Alfie Kohn (2011), with his
13. 3
prolific commentaries on the “obvious truths” (p. 11) that need to be realized in the
American education system, that progressivism began making its way back into the larger
realm of public debate. Much of this was also helped with the introduction of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a newly developed set of national standards
whose focus on and increase of informational and nonfiction texts in the curriculum is, if
not anything else, a slight homage to Dewey’s progressive ideologies (Shanahan, 2013b).
Purpose of the Research
At present, there is a shift in education regarding curricular structure and purpose
(Grossman et al., 2011). With the introduction of the skills-based educational objectives
and the college, career, and life readiness focus of the CCSS (National Governors
Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014) educators are being
regularly encouraged to spend time critically thinking about how they can improve the
information that they teach and the way in which they teach it (Grossman et al., 2011).
While this is something that most effective teachers likely do on a regular basis, this type
of reminder is just what is needed to get these ideas back into classrooms.
Given the national impact of the CCSS, educators are now being asked to ensure
that their classes help students develop the myriad skills laid out in the standards, such as
an in-depth analysis of complex texts and literary nonfiction, rhetorical flexibility, and
reading, writing, and speaking using evidence to support claims (National Governors
Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). Therefore, it is imperative
that a new curriculum consists of instructional activities and assessments that meet those
requirements. Educators are often asked by school site and district administrators to
provide evidence that show each course is meeting the expected requirements.
14. 4
The moment I began teaching 12th
-grade World Literature at my school site I
became aware of a pervasive curricular ineffectiveness with the expected structure of the
course. The curriculum for that course had not been updated in nearly a decade and there
was a dearth of student engagement and excitement regarding the curriculum. With that
said, it was in much need of an overhaul and shift in focus. As I began to think about
developing a new World Literature curriculum, I wanted to examine the explicit
connections to the expectations expressed in the frameworks like the CCSS. I wondered
if developing a new curriculum that was accessible, effective, and also inspired by the
CCSS expectations was going to evoke more support from colleagues and administrators
and, ipso facto, ensure that the process of regularly making curricular changes in unit
structure, text selection, and assessment would become a permanent part of instructional
and curricular policy at my school site.
Additionally, there is currently a great deal of momentum in education, due
largely to the rising influence of practices and expectations driven by the CCSS, that
supports the concept that relevance and affective connection, as seen in the CCSS
emphasis on college, career, and life readiness and application (National Governors
Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014) should be part of the
curricular development process. Theorists such as Benjamin Bloom (1956; 1977) have
argued this for years, and it has recently seen a surge in support from other people as well
(Kohn, 2005; Cook-Sather, 2006).
Developing a World Literature-specific Curriculum
For the purposes of this study, the evaluated curricula were developed for a 12th
-
grade World Literature course. Therefore, an understanding of the specific characteristics
15. 5
and content expectations of that type of course will be helpful when attempting to
evaluate the course’s effectiveness, relevance, and application.
The concept of a World Literature curriculum was first introduced to the
American public education system in the early decades of the 20th
century. As Choo
(2014) has claimed, its origins lie in the realization that, particularly during the 1920s,
there was a need for “broader [literary] representation” (p. 69) given the pervasive and
overwhelming presence of American, British, French, Greek, and Latin canonical
literature in American schools. The sentiment was that, in an increasingly globalized
world, with growing international economic influence and cross-cultural communication,
a greater emphasis on literary forms and works from non-Anglo cultures and
civilizations, regardless of their respective literary longevity (Choo, 2011; 2014), was
needed. Choo (2011) has argued that educational stakeholders knew that the 20th
century
would bring about a great emphasis on worldviews; thus, students in the United States
needed exposure to the linguistic styling, language structures, cultural codes, and moral
values of cultures with which they were not familiar. While this was not the first time the
idea of World Literature had been suggested in the realm of education – German
philosopher, Goethe, called for an increase in the presence of world cultures within
German literature programs as far back as the early 19th
century – the increase of
literature courses that included perspectives from minority cultural groups in the 1960s,
helped solidify the permanence and prevalence of the World Literature model (Choo,
2011).
Curricular structure. Despite the inclusion of World Literature texts within the
English Language Arts curriculum, many pedagogues argued that more had to be done to
16. 6
ensure that World Literature courses were truly effective. In addition to simply an
increased exposure to texts and traditions from a variety of world cultures, Newell &
Sweet (1999) have suggested that an effective world literature curriculum should focus
on ideas and experiences that are common to the general human experience. A
curriculum, they argued, should provide students opportunities to wrestle with “universal
conflicts [and] universal choices” (p. 38). With this understanding, the focus of
curriculum should not be on the worldly texts, but rather on the universal experiences and
ideas experienced across all global cultures. In this type of curricular framework, the
cultural texts would then be used as supplements to the larger themes and questions
defined by those experiences and ideas. Emphasizing theme over text provides students
with opportunities, from the outset, to think critically about the content to which they are
exposed. As Costa suggested in his 2008 article, The Thought-Filled Curriculum,
“[c]urriculums must become more thought-filled in the sense of enlarging students'
capacities to think deeply and creatively” (p. 20). Newell & Sweet (1999) have argued
that curricula must demonstrate “knowledge-in-action” (p. 39), underscoring the
importance of relevance, application, and purpose. Moreover, a focus on central themes
and essential questions allowed students to participate in an ongoing conversation,
grappling with the concept that the many problems and issues they experience are, in fact,
universally-known, differing only with regard to the way in which a given culture reacts
to them (Choo, 2014; Newell & Sweet, 1999). It encourages “[students] to continue the
conversation and to appreciate the contributions of new books, new ideas, and new
voices” (Newell & Sweet, 1999, p. 39) as they go through life both inside and outside the
classroom.
17. 7
Considering the current debate regarding the structure of education, the role of the
teacher, and the influence of standards and standardized testing, I will provide a
foundation as to how this type of curriculum might begin to form. All of this led me to
wonder whether or not I could improve student engagement in my World Literature
courses through the development of a curricular framework that focused on relevance and
life application through an emphasis on student interest and skill building. Therefore,
through the use of qualitative evidence, observations, and research, this project will aim
to better understand the efforts and academic considerations required of educators to
create a curricular framework with relevance- and application-based focuses.
18. 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The review of the literature herein will help clarify the specific scope of this
study and help connect its content to the other ongoing conversations about curricular
development, content relevance, and application heard throughout the realm of education.
The Purposes of Applicable and Relevant Education
While the criticisms of the purposes and expectations of formal education are
innumerable, very few can compare to the Progressivist movement fathered by education
pedagogue John Dewey. This is particularly the case when it comes to pedagogical
studies focused on connecting relevance and application to the education students receive
in the classroom. To start, one must understand the definition of progressivism and how it
compares to other forms of education. Per Goldstein (2014), Dewey’s progressivism was
student-centered, teacher-directed and “based on ‘scientific’ observations of how children
actually learned—through playful experimentation in which they sought to understand
the workings of the grown-up world” (p. 82). In his work, Education and Experience
(1938), Dewey compared the purposes of progressivism with the more traditional
educational purposes as seen in the American classrooms during the 1920s and 1930s:
To imposition from above is imposed expression and cultivation of individuality;
to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers,
learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by
drill is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct
vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the
most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed
acquaintance with a changing world. (1938, pp. 19-20 ).
19. 9
Educational purpose and emphasis on skill development were greatly emphasized focal
points seen in the more progressive schools of Dewey’s time. In his writings, Dewey
(1938) strongly opined that in order for an education to be truly effective, it must be
clear to students why they are required to access the information conveyed to them in
their classrooms and how that information is applicable and relevant to their larger
experiences a human beings. In other words, purpose should be the primary focus of a
given curriculum.
Dewey’s development of progressivism was, in part, a product of the historical
events going on in his time. According to Goldstein (2014),Dewey’s era, from late 19th
to mid-20th
centuries, bore witness to a rise in industrialism. She has argued that
industrial improvements across the country provided many families with new
opportunities to involve their children in formal education, as they, the children, were no
longer a necessary aspect of the working force. Dewey’s hope was that this shift would
spark a reformation of the traditional methods of schooling, which placed great emphasis
on passive listening and memorization, to one that focused on individualism and the
development of skills necessary and applicable to the lives of students (Goldstein, 2014).
