EFFECTS OF AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM MODEL

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Alice, speaking to Cheshire cat: “Would you tell me, please, which way I

ought to go from here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get

to,” said the Cat. “I don’t much care where,” said Alice. “Then it doesn’t

matter which way you go,” said the Cat. “So long as I get somewhere,” Alice

added as an explanation. “Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you

only walk long enough.” (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland,

1865)

Education without a cohesive framework and plan for achievement is a reflection

of the directionless Cheshire cat who seems to believe that no matter which direction you

choose, you will always arrive at an appropriate destination. For the Cheshire cat this

was sufficient; however, for educators this philosophy applied to education is not enough.

Analogous to Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland, educational leaders must have a

definitive understanding of the purpose of education and a clear plan and educational

directive on best practice methods for the academic classroom. Without a directed set of

academic purposes, goals, and objectives, the educational system will emerge into a

meaningless metaphor of repetitive exercises, rote assignments, and memorization tasks

that do not tie into any interaction, assimilation, or understanding of the real everyday

world in which the students live. Through an understanding of how students can

successfully be engaged in the learning process, educators can enable their classroom

prodigies to be productive and successful students in the classroom.

2

Purposeful Education

Educational leaders must have a purposeful, educational goal in teaching

America’s youth that will fortify sound judgment, independent thinking, and a program

of learning that will encourage analytical thinking and real-world applications to the

learning process. There must be a sound curriculum philosophy in place to facilitate a

framework and structure for learning that will enable students from all backgrounds and

learning abilities to have the opportunity to learn purposefully and meaningfully in order

to reach their highest and best potential. While many curriculum philosophies exist,

determining which philosophy and structure will best suit the academic needs of a

particular district or school is left to the judgment of school leaders which may include a

combination of the elected school board, district and campus administrators, and

professional educators in the classroom.

It is important that each generation be allowed to receive and gain the knowledge

necessary to participate in a democratic and free society. Teaching students to synthesize

knowledge and apply their findings to real-world problems and scenarios is critical to

both personal and professional success in the students’ lives. The ability to see the end

results, goals, and destinations for educationally reforming programs is a critical

component of academic leadership and change within the educational community.

Proverbs 29:18, states that “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

Vision is therefore an important component of learning and the

educational process. School leaders must be focused and visionary in the

development of goals and objectives in the educational process. Ayn Rand has stated that

“throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed

3

with nothing but their own vision” (Rand, 1964, p. 64). Visionary pioneers, especially

those involved in education, can pave the way for dramatic and effective change in the

educational system. History has shown that without a strong vision of outcome related

goals for a curriculum, the effectiveness and benefits of a curriculum model will not meet

the expectations or goals a district sets for its students' personal and cooperative

academic achievements.

Curriculum Choice: Guidelines and Objectives

Choosing a curriculum that will nourish and intellectually challenge a diverse and

ever changing school population is a challenging and daunting task. Educational leaders

must ensure that what is being taught in the classroom will sufficiently prepare their

students to succeed academically and to think critically across the boundaries of all

subject areas. While a case can be made for the effectiveness and practice of sound and

creative pedagogy classroom techniques, the ultimate test for a school or district is to

assess whether or not students are learning and being successful in the mastery of

academic subject matter and classroom requirements.

The responsibility for ensuring that all students achieve their maximum academic

potential is a daunting task for both educational administrators and classroom teachers.

With unique challenges on the forefront of our nation’s cultural and historical paradigm,

educational leaders including superintendents, principals, and curriculum directors must

be well versed on best practices and effective educational models for student success.

As curriculum reform moves from the portals of the White House to the board

rooms of America’s corporations and finally to the schools and classrooms across our

nation, what our students achieve in the school setting is paramount to the safety, well

4

being, and economic freedoms currently enjoyed in our free and democratic society. A

thorough understanding of what is taught in the classroom and why it is taught is

fundamental to the overall well being of our entire educational system. Especially in the

area of state and federal accountability, “the heavy emphasis on testing and

accountability has refocused attention on underperforming subgroups but also has created

incentives that drive curriculum and instruction in the classroom” (Sunderman, Orfield &

Kim, 2006, p. 20). The new accountability standards require that what is taught in the

classroom be logically integrated into verifiable results such as reflected on achievement

and accountability tests measured by the Texas Academic Knowledge and Skills

(TAKSTM) test administered annually in Texas state schools. The emphasis of high

student achievement and accountability made by state and national legislators highlights

the importance of the curriculum. To meet the challenges and goals mandated by

government officials, a sound curriculum philosophy must be embraced in order to

choose and implement the best and most appropriate curriculum model in the classroom.

Statement of the Problem

High schools are the breeding ground for the next generation of society’s leaders

and workforce. However, “the American high school is an anachronism. The current

American high school system fails in satisfying the demands placed upon it by all sectors

of American society in all classes, regions, and ethnicities” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16).

Emerging technologies, world wide communications, and the sophistication of a new

generation require that educators meet the challenge of effectively educating this

generation to ensure that real learning and academic achievement occurs in the

school setting.

5

How and what students are taught in the classroom should be considered as the

number one priority for today’s school leaders and school systems. Based on the current

challenges faced by educators who must support and implement a curriculum model, it is

evident that our educational system is in need of revitalization. The academic standards

and learning mastery of our students are significantly lagging behind other nations,

encrypting upon our society a new recognition of the need to educate our students at a

level conducive with the requirements and demands of a global, 21st century working

environment.

Without a strong and educated populace, our nation’s strength and political

virility will be endangered. Educators who are cognizant of the worth and value of a

strong, substantive education must ensure that true learning and content mastery of the

curriculum is achieved and prioritized in the classroom. Those who succeed in learning

will ultimately have the tools and knowledge needed to successfully compete and work in

the 21st century workplace.

The benefits of succeeding academically not only have an educational component,

but also a political impact on society. Educating a nation’s population is critical to the

pillars of democracy and freedom. If our schools, in particular our high schools, are not

able to compete academically in a global market, the reality is sinking in: “Our nation’s

outdated high school expectations jeopardize our future” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 34).

Acknowledging the fact that curriculum plays a major role in student academic

achievement, there is a need to address the foundational core and fortress of all student

learning, the curriculum and its effect on student learning and academic achievement.

Based on the premise that the curriculum is the framework upon which student learning is

6

accomplished, the issue of concern and statement of the problem to be addressed in this

study can be articulated as follows: “Is there a difference in student academic

achievement based on the type of curriculum model used in the school setting to prepare

students for academic achievement and success?”

Research Questions

The focus of this study was to determine if there was a difference in academic

achievement between schools which utilize a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum

philosophy based on an integrated curriculum model as compared to those schools which

do not utilize a ROM curriculum philosophy in the classroom. In addition a qualitative

portion of this study was also implemented which analyzed the perceptions of teachers on

the overall perceptions, risks, and benefits of teachers who utilize the CSCOPETM

curriculum model, a curriculum model which exhibits similar characteristics and

philosophies as the ROM curriculum philosophy, in the classroom. Schools which have

been identified as those schools whose curriculum model exhibits a Realms of Meaning

curriculum philosophy have been designated as Realms of Meaning (ROM) schools.

Schools whose curriculum models have not been identified as exhibiting characteristics

of the ROM curriculum philosophy were designated as non-Realms of Meaning (non-

ROM) schools. This research has been guided by the following quantitative and

qualitative research questions and null hypotheses.

Quantitative Research Questions

1. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

7

2. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group English language arts TAKSTM

scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model

and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

3. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group science TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

4. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall social studies TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

5. To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools?

Qualitative Research Questions

This study answered the following qualitative research questions.

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

7. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were developed in order to answer questions one

through four as listed above.

H01: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

8

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H03: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group social

studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

Purpose of the Study

It is incumbent upon all educational leaders who oversee instruction to be aware

of how curriculum models and curricular philosophies affect student academic

achievement. Using this central idea as the context for this investigation, the rationale for

this study was based on the premise that a curriculum philosophy based on the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning leads to an integrated curriculum which leads to

student academic achievement. In line with the specific goals and educational directives

of any organization, any successful curriculum model must “deepen insight into

relationships, and to counteract the provincialism of customary existence-in short, to

9

engender a meaningful integrated outlook” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). Therefore, the

purpose of this study was to analyze the effect on an integrated curriculum model on

student academic achievement based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of

Meaning.

The components of this study were four-fold and included the following

objectives : (1) to identify schools that are Realms of Meaning schools, (2) to discover if

student achievement is impacted because of the school’s status as a Realms of Meaning

school, (3) to understand the perceptions of classroom teachers and educational leaders

on their view of the effectiveness of the Realms of Meaning curriculum model in the

classroom, and (4) to understand the benefits and/or risks of implementing the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model in the classroom.

Significance of the Study

The importance of this study lies in the fact that by understanding the similarities

and differences of student academic achievement in relationship to the effectiveness of

the curriculum model used in the classroom, educational leaders will be able to utilize the

findings of this study to aid in the determination of the type of curriculum model that

yields the highest capital gains in the form of educational collateral and student learning:

“Whether we consider curriculum narrowly as a listing of subjects to be taught in schools

or broadly as experiences that individuals require for full and authentic participation in

society, there is no denying that curriculum affects us all, both those within the field, the

educators and curricularists of various stripes, and those in the general society” (Ornstein

& Hunkins, 2004, p. 1). As educational and psychological researchers seek to uncover

the mysteries of learning and student success, studies such as “Educational leadership

10

directives: Analyzing the effect of an integrated curriculum model on student academic

achievement based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning” can

ultimately add to the body of knowledge of student achievement and success and provide

creative answers and program opportunities for educational communities and school

districts on the local, state, and national level:

Today the focus on education at all levels and for students of all abilities is

increasingly upon excellence and adequacy of knowledge. Today it is

recognized that knowledge does not belong to specialists alone, but that,

through general education, understanding of a high order can and should be

available to everyone. (Kritsonis, 2007, p. vii)

Through an integrated curriculum learning system as evidenced through the Ways

of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy, students have the

opportunity to incorporate learning and demonstrate academic achievement and mastery

in required subject matter presented in a more holistic, viable, and challenging manner.

