Curriculum Resource Guides Bullock, Patricia

¶ … Curriculum Resource Guides

Bullock, Patricia L.; Freedman, Debra M.; D'Arcy, Genevieve S.; Easley, Jacob II; and Mbindyo, Margaret. 2006. "Development of curriculum Resource Guides in a Secondary Education Course." The Clearing House, March/April.

Bullock, et. al. reported the results of an undergraduate-level course taught at Penn State University. The course, which required the students to compile an annotated list of source material for use as curriculum guides, is taken by all students prior to their student teaching. The course brings all the students together, providing a cross-section of instructional levels and subject areas. The students are divided into teams designed to be educationally diverse, reflecting all the educational disciplines in the Penn State teaching program.

This diverse approach to generating curriculum guides is an interesting approach that should encourage the teams to find a wider range of informational sources than the students might have found if, for instance, only future math teachers looked at math curriculum guide materials and only elementary teachers looked at materials for elementary students.

Such an approach has some limitations. The author noted that most of the prospective teachers described themselves as white and middle-class. No information was provided regarding whether the group's diversity included differences in religious affiliation or sexual orientation. This means that those compiling this guide were inexperienced teachers who may or may not have had personal knowledge of the areas they researched: ability, class/poverty, gender identity, race/ethnicity and sexual identity. On the other hand, this limitation could have the benefit that the students would recognize those materials that included new information or perspectives they had not previously been aware of. So, it seems possible that the actual authors of the curriculum guides - students close to the end of their undergraduate education to become teachers - may have selected materials they would find useful as they as teachers grapple with diversity issues. The authors made no claims regarding the value of the students' efforts.

Two criticisms might be made of the students' work when taken as a whole. First, it seems that some sources were included just to add more to the list. Second, the descriptions of the sources often weren't complete enough for another educator to decide if he or she wanted to study the source in more depth.

As an example of the first criticism, those who worked on the "sexual identity" section included a film titled "Looking for a Space: Lesbians and Gay Families in Cuba." While this is likely a very interesting film, one has to wonder how much of what happens in Cuba, a very closed society, would apply to education in the United States. There probably are very serious issues about ethnicity coupled with issues of sexual identity, but studying the problem in a country like Cuba probably wouldn't translate well to Cuban-Americans in the United States. While the group worked hard to consider diversity in more than one dimension (ethnicity as well sexual identity), hopefully there are better sources to gather that perspective.

The second criticism is a little more frustrating. Arguably, few people have less free time than a first year teacher. While the curriculum resources are wide-ranging, the descriptions are frustratingly short. Since this is universal throughout the article, it appears that they were kept short as part of the class instruction. Unfortunately it means that only those who worked on a given section will have a real grasp on what the sources have to offer. In some areas, that gap would be a huge barrier. Regarding issues of sexual identity, teachers would have to consider the maturity of their students when looking at materials. What tenth graders are ready to hear and digest is likely very different than what a teacher of fourth graders would choose for his or her students.

A reader would presume that these students find the materials appropriate for use in some way in the classroom, either as background information for themselves or in designing an actual curriculum, but the information provided does not reflect any such analysis. For instance, students wrote about Hearing Us Out: Voices from the Gay and Lesbian Community, "Sutton provides insights to understanding lesbian and gay communities through individuals' unique stories." This statement is so vague that it could have been written without actually looking at the book. A teacher would find this recommendation much more useful with more information: for what age level did the group think it was appropriate? Did the book provide insights that were directly applicable to school, such as stories from these people's experiences while they were in school? Does it include language some might find objectionable or excessively graphic?

The group that looked at "ability" reported on their materials more completely. Comments such as "the author shows how children with disabilities can be active participants in the mainstream classroom environment" is useful information. The issue of how to teach inclusion students well within the regular school environment is an issue of real concern to many teachers. Reading this description, the reader knows that he or she can look at that source more carefully. Another source specifically addresses how to facilitate mainstreaming at the high school level. Elementary teachers would probably pass that one by while middle school teachers would probably give it a look. This group's descriptions help the reader sort through the many resources the "ability" group found to pick out the ones most useful for him or her.

As an article this report falls short. An article should provide more than a compilation of college students' work, no matter how carefully done. The authors did not provide any critique of the final result, nor did they give any description of how the students proceeded with their project. In addition, there is no indication of how the students were led through the process of evaluating the materials examined. The reader does not know how the teams worked, whether they looked at some materials and rejected them, or whether they included everything they found. No information is provided about whether the students were led through drafts of their summaries.