However, in his observations (1915: 2001), Dewey astutely revealed that these changes,
particularly the emphasis on industrialism, were negatively impacting the classrooms.
Specifically, large urban schools, he claimed, still consisted of classrooms in which
students were left disengaged, “relegated […] to docility” (p. 108), and largely
disconnected from the educational experience. As a result, he posited that the educational
outcomes in these schools would be sub-par and insufficient.
20. 10
In the book, The Teacher Wars (2014), educational researcher and historian Dana
Goldstein observed that Dewey “expressed horror at what he called the ‘medieval’
techniques of traditional public schools, in which children read textbooks, memorized
their contents, and studied each subject, such as history or biology in isolation from the
others, hunched over a desk” (p. 81). Goldstein noted that at this time, public education
had become mired in the constant political struggles influence of the labor and teachers’
unions; thus, education was becoming more of a political endeavor than an educational
one. In her writing, she has stated that Dewey’s response to this was to develop an
education system that, given the increasingly culturally diverse classrooms of American
public schools and the growing influence of unions, granted students exposure to a
curriculum that was interconnected and relevant to their lives both inside and outside of
the classroom. Students no longer needed to study subjects in isolation; rather, those
subjects should be woven together, as they often are in the real world, and made both
accessible and applicable to students from all walks of life. Goldstein claimed that Dewey
wanted students to “actually [learn]—through playful experimentation in which they
sought to understand the workings of the grown-up world” (p. 82).
It was in light of these circumstances that Dewey set out to develop a progressive
form of education that would allow students to engage with their education through life
application and relevance. This change in educational purpose, as paraphrased from his
influential work Experience & Education (1938), would place the student as the central
focus of the curriculum, and not vice versa. Moreover, in Democracy in Education
(1944), Dewey connected educational reforms to those seen in the political and social
realms. It was his opinion that one realm could not change without the other, that
21. 11
education, society, and politics were intertwined. Additionally, Dewey believed that these
realms were in a constant state of flux; they were always changing. He felt it was the
responsibility of older generations to provide subsequent generations with an education
that taught them how to develop societal, political, and educational constructs that met
their own needs, not ones rigidly connected to the needs of past generations. While these
changes would be slow and gradual, Dewey insisted that the result would always be an
improvement upon whatever came before (1944).
Despite his efforts, though, Dewey’s progressive pedagogy was never fully
embraced on a national scale. While certain aspects, such as outdoor education and other
experiential education programs, persist to this day (Knapp, 1994), they are but small
remnants of Dewey’s larger pedagogical structure. David Labree (2005) argued that this
is largely because Dewey’s pedagogy lost out to another branch of progressivism which
Labree referred to as “administrative progressivism” (p. 286). This branch, Labree
claimed, focused on overall academic governance and structure, and was developed out
of a “strictly utilitarian” (2005, p. 281) need for educational organization and efficiency.
This, of course, greatly opposed Dewey and other “pedagogical progressivists” and their
focuses on the individual student and the specifics of teaching and learning in the
classroom. Given the industrialist shifts in society, Labree explained that the methods of
education suggested by the administrative branch appealed to American decision makers.
He posited that
“[b]usiness and political leaders were attracted to a model of educational reform
that promised to eliminate waste, to organize and manage schools more
efficiently, to tailor instruction to the needs of employers, to Americanize the
22. 12
children of immigrants, and to provide students with the skills and attitudes they
would need to perform and to accept their future roles in society” (pp. 284-285).
Americans seemed to be looking for a standardized, industrial product, and Dewey’s
model was too individualized to suit their needs. Therefore, the instructional and
pedagogical shifts Dewey set out to create were largely ineffective.
As time went on, Dewey’s Progressivism saw further criticism in the rise of
educational Essentialism. According to Gerald Gutek (1981), Essentialism was developed
in the 1930s as a response to the “declining scholastic standards” (p. 14) seen in
progressive educational platforms. Essentialists such as William Bagley argued that the
non-scholastic focus of Progressivism had greatly impacted the quality and rigor of the
American educational experience. Bagley observed that graduates of American
progressive schools were “essentially illiterate” (Gutek, 1981, p. 15). With this in mind,
Essentialism proclaimed the need for a shift in educational focus, leaving behind the life-
skill emphasis of Progressivism for a more traditional focus on the most essential aspects
of the human experience: core academic subjects such as rhetoric, history, and arithmetic.
Per Gutek (1981), the Essentialists felt this was the only way for the American education
system to effectively compete with their international counterparts. As time went on and
the mid-20th
century saw a rise in the emphasis on international competition and
American exceptionalism, Progressivism started to lose control of the national debate and
Essentialism became a major focus. Still, there are major proponents of progressivism,
such as contemporary educator and pedagogy theorist Alfie Kohn (2011), who have
worked to keep the ideas of pedagogical progressivism afloat in the sea of educational
conversation.
23. 13
Alfie Kohn (2011) has worked to great lengths to ensure that Dewey’s
progressivism remains a part of the ongoing debate surrounding the role and purpose of
education and the persistence of traditional forms of education in American public
schools. In his writings, Kohn (2011) has closely explored various “truths” about
education that he feels have, for the most part, gone unnoticed in educational debates.
Echoing Dewey’s writings, Kohn has suggested that an effective education is one that
empowers students, gives them autonomy over certain aspects of their educational
journeys, but also allows and encourages students to “develop in many ways, not just
academically” (p. 14). It other words, Kohn has posited that is not just about content
memorization and reading comprehension, but rather, developing skills that are relevant
and applicable to the lives of students, such as writing a cover letter, collaborating with
others, and public speaking. Moreover, he has claimed that in education, “substance
matters more than labels” (p. 16), that curricular purpose should drive education, not text
lists and standards. Essentially, he argued that the main focus of education should be on
making students better people, not better test takers (Kohn, 2011).
While “pedagogical progressivism” according to Dewey, Kohn and others has
been greatly overshadowed by the aforementioned “administrative progressivism” across
the realm of education in the United States, various efforts, particularly in recent years,
have steered education toward a more pedagogically focused framework., The Common
Core State Standards (CCSS), have encouraged educators to shift their focus away from
the rote memorization and industrially efficient structures seen in traditional education
programs, and to begin looking for ways to provide opportunities in their classrooms for
student development and application of skills that will help the students outside of their
24. 14
formal educational experiences (National Governors Association & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2014). Clearly understanding the expectations for curriculum
development and instruction set forth by the CCSS, such as creating exposure to literary
nonfiction and complex texts, teaching rhetorical flexibility, and emphasizing the use of
evidence in support of one’s reading, writing, and speaking, though, requires some brief
knowledge of the historical and educational context and reasoning out of which the CCSS
were developed. Such analysis will help clarify both the positive and negative effects that
can come from such reform movements.
Understanding Curricular Expectations and Frameworks
To begin, I have provided a brief examination of the major, standards-based
educational reform movements seen in the Unites States over the last three decades. The
purpose of this section is to explore the differences between the curricular expectations
for English Language Arts courses laid out in the US Department of Education’s 1983
report, A Nation At Risk (ANAR), the federal “No Child Left Behind” act (NCLB), and
those expressed in the CCSS. ANAR and NCLB are the two most recent national
education reform movements prior to the development of the CCSS. The curricular
structures and goals of these two movements have provided the foundation and reasoning
from which the CCSS was developed. Second in this chapter is a summary of the
literature surrounding various aspects of curriculum development. The CCSS varies
greatly from its predecessors; thus, there is a need for a deeper understanding and
thorough explanation of the ideas or purposes expressed in this new set of standards.