This study will be particularly important for colleges and universities in that how

curriculum choice is taught in teacher preparation programs will structure the educational

philosophies for teacher leaders and future administrators for generations to come. In

addition, school districts will benefit from this research in that they will have the

opportunity to utilize this study to make sound and reliable researched based decisions

regarding a district’s selection and implementation of the curriculum.

This study is also important because of the high accountability placed on

educational institutions in regards to how students learn and achieve. Nationally, one of

the most significant forms of federal accountability has been developed and outlined by

11

federally mandated goals and accountability standards through the No Child Left Behind

Act 2001 (NCLB). Educators are faced with going beyond the previous prescriptive

curriculum frameworks in order to strengthen and deepen a student’s ability to achieve

and academically succeed. Therefore, understanding how the curriculum affects student

learning is paramount in the discussion and study of factors which influence and create

learning opportunities and meaningful educational paradigms for students.

In Texas, accountability for learning has been defined through the administration

and implementation of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKSTM) test.

TAKSTM testing in Texas has been and continues to be one of the significant instruments

that define a school’s excellence (in regards to student achievement) and/or the lack of

such progress. The TAKSTM test determines not only a school’s academic rating and

standing in the state, but also whether or not a general education student will ultimately

be able to complete his or her education by graduating from high school. Knowing how

to prepare students for the level and depth of learning necessary to do well on this test is

critical not only to Texas school districts and local campuses, but also to future national

academic studies and research projects that seek to find better ways to acclimate student

achievement and success. To engender this high level of learning expectation, Kritsonis

has stated that the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy is significant to teachers in

that this philosophy can

be useful for leaders in education throughout the United Sates and abroad.

This will definitely be useful to students of education, teachers,

school administrators, professors of education, scholars in arts

and sciences, and other professional workers in education . . . this

12

will have something to offer any person, in formal education or

outside of it, who seeks perspective on knowledge in the modern world and

who is in search of order and meaning in his own life. (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. xi)

By analyzing an orderly and systematic approach to education, this study

perpetuates the assumption that not only students will benefit from the application of

these strategies, but teachers and administrators will also benefit from a structured

learning environment and curriculum that provides an educational framework for learning

that stimulates student learning and academic success.

A major facet of the importance of this study lies in the fact that the research and

results of this investigation will be able to contribute to the national body of literature and

research that seeks to expand the rigor and relevance of curriculum implementation to all

schools and academic classrooms. The outcome of this study will potentially have far

reaching effects in that school leaders operating on the national, district, and campus

levels will have data based research to guide district and campus decision makers on the

most appropriate curriculum and learning models to use on their campuses.

Through this study, school districts will be able to make intelligent decisions on

the most effective curriculum models that can best enhance and provide effective learning

opportunities for all students. Findings from this investigative study will also add to the

literature on curriculum implementation and delivery. The research conclusions of this

study will provide a basis for others who may choose to research or study the impacts of

curriculum on a student’s learning and overall academic achievement and success in

other grade levels, subject areas, or teaching environments.

13

Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made and pertain to this study.

1. Comparative benchmark data for student achievement will be based on the

scores from the 2008 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and SkillsTM

(TAKSTM) test administered to 11th grade students in Texas classrooms in the

subject areas of

math, English, science, and social studies.

1. All data gathered from the TAKSTM test will be factual and accurately

reported.

3. Schools have been correctly identified as using the CSCOPETM curriculum model

based on a CSCOPETM participant list generated by a participating CSCOPETM

Educational Service Center (ESC) in the spring of 2008.

4. Teachers interviewed will have varying degrees of knowledge and career

experiences.

5. Teachers participating in the study will hold the necessary licensing credentials to

be certified in the state of Texas.

6. Teachers implementing the ROM curriculum model will do so effectively and in

the parameters required for successful ROM curriculum implementation.

7. The instrument used to gather data for this study will be completed correctly and

within the prescribed time period of this study.

8. Teachers who respond to the qualitative instrument will be forthcoming,

objective, and truthful in their responses.

9. The participant’s responses in this study will be accurately coded.

14

Limitations of the Study

Limitations of the study will include the following observations and expectations.

These limitations were considered in conducting this research and in analyzing the final

results and statistics manifested in this study.

1. Not every teacher surveyed will respond to the Teacher Curricula Perceptions

Instrument and complete the open ended questions.

2. Teachers interviewed will have varying degrees of knowledge and commitment to

the ROM curriculum model.

3. Not all teachers have been with the school district during the time period specified

for this study and therefore would not have as much experience utilizing the ROM

model as potentially others would in their district who have used this model

before.

4. School districts implementing a curriculum model with parallel curriculum

philosophies based on the fundamental principles of the Ways of Knowing

through the Realms of Meaning will use the curriculum in various degrees and

intensity depending on the needs of the individual student and local school

district.

5. School districts initially using the ROM curriculum model may choose to

discontinue using this product.

6. Non-ROM schools will potentially be using varied and unrelated curriculum

models thereby giving no consistent basis on what curriculum factors are

affecting learning in the non-ROM being evaluated for this study.

15

7. CSCOPETM, a relatively new curriculum model, is developing each year with new

additions and attributes to the model based on past student academic successes or

needs and therefore is an emerging curriculum model.

Delimitations of the Study

The following choices were made by the researcher in regards to the population,

sample size, and instrument used in this study. Delimitations of the study are as follows:

1. The study was limited by the researcher to a study population composed only of

those schools that have implemented the CSCOPETM model in their classrooms for

at least one academic school year and are considered to be ROM curriculum

model schools as determined by the criteria set forth in this study.

2. Teachers ultimately implement and experience the values of the curriculum on a

first hand day to day basis; therefore, teachers from ROM schools were the only

professionals surveyed regarding their perceptions and experiences of the risks

and benefits of implementing a ROM curriculum model in the classroom.

3. Teachers interviewed for the qualitative portion of the test were only those

teachers in a ROM curriculum model school who have taught at least one of the

four academic core subject areas (mathematics, English language arts, science and

social studies) at the 11th grade academic level in high school and have been

recommended or identified by their campus principal, district superintendent, or

curriculum director.

16

Definition of Terms

To facilitate a better understanding of the terms utilized in this study, the

following definitions are provided to provide a deeper understanding of the meanings of

terms and definitions that are applicable to this research.

assessment – “The giving and using of feedback against standards to enable improvement

and the meeting of goals” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 6).

backward design – “An approach to designing a curriculum or unit that begins with the

end in mind and designs toward the end” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 338).

curriculum – “Any document or plan that exists in a school or school system that defines

the work of teachers, at least to the extent of identifying the content to be taught

children and the methods to be used in the process” (English, 2003, p. 2).

curriculum coordination – “Refers to the extent of the focus and connectivity present

laterally within a school or a school district” (English, 2003, p. 3).

curriculum delivery – “Any act of implementing, supervising, monitoring, or using

feedback to improve the curriculum once it has been created and put into place in

schools” (English, 2003, p. 3).

curriculum design – “The act of creating the curriculum for schools. This may involve

the purchase of textbooks (one kind of work plan and curriculum) and/or the

writing of curriculum guides (another kind of work plan)” (English, 2003, p. 3).

empirics – “Includes the sciences of the physical world, of living things, and of man.

These sciences provide factual descriptions, generalizations, and theoretical

formulations and explanations that are based upon observation and

17

experimentation in the world of matter, life, mind, and society” (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. 12).

esthetics – “Contains the various arts such as music, the visual arts, the arts of movement,

and literature. Meanings in this realm are concerned with the contemplative

perception of particular significant things as unique objectifications of ideated

subjectivities” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12).

ethics – “Includes moral meanings that express obligation rather than fact, perceptual

form, or awareness of relation. In contrast to the sciences, which are concerned

with abstract cognitive understanding, to the arts, which express idealized esthetic

perceptions, and to personal knowledge, which reflects intersubjective

understanding, morality has to do with personal conduct that is based on free,

responsible, deliberate decision” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13).

intelligence – “The ability to think abstractly and to learn readily from experience”

(Kritsonis, Griffith, Bahrim, Marshall, Herrington, Hughes, and Brown, 2008, p.

125).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – An act “to close the achievement gap with

accountability, flexibility and choice that no child is left behind” (Public Law

107-110, January 8, 2002).

pedagogy – The “science and art of teaching” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 104).

pedagogical parallelism – “Refers to the notion that classroom teachers create an

alternative but parallel environment in which their students not only learn what is

on the test, but learn more. The teachers go deeper than the tested curriculum

content” (English & Steffey, 2001, p. 97).

18

standardized test – “A test that is administered, scored, and interpreted the same every

time and place it is used” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 592).

symbolics – “Comprises ordinary language, mathematics, and various types of

nondiscursive symbolic forms, such as gestures, rituals, rhythmic patterns, and the

like. These meanings are contained in arbitrary symbolic structures, with socially

accepted rules of formation and transformation, created as instruments for the

expression and communication of any meaning whatsoever” (Kritsonis, 2007, p.

11).

synnoetics –“Embraces what Michael Polanyi calls ‘personal knowledge’ and Martin

Buber the ‘I-Thou’ relation. The novel term synnoetics was devised because no

existing concept appeared adequate to the type of understanding intended. It

derives from the Greek synoesis meaning ‘meditative thought,’ and this in turn is

a component of the root syn, meaning ‘with,’ ‘together,’ and noesis, meaning

‘cognition.’ It may apply to other persons, to oneself, or to things”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12).

synoptics – “Refers to meanings that are comprehensively integrative. This realm

includes history, religion, and philosophy. These disciplines combine empirical,

esthetic, and synnoetic meanings into coherent wholes” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13).

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKSTM) – Statewide assessment program

developed in 2003 and mandated by Senate Bill 103 during the 76th Texas

Legislative Session. (Texas Education Agency, 2001, p. 39)

19

understanding – “To make connections and bind together our knowledge into something

that makes sense of ‘things’ whereas without understanding we might see only

unclear, isolated, or unhelpful facts” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 6).

Organization of the Study

This study is comprised of five chapters. Chapter I includes the introduction,

statement and background of the problem, research questions, limitations, definitions of

the problem, and an overview of the study. A comprehensive review of the literature is

presented and discussed in Chapter II. Chapter III consists of the data collection

methods, procedures, protocols, instrumentation, and data analysis necessary to complete

this study. Chapter IV reports on the findings of the study and includes the quantitative

and qualitative results of the study. Chapter V offers a summary of the findings and

conclusions generated through this study. Recommendations for future studies are also

included in this chapter.

20

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

The world we now live in has changed dramatically from the world of our

grandfathers and great grandfathers from times past: “Unlike the industrial age, the 21st

century requires all workers to master skills our schools previously considered necessary

only for top students” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 34). In today’s highly competitive society,

“today’s young people must be critical thinkers, decision makers, and problem solvers

with a solid foundation in basic skills” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 24). Our current educational

system is performing adequately if the standards of the past are used in comparison.

However, when compared to the demands and challenges of the 21st century, our high

schools are “preparing roughly one-third of students for college” (Vanderark, 2006, p.

34). To address these issues and prepare students for success in the real world, “we need

a new unifying mission-not just for high schools but for public education” (Vanderark,

2006, p. 34). For educators, the unifying mission of academia is to provide a sound

structure and framework for learning. This framework can be found in the selection and

implementation of a rigorous and effective model for curriculum and curriculum study.

Curriculum, therefore, becomes the central component of all educational work and

activity in the classroom. With the onset of so many curricular choices, Jerome Bruner’s

(1977) challenge of educational priority sets the stage for all foundational questions and

concerns regarding the curriculum taught and presented in today’s schools. His simple,

but profound statement, “What shall we teach and to what end?” (Bruner, p.1) is at the

21

core of all educational discourse regarding educational philosophy, curriculum, and the

learning process.

To understand where we are going in the educational process, it is important to

note where we have been. Understanding the development of our current educational

system can help educational leaders and providers learn from both the failures and

successes of past generations in order to design and implement a framework for learning

that will enhance student academic achievement in the classroom.

Historical Foundations of Learning

Knowledge, education, and the application of learning have been fundamental to

the well-being of not only our students, but also our own democracy as well. Our nation

has been founded upon the premise that “education is the cornerstone to life and

democracy and is purposeful in that it is the means of perpetuating culture from

generation to generation” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). History has recorded that as early as the

age of the Spartans, educational goals were to “promote patriotism and train warriors”

(Kritsonis, 2002, p. 24). Beginning in the 19th century, the Common School movement

(1837-1848) prescribed that education would be important and could accomplish the

goals of “political enlightenment, common values, and loyalties [and] job skills”

(Kritsonis, 2002, p. 25). Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States and

author of the Declaration of Independence, “laid the foundation for public education in

the United States with the introduction of his ‘Bill for the More General Diffusion of

Knowledge’ ”(Kritsonis, 2002, p 29). This bill laid the foundation for providing

fundamental core educational opportunities for all students regardless of their race, creed,

national origin, or socio-economic status. With this bill, it became more evident that

22

educators would need to be cognizant of the fact that there would be diverse learners in

the classroom; therefore, new strategies and curriculum models would be needed to meet

the demands of the new federal mandates for public education.

The development of a curriculum model and learning system became more

pronounced as educators, government leaders, and researchers saw the need to establish a

more pertinent and well-rounded curriculum model designed to meet the needs of both

the participating students and their communities. After World War I, the National

Education Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education in

1918 issued its own report emphasizing the need for “(1) health (2) command of

fundamental processes (3) worthy home membership (4) vocational education (5) civic

education, (and) (6) worthy use of leisure and ethical character” (Ornstein & Hunkins,

2004, p. 274). This early 20th century outline prescribed a formula for learning that

emphasized the learning needs and values of students attending America’s classroom in

the midst of traumatic world wide events and universal changes within the boundaries of

the United States itself.

After World War I and following the Great Depression, the “Purpose of

Education in American Democracy” report was introduced that challenged schools to

encourage “inquiry, mental capabilities, speech, reading, writing, numbers, sight and

hearing, health knowledge, health habits, public health, recreation, intellectual interests,

aesthetic interests, and character formation” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 275). In

1944, at the close of World War II, educational goals were concerned about “democracy

and world citizenship, as well as those related to the general needs of children and youth”

(Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 275). Each of these acts reflected on how the nation

23

responded to the educational challenges and needs of their constituents based on the

world environment and the needs of the nation for a literate, educated, and informed

populace.

Educators, politicians, and civic leaders continued to write legislation and new

reforms to upgrade the quality of education and the benefits to the students involved in

the process. The infamous Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas, 347 U.S. 483

1954 ruling “declared separate inherently unequal and mandated school desegregation”

(Kritsonis, 2002, p. 26). Providing equality in education was a significant step towards

equalizing and improving the nation’s overall educational programs and goals.

Sputnik was a major turning point in U.S. educational policies and discourse. The

impetus for this reform was the Soviet Union’s successful launch of an artificial satellite

into orbit. The American competitive spirit did not want its nation to be left behind in the

scientific and cultural revolution underway because of new and growing technologies in

the world market. Renewed interest in higher level thinking skills and application

abilities directly resulted in America’s desire to compete effectively in the global world

market.

Almost three decades after Sputnik another report surfaced challenging the

efficacy and effectiveness of America’s schools and educational systems. In one of the

most disturbing reports here to date relating to the condition of the American educational

school system, A Nation at Risk (1983) shocked both the political, educational, and

general citizenry of this country regarding the state of America’s educational schools and

academic institutions. Based on the fact that our nation was falling behind in educational

leadership, the commission offered strong directives to the nation on how to implement

24

effective change in the nation’s schools and educational economy. The nation responded

by challenging schools to have a more rigorous and dynamic curriculum, especially in the

areas of mathematics and science. Major changes were directed toward the structure of

the curriculum emphasizing the fact that curriculum is a major component of all learning

and academic achievement and success.

One of the most recent federal legislative reform efforts in place has been enacted

in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). This act set high accountability

standards for all schools ensuring that the academic needs of all students were

sufficiently addressed. In Texas, this standard is being actualized through the

administration of a state developed achievement test currently known as the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and SkillsTM (TAKSTM) test. This test is administered

throughout the state and measures the academic progress of students, schools, and

districts in regards to academic achievement and student success. Administrators,

curriculum leaders, and other appointed professionals then use this data to develop

programs and curriculum models that will help to facilitate student success and learning.

Curriculum is therefore an important component to all learning and student academic

achievement.

Based on new accountability demands, many educators and law makers have

initiated a thrust towards higher accountability standards and have mandated that

educators provide a rigorous and effective curriculum model in the classroom. By

requiring more of students and educators, lawmakers contend that students will be more

academically challenged and able to make greater strides in their learning and academic

careers.

25

Examining the Need for a Rigorous and Effective Curriculum Model

At the crux of all educational discourse is the foundational question of what

should encompass the amount and type of knowledge our students should be required to

know and articulate. Educators should reflect upon the foundational and philosophical

question: “What is education and how do we know that we have achieved our goals

regarding educational success and academic achievement?” Past generations have

struggled with this same philosophical question and have had to make decisions based on

their own current research models and critical needs assessments for their own

generation. The A Nation at Risk (1983) report has stated that:

Knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligences are the new raw

materials of international commerce and are today spreading

throughout the world as vigorously as miracle drugs, synthetic

fertilizers, and blue jeans did earlier. If only to keep and improve on

the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we must dedicate

ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit of all.

(Gardner, 1983, p. 2)

These mandates for change are justified and supported through numerous studies

on the state of education throughout the United States and the world: “According to the

National Center for Education Statistics (2003), every day from September to June some

53.5 million students in the United States walk into classes that teach English,

mathematics, science, history, and geography and face the daunting task of learning new

content” (Marzano, 2004, p. 1). Educators must ask, “Are the students enrolled in our

educational systems truly learning or merely gaining certificates of attendance without

26

any recollection or retention of knowledge taught in the classroom?” When educators

know what to teach, then implementing the curriculum in the classroom becomes

purposeful and meaningful to the student learner.

Educational Leadership and the Curriculum

The relationship of curriculum and educational leadership is undeniable. The No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 2001, enacted under President George W. Bush’s

administration, has dramatically altered the face of teaching and accountability in today’s

public school arena. This new “law represents a profound change in the relationship

between the federal government and state and local education agencies regarding who

controls education and has direct implications for what happens educationally in schools

and classroom” (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006, p. 19). This new law, now more than

ever, places greater responsibility for student academic achievement squarely on the

shoulders of the men and women who hold leadership and administrative positions within

their own prospective school populations and learning communities. Especially in the

area of curricula leadership, the role of the educational leader has become pivotal in the

development, oversight, and implementation of the student educational process.

In today’s society, “learning is the indispensable investment required for success in

the information age we are entering” (Gardner, 1983, p. 2). Students emerging from our

high school campuses will need to be well versed and proficient in the knowledge and

needs of an inter-connected society and ever increasing competitive workplace. Mandates

such as those formulated in the NCLB act specifically charge administrators to take

responsibility and action in regards to the implementation and supervision of an effective

curriculum model: “Many of NCLB’s provisions have important implications for

27

principals” (Sunderman et al., p. 24). Principals will be held responsible for student

achievement. Therefore, expectations for high student achievement have challenged

school leaders to re-evaluate the curriculum used in the classroom: “The heavy emphasis

on testing and accountability has refocused attention on underperforming subgroups but

also has created incentives that drive curriculum and instruction in the classroom”

(Sunderman et al., p. 20). These incentives for mastery can stimulate an administrator’s

resolve to choose the best and most effective curriculum model for his or her student body.

While administrators ultimately choose the type of curriculum a district will use,

the proprietor of teaching and learning is the classroom teacher: “The educator strives to

help each student realize his or her potential as a worthy and effective member of society”

(Kritsonis, 2002, p. 294). To address the needs of this new generation, dedicated teachers

must work towards meeting the needs of the academic classroom and set primary goals for

student learning and achievement. For educational administrators, a pivotal place to begin

change is at the core and heart of curriculum selection and implementation. The rationale

for beginning change with the curriculum is important in that the curriculum forms the

basis of a student’s learning capabilities and is foundational to the knowledge that the

student will be exposed to in his or her academic career.

Curriculum Contributions to Student Success

The curriculum will help students prepare for their adult lives and careers. In

order to prepare the adolescent student with the skills needed to succeed in a complex and

sophisticated society, critical thinking skills, and higher level cognitive abilities must be

developed in order for the student to succeed in his or her personal, private, and career

adult lives. In our school systems, we should be aware that “the special purpose of

28

education is to widen one’s view of life, to deepen insight into relationships, and to

counteract the provincialism of customary existence - in short, to engender a meaningful

integrated outlook” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). Without thoughtful attention to what is being

taught and how it is being comprehended by the student, the goals for student academic

achievement and success will produce inadequate and disappointing results. In the quest

for creating and leading more effective schools, educational leadership is paramount to

the success of any future educational developments or implemented curriculum models in

the classroom.