From ANAR to CCSS. The CCSS were developed to “ensure that all students
graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college,
25. 15
career, and life, regardless of where they live” (National Governors Association &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). This new standards initiative is the most
recent in a series of educational reforms that began in 1983 when the U. S. Department of
Education released the ANAR report, which accused the people of the United States of
committing “unilateral educational disarmament”, claiming that the country’s education
system had lost sight of the “high expectations and disciplined effort” necessary to
provide students with a “high-quality” educational experience (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983). The report came out during the waning years of the Cold
War, after a long period of international struggle and competition with the Soviets. In this
context, the news that, without true educational success, high school graduates in the
United States would not be able to compete with their international counterparts was
incredibly daunting (Zhao, 2006). Thus, ANAR shot education to the forefront of the
national agenda; the issue became popular and largely political (Hunt, 2008). The
releasing of ANAR ushered into existence a new era of educational reform in which both
state and federal governments began making efforts to improve the state of the education
system as a whole. These efforts included the addition of high-stakes standardized
testing, increased academic expectations, as well as an increase in curricular rigor and
difficulty. Specifically, ANAR encouraged educational institutions to develop sets of
academic content standards to help ensure an increase in academic rigor. While the
content standards initially developed by a number of states were “not very clear or
specific, or academically rigorous”, over time, states improved and solidified the
standards, and they became “clearer, grade-level specific, and more academically
challenging (United States Department of Education, 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, ANAR
26. 16
argued that many teachers would benefit from more strengthened teacher preparation
programs and professional development.
Despite intentions to bring about a radical shift in educational outcomes, after
more than a decade of restructuring and implementation, the results of the ANAR reforms
efforts were mixed. The new shift in educational ideas brought about a national
conversation about the quality of education the nation’s students were receiving. Blame
was thrown around and education reforms were made at nearly every level. New types of
schools, charter schools, were developed to provide educational opportunities geared
toward the individual needs and interests of students. National tests were developed and
administered around the country. However, many researchers and historians will say that
there was a general consensus that the people of the United States could do better, that
these new educational norms and opportunities developed in the wake of ANAR only
benefitted a small portion of the national student body. This new shift in education
allowed certain improvements to be made at the national level, but things were left, for
the most part, unchanged at the local, particularly urban, school level population
(Burdick, 2012; Hunt, 2008; Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998). This sentiment
eventually led to the creation of the NCLB act of 2001, which required that states develop
state standards and administer standardized tests, with the purpose of:
“ensur[ing] that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to
obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on
challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments” (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2001)
27. 17
NCLB emphasized subject matter proficiency as a means of evaluating student
educational success, using benchmark assessments and state-developed standardized tests
as means of measurement. The act incentivized educational success by linking federal
funding for schools with the results of these standardized tests. While it was initially
meant to provide financial support to underprivileged schools and increase the rigor and
academic success of schools across the country as a whole, NCLB ended up burdening
schools, particularly ones in impoverished areas, with the unnecessary pressures of
standardized testing (Guisbond, 2012; United States. National Commission on Excellence
in Education., 1983). Schools were held accountable for their own success; thus, it
became more important to make sure students passed their tests than it was to actually
ensure they were receiving the “high-quality education” for which the act originally
called. A consensus is growing among researchers and scholars that ANAR and NCLB
ended up doing more harm than good with regard to the overall quality of education in
the United States (Ladd, 2012; Sunderman & Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2006;
Ravitch, 2009). Furthermore, Sunderman and the Harvard Civil Rights Project (2006)
argue that another negative trait of NCLB was the lack of academic and financial equality
from state-to-state.
In 2009 the National Governors Association (NGA), an privately-funded political
advocacy group that works as a conduit for communications between state and federal
governments, collaborated with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), a
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of leaders from across the realm of education, to find
an answer to the problems put forth by NCLB. This group of leaders acknowledge the
“value and need for consistent learning goals across states” (National Governors
28. 18
Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014). The group conducted
research and worked alongside teachers and administrators, to develop a national set of
academic standards, which eventually became the CCSS.
Curricular improvements within the CCSS. In response to NCLB’s attempts at
improving education, many educators, theorists, and writers such as Diane Ravitch
(2009) suggested that the new set of educational standards, whatever its form, should
place greater emphasis on the development of relevant and applicable skills that would
help students effectively function in the “complex society” (p. 6) of their time. When the
CCSS were finally introduced, this was exactly their focus. Despite en masse criticism
against the release of another set of assessment-based standards (Toscano, 2014; Gangi &
Reilly, 2013), the highly rigorous, unfair expectations set for students from all levels of
the educational spectrum, and the overtly nationalist, Stalinization of the curriculum
(Baines, 2011), the greatest redeeming factor as seen in these new standards is the strong
emphasis on the development of skills in addition to developing content knowledge. The
standards call for educators to help students develop reading and writing skills that will
allow them to access more difficult texts, with a particular emphasis on works of
nonfiction similar to those students might encounter after their formal education has
concluded. Further, the standards call for students to synthesize information and skills
covered in class with difficult issues and topics from the everyday world (Tagliaferro,
2012); in other words, the skills and content covered must be applicable to the student’s
lives, thus emphasizing “college and career readiness” (National Governors Association
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014, “Myths vs. Facts”).
29. 19
Shanahan (2013a) argued that such a shift in educational purpose and focus is
crucial to ensuring successful student learning; he also argues, though, that in order to
achieve such success, teachers will need to change both the way they teach and what they
are teaching. He suggested that the only way this shift will be met effectively is if
educators construct curricular frameworks that provide students with the proper
scaffolding and support necessary to allow all students opportunities to use and develop
these reading and writing skills. In other words, in light of the CCSS, he has
recommended that educators cannot teach content the same way they taught it while
under the expectations of the state content-area standards. New standards with a new
focus on the development of skills, as opposed to the memorization of content, will
require new approaches to the curriculum and new curricular frameworks with particular
emphasis on application and relevance, as well as increased rigor.
With that in mind, when developing a curriculum, one must first consider how
curricular foci and instructional practices can change to meet needs and expectations such
as increased rigor, life application, and relevance. If a curriculum is going to be effective,
one needs to find a way of measure the applicable nature, relevance, and rigor therein.
After much research, it seemed evident that Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy for
Educational Objectives (1956) provided an excellent starting point for conducting such
measurements and curricular analysis.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
For over 50 years, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been one of the most popular tools to
use when setting and evaluating educational objectives (Shanahan, 2013a). The
taxonomy, developed by Bloom and his colleagues following a series of conferences
30. 20
dealing with relations and communication between educators and curriculum developers,
focuses on learning within three different “domains” (Anderson, 2001): cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor. As Bloom and his colleagues were developing the taxonomy,
they broke down the learning process for each domain into a series of linear, sequential
steps. As Anderson (2001) has suggested, the idea was that one could not fully access one
step of learning until they mastered the skills and concepts embodied in the previous step.
The purpose of these objectives was to provide educators with a means of interpreting the
standards and academic expectations they were expected to teach in their classes
(Näsström, 2009). The type of scaffolding seen in this taxonomy would require educators
to formatively assess their students’ mastery of a given standard in order to justify any
increase in rigor or difficulty with regard to student learning, comprehension, and skill
development (Bloom et al., 1971). Thus, when evaluating curricular application,
relevance, and rigor, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as an invaluable metric. Specifically, an
understanding of the cognitive and affective impact of a curriculum is immensely helpful.
Bloom (1971) and Anderson (2001) posited that if the students are not able to access the
highest levels of Bloom’s domains within a given curricular framework, improvements in
the curriculum must be made.
Cognitive domain. According to Hess et al. (2009), the most popular domain in
Bloom’s Taxonomy is the domain which deals with cognition (2000). This domain is
popular amongst educators because it provides a foundation for classroom educators and
educational theorists to emphasize the concept of “mastery learning” (Guskey, 2001), a
style of teaching that provides each student with an opportunity to “learn quite well and
truly ‘master’ and subject” (p. 5). This concept, Guskey argued, was different from its
31. 21
predecessors in that it suggested students utilize the results found in formative
assessments to develop an understanding of their mastery of the skills being assessed.
Through the information gleaned from formative assessments, as well as through the
suggestions and teacher- or evaluator-developed correctives provided therein, students
and teachers would have a better cognitive understanding of student progress and a
“detailed prescription of what more needs to be done [in order for students] to master the
concepts or desired learning outcomes from the units” (p. 12). In doing so, Guskey
implied that education becomes more individual and student-centered, as teachers are
able to tailor their academic support and guidance based on the individual needs of the
each student.
Bloom (1956) has proposed that this cognitive process, the students’ ability to
fully master a skill or meet expected learning outcomes should be broken down in to six
sequential levels of expectations and required skills:
Table 1. Bloom’s Cognitive Domain and Student Skills and Expectations
Domain Level Student Skills and Expectations
Knowledge (low) Define, identify, state, list, differentiate, discriminate, recognized
Comprehension Explain, translate, interpret, match, extrapolate
Application Construct, choose, predict, demonstrate
Analysis Distinguish, separate, organize, infer, classify
Synthesis Compose, formulate, create, produce
Evaluation (high) Debate, judge critique, assess, compare
Note: Adapted from: Aviles, 2000; Bloom, 1971.
As student mastery is formatively assessed and effectively demonstrated, Bloom (1971)
suggested that students progress upwards through the preceding levels of cognition, and
thus approach their education through increasingly complex channels of thinking; thus,
ensuring that as students are exposed to more rigorous and complex material, they will be
32. 22
able to use the concepts, terms, and ideas experienced and mastered in the previous
domain levels. Bloom (1971) made clear that this type of education, one that allows
students to build off of their prior knowledge and experiences, is the only way to
effectively demonstrate true mastery of skills mentioned in Table 1.
Clark (1968) has explained that, within this domain, students should begin with a
basic understanding of definitions and terms relevant to a specific skill or focus. This
beginning process ensures educators that all students will be exposed to the basic ideas
required to function within the higher-functioning cognitive levels. Once students show
an understanding of those basic topics – as evidenced in formative assessments – they
would then be exposed to activities in which they work to develop a thorough
comprehension of a more complex or abstract idea, using their understanding of the skills
assessed in the previous domain level as a foundation to their learning. The process,
Clark suggested, continues in such a way that, in order to apply, analyze, synthesize, and
evaluate the increased complexity and abstract ideas to which they are exposed, students
are constantly reliant on information on which they have previously been assessed and of
which they have already demonstrated mastery. As Clark has stated in her analysis of the
cognitive sequence, “the more abstract and complex sequence must follow the other,
either in the same course or in a subsequent one, depending upon the nature of the
curriculum” (p. 36).
While Clark (1968) and others (Guskey, 2001; Aviles, 2000) argued that Bloom’s
cognitive domain is synonymous with common sense and its application in the classroom
is largely time-efficient, some notable modifications have been made to the domain in the
years since its creation. Anderson (1999; 2001) are responsible for the most significant
33. 23
of these modifications. These educators, in their analysis of the original Bloom’s
taxonomy, noticed that, given the multiple definitions of the terms representing the
sequential levels listed in the cognitive domain, it could be possible to misinterpret the
desired abilities and skills needed to demonstrate mastery of a given level. Particularly
when considering Bloom et al. (1956) and the level of knowledge suggested therein,
Anderson came to the realization that knowledge could be understood two different ways:
First, knowledge could involve the ability to recall specifics and universals,
methods and procedures, or patterns and structures (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201).
Using this definition, knowledge is the ability to recall. A second definition of
knowledge appears in an analogy made by the authors of the original Handbook.
"If one thinks of the mind as a file, the problem in a knowledge test situation is
that of finding in the problem or task the appropriate signals, cues, and clues
which will most effectively bring out whatever knowledge is filed or stored”
(Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201) (emphasis [by Anderson, 1999]). Using this
definition, knowledge is what is recalled; the terminology, facts, conventions,
trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology,
principles and generalizations, and theories and structures that define an academic
discipline, subject matter, or course of study (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 201-204;
Anderson, 1999, p. 4-5).
Given that the goal of Bloom’s Taxonomy was to identify the varying types of behaviors
students needed to demonstrate in order to fully master a skill (Bloom et al., 1956),
Anderson and her colleagues opted to change the way in which the domain levels were
expressed (Figure 2). In the “New Bloom’s Taxonomy”, the sequential levels of the
34. 24
cognitive domain were expressed as behaviors, or actions, as opposed to content. This
shift allows educators to maintain focus on the demonstration and mastery of skills
throughout the educational process, as opposed to simply the retention of content
(Cochran et al., 2007).
Additionally, in the New Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001), as seen in Table 2, Anderson
felt it necessary to switch the last two sequential levels of Bloom’s original cognitive
domain. In their 2007 article, “A New Bloom: Transforming Learning,” Cochran et al.
maintained that this switch was necessary, given the respective inductive and deductive
properties of the evaluation and synthesis (creation) processes, with inductive processes
being easier to access than deductive.
Table 2. Comparison of the Original and New Bloom’s Taxonomy
Original Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al.,
1956)
The New Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson,
2001)
Knowledge (low) Remember (low)
Comprehension Understand
Application Apply
Analysis Analyze
Synthesis Evaluate
Evaluation (high) Create (high)
Note: Adapted from: Cochran et al., 2007
Placing an emphasis on the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy, new or old,
allows educators to develop a curriculum that is accessible and relevant to the needs of
their students (Bloom, 1956; Anderson, 1999). As Guskey (2001) suggested, students
will be much more successful – true learning will be more prevalent – when a curriculum
is structured in a way that allows students to develop skills sequentially and when they
are given sufficient academic support. With that said, a comparison of the appeals to the
cognitive domain within a curriculum is an invaluable tool in the evaluation of that
35. 25
curriculum’s effectiveness. It is not, however, the only aspect of Bloom’s taxonomy that
should be emphasized.
Affective domain. In addition to content knowledge and mastery of skills, Bloom
also felt that a truly effective educational experience also took into account the affective
connection between student and content. In his 1977 article, “Affective Outcomes of
School Learning”, Bloom stated, “A good self-concept is the foundation of a happy and
successful life,” (p. 193) and so, argued that the same should be true for a happy and
successful education. In his observations and research explained in this article, Bloom
noted that it was during the years of one’s formal education in which one experienced the
most exposure to both the judgments of others as well as the judgment of one’s self. He
argued that while students are exposed formally to a “manifest” curriculum consisting of
content and content knowledge, they were also exposed to what he termed a “latent
curriculum” in which students gained educational experience through interactions with
others and through their own affective judgment of their relationship with any given
“manifest curriculum” as well as with their peers and educators (p. 193). Bloom argued
that his is different from any other time in one’s life; thus, affective response is an
immeasurably important metric during this period of time. As students work through the
educational processes and are given opportunities to find success, their affective
relationship with the content and their attitude toward their own abilities begins to
stabilize. If a student does superbly well on an assignment, they are more likely, Bloom
(1977) posited, to feel good about their performance and carry that energy and vigor into
their approach to the next level in the educational sequence. In other words, if the student
36. 26
succeeds in a given subject, they are most likely to enjoy working within that subject,
even as complexity increases. This is what Bloom called “subject-related affect” (p. 194).
Bloom further postulates that with an increase in affective experiences across
subject areas, students will be more likely to “develop a generally positive view about
school and school learning” (1977, p. 195). As students succeed in their classes, their
relationship with and opinion of their educational experiences will improve. Bloom also
theorized that for both of these affective measurements, the opposite is true as well:
increased failures or negative judgments will result (to some extent) in the development
of a negative affective relationship between both subject and school (1977).
As students develop these affective relationships with school and subject, they
begin to develop what Bloom (1977) called an “academic self concept” (p. 196). This is a
student’s own understanding of their academic abilities. Bloom argued that, while some
failures and successes can have reverse, subjective effects on affective relationships, for
the most part, a student’s “academic self concept” is the result of their collective negative
and positive experiences and judgments – external and self-judgments. The more failures
(or successes) a student experiences, the more negative (or positive) their self-concept
will be. Therefore, if it is the purpose of education to develop an appreciation and passion
for knowledge and learning, as Bloom has stated, then educators should work hard to
increase these positive affective experiences for students.