The Superintendent’s Role in Curriculum Selection

The chief executive officer of a school district is the superintendent. It is the

superintendent who will ultimately decide what curriculum philosophy will be utilized in

the classroom. By definition, a superintendent is an educational leader who not only

promotes the success of all students by facilitating the design and implementation of

curricula and strategic plans that enhance teaching and learning; but is also able to

implement core curriculum design and delivery systems to ensure

instructional continuity and instructional integrity across the district,

alignment of curriculum, curriculum resources and assessment, and the use of

various forms of assessment to measure student performance.

Texas Education Code Ch. 19, Part vii

Superintendents regulate the district’s educational goals and objectives. Increased

accountability from NCLB “requires district administrators to have an increased

philosophical and technical expertise in curriculum scope, sequence, and alignment”

(Petersen & Young, 2004, p. 351). A superintendent must also have the expertise to

29

effectively ensure that the learning programs in place are the most effective programs for

his or her district.

The Principal’s Role as Curriculum Leader

The campus principal also shares responsibility on how students perform

academically and fare on state and local academic achievement tests. Historically, the

principal has always been considered the educational and curriculum leader of the school

and now joins forces with the leadership from the office of the school superintendent.

While both groups must work congruously with each other and collaborate effectively

within their own domains of power and influence, it is necessary that all educational

leaders have a firm grasp of curriculum theory, implementation, and outcome

measurement classroom strategies.

Today “given the national and state standards movement and the need to upgrade

the curriculum to meet these standards, the school principal’s attention has increasingly

focused on curriculum, especially aligning curriculum to state standards and high-stakes

tests” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 25). With this objective in mind, it is clear that an

important role of the educational leader is to facilitate curriculum leadership through the

oversight and implementation of effective goals, strategies, evaluation, and assessment

techniques. The implications for meeting the current academic and curriculum demands

placed on educational districts and communities “have important implications for

principals” (Sunderman et al., 2006, p. 21). How well students perform in the classroom

ultimately affects the perceptions of how well a principal or other educational leader is

managing his or her school district: “Principals should carefully consider how test-based

accountability affects the educational process” (Sunderman, et. al, p. 24). This is

30

important not only to the students participating in the educational process, but also has

supreme importance in the overall stability and academic ratings of the districts that are

served through a principal’s leadership: “Principals are in a position to evaluate the

success of their current reform program and encourage the continuation of those that are

working while discouraging practices that disrupt good reform programs already

underway” (Sunderman et al., p. 24). The principal’s role as curriculum leader require

that as the campus administrator, he or she must be knowledgeable and up-to-date on the

latest educational trends and research in curriculum development and implementation in

the classroom. Keeping abreast of the latest educational trends and academic research

will help to ensure that the most effective curriculum framework philosophies and

programs are available to classroom teachers for direct implementation into classroom

studies and pedagogical frameworks within the learning community.

Government Regulations and the Curriculum

While the role of educational leadership is undeniable, it should also be noted that

educational leaders receive their working orders from federal, state, and local laws that

govern how their schools, districts, and realms of influence should be established. One

such federal mandate has come in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

2001 which was enacted to promote a more rigorous standard for learning and academic

achievement for all students.

In an effort to inspire and direct student learning on the federal level, the NCLB

2001 was enacted to provide guidelines for student academic achievement and success.

While the NCLB act’s initial purpose and design was meant to improve student academic

31

performance in the classroom, it is evident that the law has not been able to address in

totality the objective goal of facilitating student improvement.

In mandating the need for change, the NCLB act “does not provide the policies,

support, or flexibility needed to meet these goals and instead assumes that good teachers

will respond to being sanctioned and labeled as failing” (Sunderman et al., p. 21).

Districts are faced with the dilemma of meeting critical standards and components that

have been mandated by NCLB, but left without any concrete or solidified directive on

how to directly achieve these prescribed goals and objectives.

In an effort to meet the demanding challenges of federal law such as the NCLB

(2001) the importance of developing a pattern of learning and student achievement has

prompted educational leaders to review the fundamental basis of learning strategies and

paradigms in order to meet the vigorous, new requirements that new government

legislation has proposed. What to teach and how to teach the knowledge required for an

educated populace becomes of extreme importance in the educational discussion

regarding student achievement and success.

Education’s Responsibility: Accountability and Viability

Despite a long and even distinguished attempt by past generations to facilitate an

effective model and framework for student academic achievement, today’s schools are

faced with significant challenges in educating America’s youth. Addressing the new

realities of student needs, demographics, and educational prowess requires that

discriminating educational leaders look forward to the future and relinquish past attempts

to coordinate educational strategies not working in today’s highly sophisticated and

technical educational society: “If schools do not find new ways to engage their attention,

32

adolescents will continue to be distracted (and) lose crucial years for intellectual

development” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). Schools therefore need to employ rigorous and

relevant demands and opportunities in the curriculum and educational process. While

educators will usually agree that there is need for significant change in the educational

commitments to our students, how to enact that change seems unclear. The one fact that

does draw educational researchers and leaders together is the fact that today’s students

are exposed to an information age never experienced anytime before in history. Students

“communicate with the wider world in ways and at speeds heretofore were

inconceivable” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). In today’s society “adolescents have a freedom of

movement we associate with adulthood. The fashion and entertainment industries, ever

sensitive to social change, have come to regard adolescents as consumers on par with

adults” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). While the marketplace recognizes the new sophistication

of the young, high school student, many schools have not tapped into the realities of the

educational needs and wants of the 21st century young adult learner

Accountability and the Curriculum

To know if a curriculum philosophy or model has impacted student learning, it is

necessary to evaluate the strategies being utilized in the classroom for their effectiveness

and productivity in the classroom. Standardized testing is one assessment model for

testing academic achievement and is a common venue to assess student academic

achievement and success. Standardized tests can measure student academic achievement;

however, this should not be the only resource for evaluation. Although the era of student

accountability has encouraged a mentality of teaching towards a specific test of

accountability, it is important to note that “high school principals and superintendents

33

must be less deferential to standardized tests and more activist in promoting other ways

of evaluating learning” (Botstein, 2006, p. 18). If we fail to meet the academic needs of

our students, high school will be “a wasted opportunity to challenge the intellectual

faculties of adolescents. If schools do not find new ways to engage their attention,

adolescents who continue to be distracted and lose crucial years for intellectual

development” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). Therefore, the need for utilizing a strong

curriculum in the classroom becomes paramount in facilitating a framework for student

academic achievement that will guide and direct effective learning in the classroom. In

initiating and directing educational frameworks for structure and curricula used in the

classroom, it is important that the focus of all educational endeavors, especially that of

choosing the curriculum, be focused on the academic needs and achievement of the

students being served by a particular learning plan and design.

Education: A Diffusion of Knowledge for the Good of the State

The Texas Legislature has implemented an ambitious public education mission

which is stated in Sec. 40.001 recorded in the Texas Education Code updated and revised

by the 79th Texas legislature. The legislature’s purpose mission statement says that the

state’s educational mission is “grounded on the conviction that a general diffusion of

knowledge is essential for the welfare of this state and for the preservation of the liberties

and rights for citizens” (Texas Education Code, Sec. 40.001, 79th Texas legislature).

Therefore, a student’s academic success has been deemed as an important component for

the general welfare of the state and country.

Legislators have highlighted the importance of student achievement. It is

imperative to understand what student academic success entails. Student academic

34

success and achievement is based on what a student knows and to what degree the

student can apply his or her knowledge to new problems and situations. As students

progress through the educational system, it is expected that they will increase in

knowledge and wisdom and be able to develop analytical and higher level thinking skills

in order to solve the many problems and challenges they will face not only in the

classroom, but also in their future adult lives and workplace environments. In our current

educational system, there are mandated courses in literature, math, science, and social

studies, but the level of knowledge and expertise students glean from these courses is not

always mastered on the level necessary to analyze, synthesize, and apply higher level

critical thinking skills in today’s highly sophisticated and technically oriented workplace.

For this reason, accountability standards have been developed to act as benchmarks for

all student achievement in order to give public officials and professional educators a

guide as to what student academic achievement should look like and what it entails on a

practical daily basis. By understanding the framework of student success, curricula

structures can be developed to encourage and develop the intellectual capacities of all

students.

Local, State, and Federal Accountability

Educational leaders are responsible for the oversight of the curriculum and

student learning. In today’s educational society and culture, the efficacy of the

educational administrator is based on how well he (or she) as the principal administrator

or superintendent has done in helping his or her school or district achieve high scores on

the statewide accountability test known as the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

SkillsTM (TAKSTM) test. Curriculum models that extend beyond “teaching to the test”

35

will ultimately produce greater academic rewards for students and higher levels of

academic achievement and educational competency and literacy.

The Consequence of Accountability

Although not the only measure for student academic achievement, the TAKSTM

mandatory testing system is considered a high stakes testing benchmark. Students, who

pass and do well, will go on to graduate from high school and begin work towards their

own personal career or professional goals. Students who are not successful will not be

able to graduate from high school. The entire educational system hinges upon how

effective the curriculum is in preparing students to succeed in mastering this high stakes

accountability test which measures factual knowledge, critical thinking skills, and the

interactive skills of applying a student’s understanding of a subject matter to other subject

areas that are interrelated and intertwined in the curriculum.

Although proponents of the educational system will decry the fact that our

educational system is not to hinge on one high stakes test, the reality for many districts is

that the test has become inordinately important in the overall success of not only the

affected individual student, but also to the school districts and campuses that have been

given the mandate to prepare our students to be critical thinkers and knowledgeable

proponents of the world in which they participate, work, and will ultimately spend their

lives.

The Goldilocks Standard of Student Learning and Accountability

New approaches to education can add to gains in true student accomplishments

and learning abilities. Curriculums that challenge, inspire, and provide a true platform

for learning should be the norm and not the exception for student learning and academic

36

accountability in our schools: “Anthony P. Carnevale of Georgetown University has said

this approach meets the Goldilocks standard, because nothing would be too difficult or

too easy, always just right, for every child every day” (Hoss, 2007, p. 1). Ensuring that

educational directives meet the needs and priorities of each student helps to validate and

empower the administrator who seeks to ensure that every child is reaching his or her

maximum capacity.

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills TM Test

Numerous high stakes accountability tests are given throughout the United States.

In Texas, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and SkillsTM (TAKSTM) test is utilized as a

significant indicator of whether or not student academic achievement and learning has

taken place in the classroom and in the overall learning process of individual students.

The high stakes testing purported in this testing scenario ultimately decides what schools

and districts are successful and meet pre-determined academic standards, the level of

learning that has occurred within the schools, and ultimately if students completing 12

years of academic and classroom instruction will actually graduate from high school.

Texas utilizes an objective and statistical approach for measuring student academic

achievement. Determining what data will be used for the statistical decisions of

accountability requires that a standard of measurement be developed and applied to all

students and tested subject areas in the state of Texas: “In the act of creating

accountability for results, it becomes important to focus on data that will be used to

enable accountability to become a reality” (English, 2003, p. 201).

For Texas, the TAKSTM test measures student and district academic success and

achievement. The exit level TAKSTM test occurs during a student’s junior year in high

37

school. Four academic tests are given to test and judge a student’s ability to perform well

on the given subject matter test material. Students are required to analyze data and apply

the knowledge which he or she has mastered during their period of academic

participation and instruction in the public educational school system. Students, who are

successful in passing each of the four tests given, will be able to graduate and receive a

high school diploma. Students not successful in achieving the required passing score will

not graduate from high school unless protected under the umbrella and jurisdiction of

Special Education laws and procedures.

The TAKSTM state assessment test has been developed to test a student’s

knowledge level, critical thinking ability, and general competencies. At the 11th grade

exit level four major academic disciplines, (English language arts, mathematics, science,

and social studies), are tested to assess if students have met the academic criteria required

of graduating high school seniors as evidenced by the students’ overall academic

performance on the TAKSTM examination and their completion of a required core

curriculum. In this high stakes testing scenario, many school administrators assume that

“data-driven decision making centered on “hard data” will provide a quantitatively and

qualitatively better base and framework for decisions which will lead to improved (more

accurate, timely, reliable) decisions” (English, 2003, p. 201). Although evidence may

lean toward “the conjecture that data-driven decision making will not be superior, but

may actually “dumb down” the quality of decisions rendered is definitely counter

intuitive to the concept’s attractiveness to school administrators” (English, 2003, p. 201).

While educators must be aware of the state requirements and standards for student

achievement as measured through such instruments as the TAKSTM examination,

38

educators must also be aware that standardized test scores should not be the only measure

for student academic achievement.

While the state’s mandates must be met, educational leaders must work to ensure

that students do not simply learn to pass tests that are considered high-stakes, but they

almost must ensure that students are becoming critical thinkers and not just simplistic,

one item thinkers. Educational administrators and school leaders must decide what type

of curriculum model and educational philosophy to use in the classroom that will best

meet the learning needs of the individual student and educational learning needs of a

particular school or district.

The Importance of a Strong Academic Curriculum

The importance of the curriculum in a student’s education is that the quality and

content of a student’s learning experience, through the curriculum, will not only affect

the learner’s own personal lifetime outcomes and objectives such as career and work, but

will ultimately affect the society as a whole in which the student lives. The educator’s

challenge is then how to select, organize, and prioritize curriculum and learning

objectives in order to prepare students to be critical thinkers, empowered workers, and

active participants in today’s democratic society. A strong philosophical base for

curriculum design is necessary in order to have a logical and cohesive framework upon

which to base educational strategies and goals. Educators must be careful in the selection

as well as the implementation of any curricula model used to promote student learning

and academic success. Effective curriculum frameworks must be based on the classical

discipline areas of instruction which include mathematics, English language arts, science,

and social studies. The integration of the core curriculum subjects allows for a unified

39

view of the curriculum which can significantly engender student learning and academic

achievement.

Curriculum Choice

The official curriculum for the state of Texas is the Texas Essential Knowledge

and Skills (TEKS) listing of all learning benchmarks required by students in the state of

Texas. However, to implement this curriculum mandate, educators must choose a

curriculum model that will teach the TEKS and provide impetus for student learning and

academic achievement. When choosing a curriculum, it is important that educators

understand the importance of their decision and also to be able to recognize viable

educational strategies built into a district’s chosen curriculum model. For education to be

meaningful, the curriculum must be read, understood, and comprehended. To strengthen

meaning in the classroom, a deep understanding of the curriculum and study material

must be understood and articulated. Structuring an effective curriculum model must be

based on a foundation of strong, research based principles in order to facilitate that the

curriculum in use facilitates meaning and understanding for all students. Curriculum

should be meaningful; therefore, principles that enhance this meaningful structure for

learning must be understood and facilitated in regards to curriculum choice and

implementation.

A unified view of the curriculum can enhance learning and student academic

achievement through both the philosophy and implementation of a particular curriculum

model or design. Having a unified view of the curriculum philosophy provides a strong

framework for successful student achievement and learning. First, “a comprehensive

outlook is necessary for all intelligent decisions about what shall be included and

40

excluded from the course of study” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). This is important because the

breadth of knowledge is too large to cover all aspects of every subject in every classroom.

Choices on what should be taught and how the subject matter should be presented are

critical components to the success and education of the individual and corporate group of

student learners in today’s learning environment and educational setting.

Secondly, because people are complex, total beings, “the curriculum ought to

have a corresponding organic quality” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). A holistic pattern of study

can “best contribute to the person’s growth if it is governed by the goal of wholeness for

the human being” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). A third consideration in the selection and

perpetration of a unified curriculum is that educators must realize that our society and

individualized lives require a design or plan to ensure continuity, progress, and success:

“A curriculum planned as a comprehensive design for learning contributes a basis for the

growth of community, while a fragmented program of studies engenders disintegration

into the life of society” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). And finally, “a comprehensive concept of

the structure of learning gives added significance to each of the component segments of

the curriculum” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). Curriculum subject matter is enhanced by an

understanding and grasp of relationships between the particular disciplines involved in an

academic course of study: “Distinctive features of any subject are best comprehended in

the light of its similarities and contrasts with other subjects” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6). This

inter-disciplinarian approach to education facilitates a deeper understanding of all

curriculum and allows the student learner to facilitate learning and meaning in a deeper

and more philosophical construct of meaning and understanding.

41

Coherency and Integration

A curriculum based on coherent and integrated ideas is also a curriculum of

meaning and understanding. Because human beings have the unique component of being

able to experience meaning and understanding, general education becomes “the process

of engendering essential meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 7). To determine the most

effective and productive curriculum path of learning for our students, “we should speak

not of meaning as such, but of meanings, or of the realms of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. 11).

Characteristics of a Viable Curriculum Design for Student Learning

Curriculum design is meant to encourage and incorporate the highest level of

academic success and achievement for all students. The impact a curriculum has on

student achievement in many ways is enhanced by understanding student diversity and

the various fields of study that support the learning process. Inherent to a basic

knowledge of the curriculum structure, is an understanding of the philosophy that has

helped to develop a particular model of curriculum understanding and insight. To

understand student achievement, an understanding the diverse needs of learners is needed

in order to be able to design and implement effective curricular models for the student.

At the core of real and substantial academic change is the vehicular approach to student

academic achievement known as the curriculum: “The only way to compete successfully

with the diversions and excitement of young adulthood in contemporary America is to

adjust curricular and pedagogical approaches based on the assumptions that students can

be interested in serious intellectual engagement” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). This

prescription for change “is not teaching to the test and simply hoping students advance to

42

the next grade” (Botstein, 2006, p. 16). Instead, it is opening up a new and vibrant

system of learning that challenges the student to reach out, explore, and discover new

realities and truths on a consistent and daily basis. In order to revitalize change, effective

curriculum models must be introduced into the educational system that will challenge,

inspire, and academically spur students forward to increased achievement and success.

The new learning that must emerge in the classroom is a system of knowledge

acquisition that integrates curriculum, nurtures the mind, and stimulates academic

curiosity, and student academic achievement. A disciplined approach to the curriculum

includes the application and mastery of core subject areas such as mathematics, English

language arts, science, and social studies. In addition to the core requirements already

mandated in the curricular process,

a high school student graduating in the 21st century should have an

integrated approach to education and be expected to ask intelligent

questions about Asia, Africa, and South America. In addition to the

Romance and Germanic languages, more high schools should offer

courses in Western languages. (Botstein, 2006, p. 17)

Based on the integrated curriculum proposed by Botstein, a curriculum that

includes a mastery of a wide, but integrated curriculum of learning will include a

framework for academic study that provides a disciplined and ordered study of the

classics. The classics include subject matter encompassing literature, science,

philosophy, history, and religion. A classical education that forms the basis for student

learning and provides an in-depth structure and foundation for student learning will

provide a sound educational foundation upon which all areas of learning can build upon.

43

Evaluating achievement can be accomplished through observing how students apply the

information they have learned as well as providing opportunities for the student to

demonstrate his or her knowledge on educational tests, written responses, or project

demonstration.

Student Diversity and Educational Needs

This study has also looked at diverse populations in the learning community to

analyze the effect an integrated curriculum model has had on their learning experiences

in the classroom. This is important because America is a melting pot of different

cultures, ethnicities, backgrounds, and educational and economic backgrounds which

predispose to the educator the need for creative and meaningful classroom curricula

implementation and intervention strategies in the classroom. Legislatively, various laws

have sought to enact laws that would bridge the gap between areas of economic, social,

or educational deprivation and help to build the abilities and skills of all students and

educational participants in our society. In a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Brown vs.

Board of Education ( 347 U.S. 483 1954), reiterated the fact that all students involved in

the public school system have the right to a fair and equal opportunity for education equal

and accessible to all students regardless of ethnicity, social status, or background. To

facilitate the needs of all students, a level playing field is necessary in our classrooms in

order to facilitate a high level of learning for all students. This level playing field can be

manifested in a research based curriculum model that focuses on facilitating an academic

environment and framework for learning in which all students can succeed.