Table 3. The Affective Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)
Domain Level Student behaviors and expectations
Receiving Awareness, willingness to hear, selected attention.
Responding Active participation on the part of the learners. Attends and
reacts to a particular phenomenon. Learning outcomes may
emphasize compliance in responding, willingness to respond,
37. 27
or satisfaction in responding (motivation).
Valuing The worth or value a person attaches to a particular behavior.
This ranges from simple acceptance to the more complex state
of commitment. Valuing is based on the internalization of a
set of specified values, while clues to these values are
expressed in the learner’s overt behavior and are often
identifiable
Organization Organizes values into priorities by contrasting different
values, resolving conflicts between them, and creating [a]
unique value system. The emphasis is on comparing, relating,
and synthesizing.
Internalizing
[Characterizing]
Has a value system that controls their behavior. The behavior
is pervasive, consistent, predictable, and most importantly,
characteristic of the learner. Instructional objectives are
concerned with the student’s general patterns of adjustment
(personal, social, emotional).
Note: Adapted from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html (2014)
The levels of Bloom’s Affective domain (Table 3) function similarly to those
seen in his cognitive domain: they build off of each other sequentially; learners will not
find success in the higher levels until they have fully experienced (mastered) the
behaviors demonstrated in the lower levels. When students first access a new content area
or other educational field in which they will experience judgment, they first must work
through the affective process of receiving the initial information. As Table 3
demonstrates, learners in this first stage of forming an affective connection to a work
express a general willingness and awareness of the content, materials, or relationships
being presented to them; this is the stage at which students simply begin acknowledging
the information or “stimuli” being presented (Garnett, 1998). Once students achieve this
awareness, they progress to the next level in the affective sequence in which they respond
positively to the stimuli; they mentally react to what they have just received. Garnett
38. 28
(1998) argued that this process, when effective, is similar to as “having a positive
attitude” (p. 375) regarding the stimuli.
Following the learner’s response is the level at which learners begin to place a
value on the stimuli or information with which they are interacting. Following Garnett’s
(1998) analysis further, one will encounter the human behavior of valuing stimuli. This is
a level of “deep internalization” (p. 376) in which the learner decides the credibility of
the stimuli; this is where they either choose to believe or disbelieve what they are being
presented, using a personal belief, value, or rule. It is often here, Garnett argued, where
educators can lose their students if there is no understanding of the student’s subjective
views and opinions. If a student does not believe in the in the quality of the stimuli, or it
has no credibility in the context of the student’s subjective understanding and conceptions
of the world, the affective connection will likely break down.
If there is a connection, however, then, Garnett (1998) and Bloom (1956)
suggested that students will progress to the two final and most complex stages of
affective connections and behaviors. Per their respective research, Garnet and Bloom
stated that within the levels of organizing and internalizing, students are granted access to
stimuli that are truly connected to their personal beliefs and morals. In these levels,
students arrange and characterize (interpret) stimuli based on their own understandings of
subjective, personally developed hierarchies and spectrums of human behavior and
understanding. In the final level, students should experience some type of behavioral
change in light of the received stimuli (Krathwohl, Bloom & Maisa, 1973). Garnett
(1998) claimed that these final levels are the most difficult for educators to access and
influence given that the affective beliefs held here are more permanent in nature, as less
39. 29
permeable to outside forces: “Educational researchers have admitted that schools are
unable to change the child; they can only modify human behavior” (p. 377). If educators
are able to provide learners with opportunities to access these levels of affective behavior
in their classes, though, it is very likely that those opportunities will be incredibly
effective.
According to Pierre & Oughton (2007), though, despite the emphasis Bloom
assigned to the affective domain, and despite the vast impact it could have on an
individual’s educational experience, appealing to affective learning outcomes and
behaviors has been largely neglected within the realm of education. Per Pierre &
Oughton, this is largely due to the fact that affective connection is rather difficult to
quantify and assess and that education is growing more and more reliant upon numbers
and quantifiable data to support theories and policy. Moreover, when compared to
cognitive behaviors, affective behaviors focused on emotional connection and subjective
beliefs, are more difficult to predict and control (Pierre & Oughton, 2007). As Bloom
(1977) suggested, however, the appeal to affective learning would, in turn, improve the
cognitive learning process, as student interest would drive academic success.
So, with such great emphasis on affective learning, researchers such as Glass
(1970) suggested that educators need to understand how to evaluate this aspect in their
classrooms. Content-specific assessments have been developed to measure affective
interaction with academic stimuli; they are, however, few and far between. In Glass’
writings, the author explained that in her research, despite having great difficulty finding
formal affective assessments, she discovered and was able to modify an attitude
assessment scale for biology classes. Per Glass’ study, a five-point Likert scale was
40. 30
developed to measure the ideal affective connection between student and content at
various stages throughout the curriculum. As a part of that scale, each sequential level of
Bloom’s affective domain was assigned three “The biology student should […]” (p. 3-4)
statements that explained the connection between biology and the respective levels of
affective behaviors laid out by Bloom (1956). The assessment was then administered to
local biology students and the results were analyzed for statistical relationships and
correlations.
While Glass’ (1970) research showed that formal assessments of affective
behaviors are possible, there are other less intensive options that educators may wish to
utilize in their classrooms. Bloom (1971) suggested that instructional leaders can better
understand the affective behaviors of their charges through one-on-one coaching or
smaller conversations in which they can use anecdotal data to assess the affective
behaviors and outcomes of their learners. However one chooses to assess this
information, the important part is that, as explained in Pierre’s (2007) analysis of Griffith
and Nguyen (2006), it plays some factor in the curricular process:
How many course outlines and lesson plans specifically address how the
students feel about the material, or how they are to achieve or modify attitudes
and values? Silence pervades these areas except in courses that explicitly address
issues like motivation, persuasion, teamwork, leadership, or empathy with
clients/patients. Some professors are more skilled in getting their students excited
and involved, but we rarely explore how they do this, although researchers in
educational psychology have done some good work on motivation and interest.
When it comes to mastery of skills, we see that “Learning is essential for students
41. 31
to master skills but if the affective domain is ignored, the cognitive areas are
greatly affected. If one feels threatened, sad, stressed, etc. the learning process can
break down.” (Pierre, 2007, p. 4)
Not only will this have a positive influence on the learning process, but, even more so,
there lies within a “thorough” education, a moral responsibility to “influence the
development of attitudes and values” of the learning community as a whole (Savickiene,
2010, p. 40); educators are not just facilitators of information, but shapers of character as
well. The research suggested that the extent to which a learner can affectively connect
with a concept must be a major consideration in the development of an effective
curriculum.
Summary of Major Themes
As explained, the research of Dewey (1938), Kohn (2011), and Bloom (1956)
suggested that, in order for an educational framework to be truly effective, it must take
into consideration the interests and abilities of the students. Furthermore, these
researchers and educators emphasized the idea that skill building should be at the
foundation of an effective curricular framework. As this research demonstrated, recent
national curricular changes, as seen in the CCSS, allow educators an opportunity to
develop curricula that meet these newly reformed, but decades-old educational emphases.
Additionally, with regard to the World Literature-specific curricular framework
developed for this study, the exhaustive research explored herein demonstrates the
importance of curricular focuses on universal concepts and struggles that are affectively
relevant and applicable to the lives of students who are taking the class and, further,
offers educators with methods for assessing those connections in their current classes.
42. 32
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter explains the methods that guided this study, including background
and reasoning for the research, description of the curricular frameworks, the curriculum
development procedures used, and the author’s personal biases and experiences formed
during the curriculum development process. From my own experiences with effective
classroom instruction, collaboration with colleagues, and previous curriculum
development efforts, it became clear that in order to develop a curriculum that was truly
effective, certain aspects (content accessibility, lexile difficulty, and the longitudinal
organization of content) must be taken into consideration. Therefore, herein, I expound
upon the means through which those curricular aspects were evaluated. Additionally, I
explore the effects my personal biases formed prior to and during the development
process and the effects such biases had on the development of this specific curriculum
evaluation and development process.