44

Leveling the Playing Field through Understanding Diversity in the Classroom

Schools are held to a standard of excellence by local stake holders, state

legislators, and federally enacted mandated standards for student learning and academic

achievement. It is assumed that with strict accountability standards in education,

academic achievement scores among all students will increase. This premise of

educational accountability is intrinsically flawed: “The downside has been the persistent

gap in test scores between children of poverty and color and those of the largely white,

suburban schools” (Jencks and Phillips as rpt. in English & Steffey, 2001, p. 2). The

theory of Darwinism prevails making the educational gap a “spawning ground for the

resurrection of flawed explanations of differences that cannot be erased by good schools

and which are purported to be the results of Darwinism processes at work” (Jencks and

Phillips as rpt. in English & Steffey, 2001, p. 2). High stakes testing continues to be at

the forefront of all levels of student accountability and success. However, “high stakes

testing continues to leave in its cyclonic path defeated hopes and broken lives” (English

& Steffey, 2001, p. v). W. Edward Deming who is known as the father of quality, has

stated that “inspection to improve quality is too late, ineffective, and costly” (Deming,

W.E. as rpt. in English & Steffey, 2001, p. v). Despite this sage advice from Edward

Deming, legislators and many educational leaders believe that academic “improvement

means better test scores” (English & Steffey, 2001, p. v). With no evidence of innate

academic discrepancies between children of different ethnicities, state based high stakes

curricular tests many times favor those students of higher socio-economic status opposed

to those not in this category regardless of race or ethnicity. Educators must seek to find

out why there is a difference in student academic performance and then seek to level the

45

academic playing field so all students will have the opportunity to academically succeed

and that there will be “no child left behind” (No Child Left Behind Act 2001).

Addressing the Intellectual Needs of All Students

It is not enough to have a social consensus of a school’s purpose as a place where

all students can learn and succeed. It is necessary to ensure that in the classroom

environment, real and sustained learning emerges that can effectually promote and

encourage student academic achievement and success. The main component of a

successful learning environment is reticent upon the curriculum that is used in the

classroom. Educational leaders must come to a consensus on how to make sound and

viable researched based decisions related to providing the best possible learning

programs for the student body. Through the induction of new theories and educational

research for the classroom, new levels of student accountability have occurred through

legislative initiatives such as the state administered Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

SkillsTM (TAKSTM) test and the federal No Child Left Behind Act (2001) that have raised

the level of excellence and mastery required of all students attending a public elementary

or secondary school in the state of Texas. This inherent reality epitomizes the significant

challenges that lie ahead for educational leaders who must educate and prepare this

generation for the innate challenges and opportunities in educational constructs, social

opportunities, and work-related requirements and expectations.

Multiple Intelligences and the ROM Curriculum Model

Educational institutions throughout the nation and even the world are challenged

with the fact that each student is uniquely gifted and talented in the way they appropriate

new information and learning in the classroom. Educational leaders must implement

46

curriculum models in the classroom that address the needs of all learners. One theory

that addresses the uniqueness of all learners is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple

intelligences. Gardner’s work on learning theory has shown that “intelligences typically

work in harmony” (Gardner, 2004, p. 9). Gardner’s theory emphasizes the fact that

intelligence is a multi-faceted organism that manifests itself in different ways depending

upon the student’s particular academic bent and intellectual capabilities for learning.

Analyzed through the comparative lens of the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy, educational leaders can gain new understanding on how a diverse school

population can be taught to achieve and excel academically utilizing a structured

framework for learning that emphasizes academic success and achievement for all

students. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has its root and foundation in the

communicative linguistic foundations. Built upon the premise that there are different

levels of learning and student academic achievement, Gardner’s theory of multiple

intelligences emphasizes how intelligence can be viewed from more than just a purely

academic viewpoint. Gardner’s model emphasizes six unique characteristics of

intelligence that go beyond the basic academic perceptions of what it means to be

intelligent. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences can be more fully understood by

understanding how the theory of multiple intelligences corresponds to the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. From this point, “a

fuller appreciation of human beings occurs if we take into account spatial, bodily-

kinesthetic, musical, inter-personal, and intrapersonal intelligences” (Gardner, 2004, p.

xv). The following chart shows how Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and the

47

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy supports an

understanding of diverse learning patterns and an integrated curriculum model.

Table 2.1 Comparative Learning Styles and the ROM Curriculum Model

Howard Gardner, PhD

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

William Allen Kritsonis, PhDWays of Knowing Through the

Realms of Meaning

Linguistic Intelligence Symbolics

Musical Intelligence Esthetics

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence Symbolics, Empirics, and Synoptics

Spatial Intelligence Symbolics, EstheticsBodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence Esthetics

An integrated curriculum model can easily be defined and enhanced to

incorporate Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and Kritsonis’s six realms of

meaning. Gardner listed six theories of multiple intelligences. They are linguistic

intelligence, musical intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence,

bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and the personal intelligences. These intelligences

correspond to the realms model of curriculum instruction and delivery (Gardner, 2004, p.

xv).

The symbolic realm of meaning correlates with the linguistic intelligence mode of

learning. The musical and bodily kinesthetic intelligences are reflective of the esthetic

realm. The logical-mathematical intelligence category correlates with the symbolic,

empiric, and synoptic realms of meaning. Spatial intelligence can clearly be seen in the

symbolic and esthetic realms. And finally, the personal intelligence theory is in tandem

with the synnoetic realm of meaning: “A curriculum developing the above basic

48

competencies is designed to satisfy the essential human need for meaning” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 15). The ROM curriculum supports the theories of multiple intelligences in that

the symbolic, linguistic, scientific, and mathematical structures that constitute the

Gardner theory of multiples are foundational to the six realms of meaning. As illustrated

in the mind diagram below (Figure 2.1), intelligence is multi-faceted and can include

analytical strengths exemplified through the puzzle diagram (synoptics) , musical

attributes exemplified by the diagram of the piano (esthetics), scientific and investigative

strengths as demonstrated symbolically by the light bulb (empirics), the sun glasses

representing personal property and expression (synnoetics), and the remaining symbolic

fabric of the mind which represents the remaining symbolic and ethical attributes of

learning (ethics) which are foundational to the ROM curriculum model and framework

for student academic achievement learning and success.

49

Figure 2.1A Comparative Diagram of Multiple Learning Theories and the Realms

Linguistic IntelligenceSymbolics

Logical-Mathematical IntelligenceSymbolics, Empirics

SpatialEsthetics, SymbolicsSynoptics: a comprehensiveview of learning and knowledge

Musical IntelligenceEsthetics

Personal IntelligencesSynnoetics

Copyright free graphic courtesy of Clipart.com

The comprehensive nature of the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of

Meaning curriculum philosophy is uniquely designed and correlated to address and meet

the needs of the unique and diverse learning styles of students in today’s classroom.

Aligned with Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the depth of learning that can be

achieved by all learners is enhanced through the use of the integrated Ways of Knowing

through the Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model.

Regardless of the student population being served by a district or other

educational institution, it is important that educational leaders are accountable for the

50

type of curriculum and learning environment that his or her leadership provides for their

own sphere of influence within the educational community.

Principles for Curriculum Mastery

To be effective, a curriculum model must provide a framework for student

mastery and academic success in the classroom. Principles of mastery utilized in the

ROM of curriculum model can be utilized in any curriculum structure and are invaluable

tools in the teaching and educational process of students. In this study, the Realms of

Meaning curriculum philosophy has been shown to have similar characteristics and

learning paradigms as those schools in the state of Texas which utilize another

curriculum model entitled CSCOPETM. Therefore, identifying the characteristics within

an established, independent curriculum model will show how learning and curriculum

design can be affected and enhanced through the understanding of a dynamic and

pervasive curriculum philosophy as demonstrated through the Ways of Knowing through

the Realms of Meaning.

According to the ROM curriculum philosophy, the first principle for maximized

meanings in the curriculum is mastery. Curriculum decisions should be made with the

realization of existence that “lies in depth of understanding” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 560).

Mastery in the curriculum alludes to the fact that “the meaningful life is that in which the

person finds one thing to do and learns to do it very well” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 560). This

viewpoint encourages a curriculum that concentrates more on depth of knowledge rather

than breath: “Depth of knowledge and skill should be the goal, rather than superficial

acquaintance with a variety of fields” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 560). A second principle for

attaining maximized meanings in the classroom is to realize the importance education

51

plays in an integrated society. In this curriculum model, curriculum mastery is important

because “each individual plays his part and is required to develop competencies that best

equip him to contribute to the whole” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 561). Specialized curricula

allows for the development of “competencies that best equip (the student) to contribute to

the whole” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 561). Utilizing these competencies strengthens the

learning process and supports maximum student academic achievement and change.

A third principle for finding meaning in the curriculum is to provide a well

rounded and diverse choice of subject matter for learning and integration. For learning

and the curriculum to provide meaning, a diverse curriculum model should be in place in

order to facilitate the highest levels of learning and achievement possible: “The desirable

goal is well-roundedness and variety of interests . . . curriculum should be

correspondingly broad and diverse” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 561). Interdependency upon

curriculum subjects allows for the diversity necessary to incorporate the highest level of

student academic achievement possible in the modern classroom environment.

The fourth principle “for the fulfillment of meaning consists in the integrity of the

person” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 561). From a curriculum perspective, learning needs

to be capable of assimilation by the particular person so they may contribute to

his integral selfhood. A curriculum that supports a student in his or her search

for meaning will allow the student to possess a sufficient range of

meanings in his own self without depending for the significance of his life

upon his position in the social whole. (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 562)

52

This principle specifically involves the ability to respond synnoetically to knowledge and

apply one’s own understanding of the curriculum presented to the student’s personal

schematic understanding of life and meaning.

The fifth principle that addresses meaningful fulfillment in the curriculum

ascertains “that fulfillment consists in gaining a certain quality of understanding”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. 562). Quality refers to a life that focuses on what is important and

essential: “In this case the breadth of the curriculum depends upon what it is deemed

essential to know, whether a few things or many” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 562). Quality must

precede quantity in regards to implementing a meaningful and beneficial curriculum

framework in the classroom.

The Order and Design of the Curriculum

Dante Alighieri, author of The Divine Comedy and noted to be “the greatest poet

of the Middle Ages” (Leitch, 2001, p 247), has constructed an allegory on education in

the II Convivio, Book Two in which “Dante uses the conceit of a banquet to represent

human knowledge . . . In Dante’s allegorical banquet, the “meat” is the canzoni or verses,

and the “bread” the commentaries on those verses” (Leitch, 2001, p. 247). Allegorically,

Dante then transfers his metaphor of the banquet feast of knowledge to the perplexing

question of which course must be eaten first.