Background for the Study
For this project, I chose to analyze the California state content standards-based
World Literature curricular framework currently in use at my school site and compare it
with a newly proposed curricular framework developed in light of the expectations
expressed in the CCSS. In order to accomplish this analysis and comparison, I elected to
consider the two curricular frameworks through the critical lens of the revised version of
Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives created by Anderson (2001).
From that perspective, I observed and analyzed the major aspects (text selection,
assessment, instructional flexibility, accessibility) of the previously mentioned
frameworks to determine the most effective curricular framework.
43. 33
Critical Lens à la Bloom
When developing a curriculum, it is imperative to take into consideration not just
the structure of the curriculum (units, assessments, texts, etc.), but also the reasoning,
purpose, and accessibility behind each individual facet of the curricular framework. A
curriculum will not reach maximum effectiveness if any of those concepts are left
unconsidered. For this reason, I opted to use the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Anderson, 2001) as my critical lens for measuring the effectiveness of my two curricular
frameworks. It provided a well-known and relatively standardized means of
measurement. For the purposes of this study, I chose to focus mainly on the cognitive and
affective domains as a means of measuring the effectiveness and accessibility of these
curricular frameworks.
Cognitive domain. The first and most commonly referenced domain of Bloom’s
taxonomy focuses on the cognitive or thought-based aspects of the learning processes.
This domain breaks down the cognitive learning process into six sequential: knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. According to Anderson
(2001), Bloom claimed that a learner must first remember and understand the general
terms and concepts from a given topic before he can successfully apply those ideas and
concepts to other problems. Then, only once he has mastered the application process, can
he begin to analyze, evaluate, or create his own unique product using the ideas and
concepts originally in focus. Within the realm of education, this domain has become very
popular, particularly when it comes to the first three “lower order” processes. With the
knowledge that an effective curriculum is one that allows students opportunities to
develop a cognitive mastery of a concept or idea, I broke down the curricular frameworks
44. 34
and evaluated the type and quality of each aspect of the curriculum. This would show to
what extent students were able to access the content and demonstrate a mastery of skills.
Affective domain. The second domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1977) referred to
the affective or emotional individual learning process. An individual’s ability to interact
emotionally with a topic or concept can have an enormous effect on their learning. The
learner is the filter through which the curriculum will be processed; thus, it is imperative
that curricular accessibility to learners is a top consideration for the development of a
curriculum. For this study, looking at the affective connection between learner and
curriculum served as an excellent means of measuring curricular effectiveness. As I
looked at the individual texts and high- and low-stakes assessments within each of the
curricular frameworks featured in this study, I qualitatively evaluated the extent to which
the average high school senior at my school site was able to affectively connect with each
aspect. For this analysis, I gleaned insights gathered from my own experiences in the
classroom as well as my general knowledge of the interests and abilities of the students at
my school site. Through this qualitative analysis, I hoped to find justification for my
expressed need to reform and restructure the current curriculum with one that was more
accessible and applicable to the lives of my students.
Lexile Rankings and Difficulty
While Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains (Anderson, 2001; Bloom, 1977)
are crucial to the success of any given curriculum, the lexile measure, or “readability” of
a text, plays a major role in whether or not students are able to actually access said
domains. Therefore, I found it necessary to research the lexile measurement for each of
the texts in the two curricular frameworks featured in this study, to provide yet another
45. 35
means of comparison. If one text was rated above or below the average reading levels of
my students, then I needed to look into the justification for the continued use of that text.
Lexile measures are not wholly justifiable reasons to remove a text; certain texts, whether
below or above average lexile levels, can still contain topics pertinent to a curricular
focus or essential question, thus affecting or supplementing academic rigor in some way.
They do, however, serve as a good foundation off of which to conduct critical analysis of
a text.
There are a number of ways in which one can find lexile measures. For this study,
I accessed the database created by The Lexile Framework for Reading (Metametrics,
2014). Per this organization, the lexile measures for “typical” students in 12th
grade range
from 940L-1210L. Further, the “typical” lexile measure for texts in 12th
grade should
range from 1185L-1385L (Metametrics, 2014). In the development of this new
curriculum, if a text from either curricular framework featured in this study did not fall
into either of these ranges, I had to search for other means of justifying its place in the
curriculum. If there was not enough outside evidence to support its use in the classroom,
the text would be removed. Additionally, it should be noted that not all texts have lexile
measurements available. This is particularly the case with regards to works of drama. In
those cases, an anecdotal analysis of the language is still provided, but the justification
for these texts lies largely in the thematic relevance, rather than the difficulty of the
language.
Organization and Analysis of Data
As I worked to develop this new curriculum with my cohort, I quickly realized
that we were going to need some means of organizing data that allowed for a chance to
46. 36
evaluate the various elements of the two curricular frameworks side-by-side. Having
participated in other curricular development efforts, I understood the benefits of having a
structured and visual component to supplement and help organize the data. It was very
clear that this was the best way to ensure an effective analysis and visualization of our
curriculum.
Curriculum mapping. In addition to conducting an analysis of the accessibility
and readability of the content within a given curriculum, it was also necessary to consider
the longitudinal organization of the content therein. In other words, I wanted to consider
how much time was allotted for student access to the various parts of the curriculum. The
development of curriculum maps allowed for an opportunity to not only measure this
aspect, but also seemed like the most logical means of clearly organizing the previously
mentioned curricular aspects in a way that allowed for proper analysis.
Using two separate curriculum maps, I followed each curricular framework as
they progressed through the school year. To ensure a thorough analysis of each
framework, in addition to making connections to Bloom’s domains, I provided qualitative
evidence on the following curricular aspects: unit structure and text selection, group- and
project-based formative assessments, and summative assessments. Understanding that the
time needed to master a topic or concept can vary greatly from student to student, I
evaluated the amount of time allotted to certain novels and/or units. Furthermore, given
that this new curricular framework was developed in light of the new CCSS, I included
evidence as to the various standards met within the different aspects of both frameworks.
This, I hoped, would serve as a strong justification to make permanent the changes we
were developing.
47. 37
Considering the Curricular Aspects
An in-depth analysis of curricular structure, assessments, and other activities is
required when using this domain as a means of evaluating curricular effectiveness. In my
evaluation of the two curricular frameworks discussed herein, I used the curriculum maps
to evaluate the length and organization of the various educational units, texts, and
assessments found in each framework. This greatly helped to evaluate the extent to which
the curriculum could be delivered to students effectively.
Unit structure and text selection. Conducting an analysis of text selection is
crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of the frameworks involved in this study. My aim
was to show that the new proposed curriculum framework needed to consist of texts that
were supplemental to the essential questions and thematic ideas expressed in each unit, as
opposed to ones that served as the main focus of a given unit. As I conducted my
research, I paid close attention to the following text characteristics: accessibility, purpose,
and placement.
For accessibility, I considered whether or not the texts allowed for easy student
engagement. Were the students able to connect with all aspects of the novel, such as
language, plot, theme, and so on, or was there something hindering those connections? I
also took into consideration the relevance of the topics covered in those texts to the
average high school student. This is where the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy
(2001) would prove helpful. By evaluating the purpose and placement of the text, I
looked at how each text was featured in their respective units. Whether or not a given text
was the central focus of the unit or if it was more of a supplement to a central theme or
essential question became an invaluable means of evaluating unit structure and points of
48. 38
focus. With the CCSS calling for more of an emphasis on skills and less on content, it
seemed clear to me that while texts should remain important and central to the unit, the
most efficient way to provide students with opportunities for skill building was to
consider those texts in light of a lager skill or topic serving as the unit’s main focus.
Finally, and more generally, I wanted to look at what major texts were being
taught in the current curricula and propose some possible changes. Evaluating qualities
such as plot complexity, language, and topics covered for the works of literature in the
current curriculum as well as those of the text in the new proposed curriculum was an
incredibly helpful way of justifying a given text. To conduct these evaluations, I would
examine the aforementioned qualities of the works as well as any standards from the
CCSS that might be connected to the text and it’s respective activities. Then, using both
the cognitive and affective learning objectives outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy, I evaluated
the effectiveness of each work; in doing so, I was able to determine the extent to which
each work met the expectations of the CCSS. These evaluations greatly helped influence
the structure and content of the new curriculum.
Summative assessments. Another major aspect of this curriculum overhaul was
making changes to the way student knowledge and mastery of skill was assessed on both
the formative and summative level. I looked critically at each of the assessments and
developed an understanding of ways to allow for more skill-building (formative
assessments) and demonstration of skill mastery (summative assessments), as called for
by the CCSS. I evaluated how each assessment, regardless of type or structure,
encouraged students to continually consider and synthesize with the overarching,
thematic ideas and essential questions or central topics found in the curricular framework.
49. 39
Whether or not these assessments challenged students to access the higher levels of
Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains would be crucial to an effective curriculum;
rote memorization would not be enough for students to “succeed”. In order to ensure
student success and mastery of skill, assessments needed to require a deep understanding
of concepts and skills covered throughout the course; therefore, this was a major focus of
my evaluation.
Personal Biases and Researcher Background
Moving around the country during the earlier years of my formal education
allowed me an opportunity to begin developing an opinion of what an effective education
looked like from a very young age. While in the Midwest and the suburbs of Washington
D.C., I witnessed the benefits of smaller class sizes, one-on-one teaching, and specialized
instruction based on my own individual needs as a student. When I moved to California
in the 5th
grade, I found myself thrust into crowded classrooms, amidst the rising
influence of the state content standards and standardized assessment movements. I was
force-fed a seemingly purposeless curriculum, learning how to memorize answers and
concepts in order to successfully take a standardized assessment. In college, as a student
at Westmont College, a small liberal arts school, I found myself back in smaller classes,
able to take courses that appealed to my interests, regardless of their respective fields of
study. It was in this type of environment that I began to truly thrive as a student. My
professors developed classes specifically tailored to my interests and needs, placing an
emphasis on collaboration and self-expression, thus, allowing me to develop a strong
passion for education. In the years following college, as a graduate student and novice
teacher, I began to think critically about the state of education, the expectations
50. 40
prescribed for students, and the means through which information was conveyed to them.
Ergo, when, in my first years of teaching, I found myself teaching the same outdated,
test-centered curriculum that impacted me so negatively nearly a decade prior, I thought
it vastly hypocritical to hold my students to those same expectations and standards. If I
wanted my students to succeed and truly value the education they received, important
curricular changes had to be made.
Immediately, I turned to the educational philosophies of Alfie Kohn (2011), John
Goodlad (1984), Theodore Sizer (1992), and John Dewey (1915:2001; 1938; 1944).
These educators and others spent their careers advocating for the increased presence of
educational practices and curricula that appealed to the needs and interests of individual
students. In their writings and teachings, these progressive educators posited that
successful learning could not be measured simply by scores on standardized assessments,
but rather in the development and mastery of skills that students could apply to their lives
in the classroom as well as outside of school. If students were going to learn, the content
learned must be relevant and applicable to the lives of the students.
With over two decades of diverse formal education experiences and the theories
propositioned by those progressive educators and theorists, I found justification to the
curricular changes for which I was calling. The problem, however, was that the shift I
wanted to see required in-depth, holistic, structural changes, for which I found support
from my colleagues seriously lacking. In my first year of teaching, despite my
frustrations with the outdated curriculum, it was expected of me to give the same
common multiple-choice unit tests as everyone else teaching World Literature; and, while
I found ways to tweak the curriculum wherever I could, such minor changes did not seem
51. 41
very effective, especially when considering the students in the other World Literature
classes were still being given the same, antiquated curriculum. To clarify, I have a great
amount of respect for my colleagues’ abilities as teachers, but it was incredibly evident to
me that the curriculum used in our classrooms was not doing enough to provide all of our
students with an opportunity to truly succeed: students were still memorizing vocabulary
definitions, character descriptions, and being told the means of certain symbols and
motifs in order to correctly respond to questions found on a test. There was no purpose in
our classrooms, no application; and so, we were, in large part, failing as educators.
Thus, I was presented with the main problem of the American education system:
students are not taken into consideration. The contrast between test- and student-centered
curricula is incredible. While the American public education system claims to work
diligently to ensure that every student is given access to a ‘good’ education, the system
itself is not built to effectively produce academic success across the board. True
Progressivism, a la Dewey, Kohn, et al. calls for educators to teach to the needs, abilities,
and interests of their students. A nationally- or even state-standardized curriculum, as
seen in recent years, will be hard-pressed to produce results showing true student success,
given the socio-economic, demographic, cultural, and ethnic diversity one can see from
classroom-to-classroom let alone school-to-school or state-to-state.
These insights into the lack of focus on student interest and life application in
current curricula serve as the main motivation and purpose of this study. Given the
aforementioned emphasis on teaching to the individual needs of students, this study is
limited in scope to the students on my school site whom my colleagues and I will
encounter in our respective classrooms. Our students come from a mostly affluent, upper
52. 42
middle class community, with just about 15% of the student body living below the
poverty level (Newsweek, 2014). Furthermore, there is strong parental and communal
involvement and support for education across the district, which has immensely affects
the success of an education program. With such caveats noted, it should be made clear
that this study in no way implies that the exact curriculum developed as part of this study
could be transplanted to a different school site and guarantee automatic success. Certain
aspects and frameworks garnered from this study can, however, serve as excellent
starting points for educators anywhere who are looking to shift the focus of their
curriculum.
Methods of Providing Analysis
As I worked to develop the proposed curriculum that would hopefully replace the
curriculum we had in place at present in our World Literature courses, I looked through
each unit and evaluated the place and purpose of the major texts and forms of
assessments. Furthermore, as I combed through each unit, I examined the essential
questions, topics, and themes that would be presented to students and evaluated the
effectiveness they would have as they represented the curricular and academic motivation
and expression of the unit’s purpose. Through my analysis of textual context, lexile
difficulty, and major assessments, if a unit seemed lacking in a direct, relevant, and
applicable purpose or curricular structure, I proposed a new unit, with a new thematic
focus and possibly a new major text that might better fit the needs and expectations of a
college preparatory World Literature course. On the whole, my goal was to propose a
new curricular structure that emphasized the progressive research discussed in the
preceding chapters.
53. 43
Chapter Four: Analysis
The following section provides a comparison between the two curricular
frameworks discussed as the central focus of this study. The units for each framework are
described and outlined in detail. The units from the original framework that has been in
place at my school site for over a decade will come first, followed by corresponding units
from my own proposed curricular framework following. In this comparison, I provide a
thorough description of all aspects of each individual unit of study and draw connections
referenced in the Chapter 3 of this study. Additionally, the major issues and points of
change are outlined so as to provide a more in-depth understanding as to the reasoning
and motivations of this specific curriculum development effort.
Breakdown of Curriculum
Original Unit 1. Unit title: Journeys of Discovery. There are two major works
that comprise this unit:
First, Allegory of the Cave from The Republic (Plato, 2006). The Lexile Measure
for this work is 160L. This allegory by Plato consists of a fictional conversation between
Plato’s philosopher-mentor, Socrates and his companion, Glaucon. In this fictional
conversation, Socrates tells the story of prisoners who have spent their entire lives living
enchained and trapped in a cave. This piece serves as an allegory for the meaning of truth
and perception of reality; through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato
explores the prisoners’ concept of reality and whether it may differ from those whose
outlooks and experiences have not been nearly as limited.