In education and the curriculum, the order and design of the curriculum is

foundational to the acquisition and retention of all learning and academic knowledge and

achievement. Educational leaders must have a clear direction and path on which to

emerge and lead their academic charges. Educational leaders must seek to instill in their

programs a fresh vision for academic change, achievement, and success for all students

53

involved in the educational process. For this reason, in education, “the fundamental task

of any educational institution is to determine the manner of defining and organizing its

curriculum” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). Educational programs determined by unrealistic

goals and destinations are ultimately doomed to failure. Strong and effectual educational

leadership programs should begin with a firm grasp and understanding of how goals and

objectives of learner-centered educational programs should emerge.

One method of organizing the curriculum is through utilizing the Ways of

Knowing The Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum philosophy. Understanding the

framework of the Realms helps to logically order a system of learning that will

incorporate student mastery of complex subjects and support a level of critical thinking

skills necessary for a student’s sustained learning goals and academic achievement.

Utilizing the Realms philosophy in the curriculum offers a framework for learning that

supports researched based strategies and paradigms of effective learning models for a

wide and diverse academic group of student learners.

The Complex Unity of the Ways of Knowing

Through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum Model

Curriculum is a complex subterfuge of knowledge that must be organized in order

to have true understanding and application to the lives and needs of the traditional high

school student: “The complexity of curriculum and the complexity surrounding

curriculum can only be processed by having some theoretical understanding” (Ornstein

and Hunkins, 2004, p. 172). Curriculum theorists organize learning categories in order

to be able to utilize these divisions more effectively in the study and development of

curriculum: “George Beauchamp has asserted that all theories are derived from three

54

broad categories of knowledge: (1) the humanities, (2) the natural sciences, and (3) the

social sciences” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 172). Beauchamp concludes that “from

these basic knowledge divisions come areas of applied knowledge – architecture,

medicine, engineering, education, and law” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 172). This

formula for understanding the categories of knowledge supports and establishes the

categories implicit in an integrated and rigorously developed model of curriculum and

instruction.

This framework coincides with the curriculum model developed by the author of

the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning which categorizes learning into

realms of meaning. In the Kritsonis framework, six realms of meaning are categorized to

incorporate all levels of meaning and purpose in education. The realms of meaning

include symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics. Through the six

realms of meaning, a sound and substantial integrated curriculum philosophy and

program can be developed that can perpetuate student academic achievement to deeper

and more sustained levels of learning and academic success.

The relationship between Beauchamp’s Categories of Knowledge and Kritsonis’s

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning is outlined in the table below.

55

Table 2.2

Categories of Knowledge and the Realms of Meaning

Beauchamp’s Categories of Knowledge

Kritsonis’s Realms of Meaning

Humanities

Natural Sciences

Social Sciences

Symbolics: Ordinary Language, Mathematics, Non-discursive Symbolic FormsEsthetics: Music, The Visual Arts, The Arts of Movement, LiteratureEmpirics: Science

Synoptics: Social Sciences

The ROM model is inclusive for all subject areas and translates to use in both

elementary, secondary, and university curriculums. Through the use of an integrated

curriculum philosophy based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning,

students are given a structure in which to master not only the basic content areas of a

subject matter, but also to understand the subject area in a more holistic and higher

cognitive level of academic achievement and mastery. This is important in that in order

for learning to be viable, a curriculum must be meaningful and purposeful. To facilitate

meaning, the curriculum must offer pillars of understanding to enhance, lead, and guide

the pathway to student learning and academic achievement. The ROM curriculum model

is one such curriculum model and philosophy that offers a viable framework for student

learning and academic achievement and success.

The ROM curriculum embodiment of the six realms of meaning helps to facilitate

the curriculum needed for the complete and well-rounded person. Each realm plays an

important role in the curriculum of a school and the overall well-being and education of a

56

student: “Each makes possible a particular mode of functioning without which the

person cannot live according to his own true nature” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 564).

The six realms cover the entire range of meanings possible. Therefore, incorporating the

six realms of meaning into the curriculum comprises a holistic approach to student

learning and achievement. Students being educated in a thorough program of meta-

narratives and holistic understandings can work toward new and higher levels of

academic achievement and success. By focusing on substantial educational attributes and

relationships, students can become more involved and active in the academic and

learning process. In this process, the students’ interaction with the curriculum becomes

viable and meaningful to the participating student. Knowledge of a discipline becomes

paramount to a student’s understanding of a particular subject matter and relationship to

other disciplines and applications: “Knowledge can be derived from a variety of sources.

However, knowledge has permanent value leading to greater meaning and greater

understanding when drawn from the fundamental disciplines as exemplified in the realms

of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. ix). When educators are willing to facilitate learning in

new and post-modernistic approaches, the student, school, and society will benefit.

Meaning and the Curriculum

How students are taught is critical if learning is to be meaningful and applied

intuitively and constructively in the classroom. Academic learners must find meaning

and purpose in the material being studied. History has shown that fundamental learning

and acquisition of knowledge can be attributed and acquired in numerous ways. It is also

important to know and understand that knowledge and understanding are interconnected

and therefore understanding and applying the curriculum is extremely important for the

57

development of critical thinking skills needed to improve and show academic mastery in

the classical disciplines.

Curriculum Implementation and Application

A curriculum is more than just a presentation of basic facts and academic

constructs. Curriculum becomes a philosophical masterpiece of knowledge that when

integrated, can provide not only an understanding of concepts and ideas, but an overall

discourse in meaning and appreciation for life. The general “philosophy of the

curriculum for general education is intended as a comprehensive but not exhaustive guide

to the fulfillment of human existence through education” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 22).

Educational goals and objectives require excellence and adequacy of knowledge: “It is

recognized that all knowledge does not belong to the specialist alone, but that through

general education understanding of a high order can and should be available to everyone”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. vii). Education that is meaningful provides a basis for student

learning that can be a springboard to a fuller and more meaningful life. Learning

becomes meaningful when the material presented is thought provoking and challenging:

“In order to engage students in high quality academic content, valid decisions need to be

made regarding various aspects of the curriculum and the way it is delivered” (Peck &

Scarpati, 2005, p. 7). The purposeful delivery of the curriculum enhances the overall

learning opportunities for students and therefore enhances student learning and

understanding.

58

Theorists, Theories, and Curriculum Models

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, is remembered for his many contributions to

education and learning. Noted for his insight into childhood learning and development,

Piaget was able to develop many cognitive theories of learning that sought to explain how

learning and educational growth could be observed throughout the stages of a child’s life.

He was not only known as a significant educational psychologist, scientist, and publisher,

but also as an “epistemologist (someone who studies the nature and beginning of

knowledge)” (Mooney, 2000, p. 59). It is the combination of these abilities that add to the

constructivist and post-modernistic attributes of the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy.

The ROM curriculum model focuses on the factors of development and the

sequence of academic studies. Just as Piaget believed that learning occurred in various

stages of development, the ROM curriculum model ascertains that “each stage in

personal growth presupposes the successful completion of the earlier stages” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 805). Building upon the premise that knowledge is built upon by experience and

exposure, the student learner has an ever increasing “body of memories upon which to

draw, providing a basis for generalization and discrimination, both of which are

necessary for the formation of scientific abstractions” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 632). This

depth of understanding is mirrored in the framework and curriculum model based on the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and the facets and

knowledge based on an integrated and intellectually cohesive curriculum model. The six

59

“realms of meaning form an articulated whole” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15) and therefore are

able to provide foundational opportunities for academic growth and success.

Constructivism and the Learning Process

Constructivism is a learning theory and ideology that simply states that learning is

possible when we are able to construct meanings from what we know thereby integrating

and expanding our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. The goal of

constructivism differs from traditional education models in that “deep understanding, not

imitative behavior is the goal” (Brooks and Brooks, 1999, p. 16). Constructivism

prescribes transformation rather than conformation. Although transformative classrooms

are the goal of the constructivist teacher, the varied concepts and products that emerge

from this philosophical array of classroom pedagogy is that in the “constructivist

approach, we look not for what students can repeat, but for what they can generate,

demonstrate, and exhibit” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 16). In a constructivist curriculum

design, such as in the ROM curriculum model, curriculum is divided into patterns that

interact and complement each other in order to create a broader knowledge base and true

curriculum understanding.

Patterns that build upon previous knowledge can widen and expand a student’s

knowledge level to incorporate understanding in multiple subject areas and disciplines.

In curriculum design, selection of categories is essentially a search pattern, and it is

constructed rather than “empirically discovered” (English as rpt. in Kritsonis, 2007, p.

vi). In the ROM curriculum model, the constructivist model is built around the six

realms of meaning. Each realm can be intertwined with knowledge from the other

categories and realms, thereby producing an intellectual data base of information that can

60

be utilized to solve complex problems and academic pursuits. Through this model

“mastery of the fundamental ideas of a field involves not only the grasping of general

principles, but also the development of an attitude toward learning and inquiry, toward

guessing and hunches, toward the possibility of solving problems on one’s own”

(Bruner, 1977, p. 20). Constructivism supports this model of learning and is important to

the overall development and implementation of the curriculum.

Constructivist practices and learning constructs encourage the student to

“internalize and reshape, or transform, new information” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 15).

An integrated curriculum allows the student to compare and contrast information, events,

and phenomena through integrative eyes and intellectual structures: “Deep understanding

occurs when the presence of new information prompts the emergence or enhancement of

cognitive structures that enable us to rethink our prior ideas” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p.

15). Constructivist teaching is a challenging but rewarding process: “A constructivist

framework challenges teachers to create environments in which they and their students

are encouraged to think and explore. This is a formidable challenge, but to do otherwise

is to perpetuate the ever-present behavioral approach to teaching and learning” (Brooks &

Brooks, 1999, p. 30). The Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model builds upon a

constructivist framework: “It remains a provocative model that continues to nourish and

stimulate thinking about what is important in creating coherency and purpose in general

education settings” (English as rpt. in Kritsonis, 2007, p. v). The Realms of Meaning

(ROM) curriculum philosophy involves the interaction of categories and design in the

learning process: “The selection of categories is essentially a search for patterns”

(English as cited in Kritsonis, 2007, p. vi). A thorough analysis of patterns and

61

philosophies of learning leads to the emergence of “six fundamental patterns of meaning.