Students will also read selected Cantos from Inferno from The Divine Comedy
(Dante, 2003). The Lexile Measure for this work is 1120L. In this first portion of Dante
54. 44
Alighieri’s epic poem, the author explains his understanding of what happens after people
leave this world and experience the after life; particularly, he explains the nine circles of
Hell and which types of people belong on each. Dante makes specific references to the
actions and lives of influential people from throughout history as well as some of his
contemporaries to narrative the effects and purposes of the various levels of Hell. This
poem serves as an allegory for the understanding, rejection of, and redemption for sin.
In this unit, students consider major philosophical aspects of the human
experience: truth, reality, and sin. Through various supplemental texts and activities,
students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of role these topics play in the
major texts for this unit. Two of these readings come out of the World Literature textbook
and have accompanying questions and activities that help guide discussion and
understanding of the themes and topics conveyed.
Knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed in this unit is assessed
through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The questions focus on
reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching, common themes, and
literary analysis.
Proposed Unit 1. Unit title: Tracing Our Origins. Similar to the original unit,
there are two works that make up this unit:
First, students will read selections from A Dictionary of Creation Myths
(Leeming, 1995). There is no Lexile Measure available for this text. Students will look at
different creation myths from various world cultures. They will work to understand the
origins of these myth stories, the similarities between them, and how they impact our
lives today. They will be reading various creation narratives and academic writings based
55. 45
on their culture groups, thus developing an understanding of the origins of many different
cultural groups as supported by Choo (2014).
Due to the pertinence and applicability of the work, it is also proposed that
students continue to read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave as a part of this introductory unit.
One of the major shifts seen in the new curriculum is the addition of essential questions.
For this unit, the students will consider the following question as they read: Where do we
come from? Students will use this question as a guide to their understanding and their
demonstration of mastery.
The summative assessment for this unit comes in two parts. First, the students will
be assigned a cultural group and its corresponding creation myth. As a team, they will
work together to become experts of their assigned culture and creation myth, and teach
that myth to the class via a presentation of some kind (PowerPoint, storytelling or
reenactment, children’s book, etc.). The goal of their presentation will be to demonstrate
an understanding of the following questions:
• Who are these people (the assigned cultural group)? What is their cultural
identity?
• What are the origins of this myth? What values or worldviews are presented in
this myth? How did their cultural practices shape this myth?
• What does this myth say about the need for humans to know and understand our
origins?
• The second part of this assessment will take the form of a creative writing piece
where the students will write a “fan fiction” narrative based on their creation myth
and the world and characters represented therein. This will be a fully processed
56. 46
essay, so the students will be given ample instructional support as they work to
write their narrative stories. This assessment will serve as a means of further
demonstrating their knowledge and expertise of the creation myth; it will also
serve as a benchmark assessment of their writing skills.
One of my greatest concerns when looking at aspects of the original curricular
framework was the dearth of writing assessments. I felt that it was immensely important
to increase the amount of formative and summative writing that students do throughout
the year; particularly, this change needed an emphasis at the beginning of the year, so as
to serve as an initial assessment of the students’ writing abilities and to lay a foundation
for the writing expectations for the rest of the year. As Dewey (1938) suggested, a good
education is one that offers students opportunities to experience the actual development
of a skill that can be applied to their lives outside of school. It was with those ideas in
mind that I proposed the initial “fan fiction” writing assessment: it offers a two-fold
approach at experiential learning. Having conducted an in-depth analysis of the
applicable and relevant ideas of origin stories, truth, and reality represented in the
Creation Myths and Allegory of the Cave, students will use the expertise gained from
those experiences as they embark on their first initial writing assessment, which would, in
theory, lead them to a stronger understanding of both works as well as help them to
continue to develop their writing skills. As Kohn (2011) has argued, the fact that they are
creating something that focuses on the issues that they find interesting, as opposed to
memorizing facts for a test, they will be more likely to internalize the content and carry it
with them after they leave school. Furthermore, continuing with Kohn, the addition of
choice (how to present the creation myth and which story or character on which their
57. 47
story will focus) will give them even further encouragement to buy into the proposed
framework and take ownership from the beginning of the year.
Original Unit 2. Unit title: Satire and French Literature. The major text for this
unit is Candide (Voltaire, 2002). The Lexile Measure for this novel is 1110L. This 18th
century novel by Voltaire tells the story of a young man as he leaves his sheltered
upbringing and explores the vast peoples and places of the world. In this work, Voltaire
creates characters and situations whose absurd natures and characteristics are meant to
satirize specific aspects of 18th-century European life: the oppressive monarchy, the
corrupting nature of wealth, the hypocrisy of religion, and the foolish philosophy of
optimism. The text was originally written in French, but students read a version translated
into English. While the language is not necessarily out of their reading range, students
often express difficulty following the many and dramatic events of Candide’s life.
As noted in the synopsis, this unit is meant to show students how artists and
authors throughout history have used satire to provide commentary on their experiences.
While reading the novel, students will trace and be able to explain Voltaire’s commentary
on the oppressive monarchy, the corrupting nature of wealth, the hypocrisy of religion,
and the foolish philosophy of optimism; with this understanding, students will
formatively be assessed on their ability to synthesize Voltaire’s satire with events in their
own lives. This, however, can be difficult for the students who are regularly struggling to
follow the main points of the plot and therefore not able to fully devote focus to an
understanding of the satirical message and purpose of the text.
Similar to the first unit, knowledge and comprehension of information conveyed
in this unit is assessed through a summative, 100-question multiple-choice exam. The
58. 48
questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching,
common themes, and literary analysis. Furthermore, following multiple-choice
summative assessment, students are given an in-class essay in which they are asked to
synthesize satirical ideas represented in Candide with those conveyed in a modern piece
of writing as well as provide a personal opinion of the topic being satirized.
Proposed Unit 2. Unit title: Dealing with Change. The major text for this unit is
Things Fall Apart (Achebe, 1996), which has a Lexile Measure of 890L. This work by
Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian-born writer, educator, and political activist, was the first
major work of literature to come out of the African continent and become accepted in the
worldwide literary canon. Through the story of Okonkwo – a stubborn, fictional warrior,
father, and tribal leader – and his family, the novel depicts the effects of European
imperialism on the Ibo people whose long-established practices and traditions differ
greatly from those of the foreign missionaries and imperialists. As the two cultures
collide, many characters find solace and understanding in the new practices of the
Europeans, while others, such as Okonkwo, struggle to accept or even consider the
changes being inflicted upon them.
The language in the novel is not particularly challenging for high school seniors.
Given, though, that many of my students are unfamiliar with the practices and traditions
of traditional Nigerian tribes, there is often confusion regarding the names and
terminology Achebe uses in his writing.
The main focus of this unit is to explore the importance of cultural traditions,
practices, and values, and to experience what it looks like when they are challenged by
outside cultures. Students often come with some prior understanding of the European
59. 49
imperialist movements from the World History courses, and so, are able to place the story
in a proper context.
The essential question for this unit is: How do we deal with change? While
reading Things Fall Apart and the other supplemental texts, students will regularly
discuss the concept of change: whether it is good or bad, how the characters in the book
and readings deals with it, how we deal with is as a society, and so on. Furthermore, the
students will discuss how the origins of privilege and imperial hegemony drive change,
specifically, taking into consideration the worldviews of the two groups in the novel.
For this unit, the summative assessment will take place in two parts. The final
assessment will be a 70-question multiple-choice exam on the major readings of this unit.
The questions focus on reading comprehension, quote identification, character matching,
common themes, and literary analysis. Prior to that assessment, though, students will
participate in a summative Socratic Seminar in which they discuss the essential question
and how their understanding has been shaped by the activities and readings completed in
this unit. Students will be expected to synthesize the ideas represented in the texts with
their own their claims in this discussion; thus, it will serve as a valid measure of their
understanding of both the essential question as well as the major readings.
As seen in the original curricular framework, Things Fall Apart was the focus of
another unit that comes up later in the year. The new thematic focus, however, as
proposed above, allows students to decipher the ways in which the characters in Things
Fall Apart deal with change and then apply that understanding to their own lives. This
structure encourages students to fully embrace the experiences and opinions laid out in
Achebe’s writing, while making great efforts to draw connections to their own concerns