These six patterns may be designated respectively as symbolics, empirics, esthetics,

synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 11). By exploring the six realms of

meaning, the entire range of possible meaning and curriculum, knowledge can be

perpetuated in a general framework of academic efficacy and knowledge.

The six realms of meaning offer the framework of education and knowledge

necessary to add relevance, vigor, and quality into the mainstream aspects of curriculum

development and delivery. This curriculum structure not only helps to develop integrated

competencies within the curriculum, but also to define the qualities necessary to be

considered a complete person capable of interacting intellectually and competitively in a

highly complex and demanding global and technically oriented society. By educating

students in a meaningful and purposeful manner, education becomes a way of “helping

human beings to become what they can and should become” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 29).

Meaning and understanding can not only illumine what is taught in the classroom, but

also can benefit the academic learner in regards to the student’s own personal overall

knowledge, understanding, and general perceptions of the world.

Postmodernism and the Framework for Student Learning and Success

To further understand how curriculum affects student learning, another theory of

learning, postmodernism, can be studied and applied to enhance the overall educational

process. Postmodernism is a predominant theory of learning that seeks to provide

another viewpoint on educational philosophies in the classroom. A post-modernistic

view of education offers educational leaders an alternative view of curriculum design and

instruction. In the area of curriculum and curriculum reform,

62

postmodernism is about constructing a way of looking at the world of

ideas, concepts and systems of thought through the historicity of content

and the shifting nature of linguistic meaning and symbols as they are

manifested in discursive practices which run through educational

administration and related fields” (English, 2003, p. 3).

The educational postmodernist rejects certitude and seeks to show that there are always

pluralities of diverse options to consider for any one given situation or solution:

The postmodernist’s denial of certitude is open to many expressions of

thought and theory as long as none of them seek to suppress silence,

marginalize, humiliate, denigrate, or erase other possibilities” (English, 2003,

p. 4).

In the area of curriculum design, assessment, and evaluation, postmodernism

ascertains that there are many options and venues available for the student learner:

An educational institution or school system claiming to be purposive must

make some attempt to classify, codify, and integrate the knowledge base it

has selected to become part of its curriculum” (English, as cited in Kritsonis,

2007, p. v).

Postmodernist theories support a view of learning that expands knowledge and is able to

classify and construct meanings in new and purposeful ways for the student learner. This

classification of knowledge becomes the curriculum for a district and the foundation for

all student learning and academic achievement. There are many options and choices for

choosing an effective school curriculum. One curricular choice is found in the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model. Fenwick English has stated his support and understanding

63

of this model as one venue for curriculum design that can potentially benefit students in

the overall learning process: “As we enter the postmodern period, it’s clear that Realms

of Meaning is one of the but many ways to conceptualize curriculum disciplines to work

towards realizing general education” (English as cited in Kritsonis, 2007, p. v). Once a

model of curriculum is chosen, superintendents, principals, teachers, and other members

of the educational community will be held accountable as to the success and workability

of the model chosen. Therefore, choosing the right model is critical in that what

curriculum model is chosen can affect the learning and academic achievement of all

students regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.

Educators may choose “a traditional subject-matter curriculum related neither to

the needs or abilities of the individual learner nor to the social and psychological factors

affecting education” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 38) or they may choose an integrated and

interdisciplinary model that seeks to teach beyond the basic knowledge required for

understanding and provide the opportunity for critical and analytical applications and

academic design. Regardless of the model chosen, all schools will be held accountable as

to the degree and level of academic success demonstrated by student participants.

Objectivism

The theory of objectivism focuses on the rationality of man’s own decisions and

one’s own ability to make important decisions in an ethical and moral manner.

Objectivism teaches self-responsibility and encourages the proponent of such a

philosophy to work hard and understand that if one is to “maintain his life by his own

effort; the values he needs-such as wealth or knowledge are not given to him

automatically, as a gift of nature, but have to be discovered and achieved by his own

64

thinking and work” (Rand, 1964, p. 54). Students should be encouraged to take the

initiative in their own learning process and work towards mastery of difficult and

challenging subject matter offered in a diversified and integrated model of curriculum

learning and discourse.

A foundational principle of the Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model is

that students engaged in learning and the curriculum model gains an innate sense of who

they are (synnoetics) and that they should be able to gain a moral and ethical perspective

(ethics) of the world in which they live. The realms model contends that “a curriculum

based upon the realms of meaning counteracts the fragmentation of experience that is one

of the sources of meaninglessness” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15). Meaning, consisting of a

deep and inter-related knowledge base in the curriculum, seeks to educate students to not

only know the course material for classroom assignments, but also how to apply and use

the knowledge gained to analyze, apply, and evaluate new situations in an educated and

thoughtful manner.

The Five Disciplines and the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

The ROM curriculum philosophy and Five Discipline model for learning can be

collaborated with the ROM curriculum model as noted in the figure below.

65

Figure 2.2

A Comparison of the Five Discipline Model and the Realms of Meaning Curriculum

Philosophy

The Five Disciplines

and the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Five Disciplines

Personal Mastery:

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning:

Synnoetics

Five Disciplines

Shared Vision:

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning:

Synoptics

Five Disciplines

Mental Models:

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning:

Symbolics

Five Disciplines

Team Learning:

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning:

Empirics: (Psychology and

Social Science)

Five Disciplines

Systems Thinking:

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning:

Empirics: (Physical Science and Biology)

Esthetics: Music, the Visual Arts, the Arts of

Movement, and Literature

Ethics

66

Peter Senge (2000), author and primary developer of the five discipline

approach to education, has emphasized the need for schools to reevaluate the learning

process and incorporate and design schools that focus on student learning and

achievement. Senge (2000) focuses on building learning organizations through a

discipline model that reaches across curriculum lines and barriers and integrates student

learning to achieve maxim student academic achievement and success.

Senge’s five disciplines include “personal mastery, shared vision, mental model,

team learning, and systems thinking” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 7). Correlated with the ROM

curriculum model, the emphasis on developing the five discipline model can potentially

enhance student learning and achievement to achieve greater degrees of content mastery

and academic success.

Personal Mastery and the Synnoetics Realm

Senge’s first learning discipline is personal mastery: “Personal mastery is the

practice of articulating a coherent image of your personal vision-the results you most

want to create in your life-alongside a realistic assessment of the current reality of your

life today” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 7). Personal mastery is reflective in the synnoetics

realm in that synnoetics “refers to meanings in which a person has direct insight into

other beings (or oneself) as concrete wholes existing in relation” (Kritsonis, 2007, p.

393). Translating the philosophy of synnoetics structures and understanding to the

classroom situation, the works of Hans Robert Jauss articulate how the synnoetics realm

can influence the relationship between a student and the curriculum. For example, “the

way in which a literary work, at the historical moment of his appearance, satisfies,

surpasses, disappoints, or refutes the expectations of its first audience obviously provides

67

a criterion for the determination of its aesthetic value” (Jauss, as rpt. in Vincent B. Leitch

The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2001, 1547-63). The interaction between

a text and reader can constitute a synnoetic relationship just as the interactions between

two individuals conversing on a particular topic or subject matter. This level of thinking

incorporates a shared vision and a nourishment of the entire learning environment.

A Shared Vision and the Synoptics Realm

The second discipline is a shared vision within the synoptics realm. The synoptics

realm is comprehensively integrated and includes “history, religion, and philosophy”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13). Philosophically, students and teachers can work together “to

nourish a sense of commitment in a group or organization by developing shared images

of the future they seek to create and the principles and guiding practices by how they

hope to get there” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 7). Synoptics is also acrimonious to the

philosophy of a shared vision in that choices and understanding of the past are

significantly related to our understanding and participation of not only where we have

been, but also to a visionary analysis of where we, or the organization that we belong to,

would like to be in the future.

Mental Models and the Symbolics Realm

It was the great philosopher Augustine of Hippo who expounded upon the value

of symbolic language in the process of learning and understanding: “All doctrine

concerns either things or signs but things are learned by signs” (Augustine of Hippo, as

rpt. in Vincent B. Leitch The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2001, 188-201).

This symbolic gesture affording communication is reflected in the symbolics realm of

meaning in the ROM curriculum philosophy. For these symbolic gestures to be

68

important and meaningful to the participating parties, there must be a mutual

understanding about the signification of the non-discursive communication symbols and a

reflective outlook on the purpose and meaning intended by these gestures: “The

discipline of reflection and inquiry skills is focused around developing awareness of

attitudes and perceptions—your own and those of others around you. Working with

mental models can also help you more clearly and honestly define current reality” (Senge

et al., 2000, p. 7). These mental models in the realm of symbolics comprise “ordinary

language, mathematics, and various types of nondiscursive symbolic forms” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 11). Through an understanding of the symbolic form of communication, ancient

and modern day philosophers can ascribe to its value in dispersing language,

communication, and meaning to student academic learners.

Team Learning and the Empirics Realm

This goal is interactive: “Through such techniques as dialogue and skillful

discussion, small groups of people transform their collective thinking and learning to

mobilize their energies and actions to achieve common goals” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 8).

Team learning is important in the empirics realm, especially in the physical sciences.

The accuracy of knowledge and the ability to share experiences, hypothesis, and new

understandings are critical to the expansion of knowledge and development of new ideas

and solutions.

Systems Thinking and the Empirics, Esthetics , and Ethical Realms

Systems thinking involves a collaborative effort among the disciplines to work

together: “In this discipline, people learn to better understand interdependency and

change and thereby are able to deal more effectively with the forces that shape the

69

consequences of their actions” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 8). Systems thinking focuses on the

importance of an inter-disciplinarian curriculum. The systems thinking philosophy

emphasizes the fact that curriculum becomes more relevant when its components are

inter-related with other disciplines and academic pursuits. The systems thinking

approach “provides a different way of looking at problems and goals - not as isolated

events but as components of larger structures” (Senge et. al, 2000, p. 78). The systems

thinking approach is parallel to the ROM curriculum philosophy as evidenced by the

effect of this triad conglomerate of curriculum pillars of academic philosophy. The

integration of empirics, esthetics, and the ethical realms provides a framework for student

learning and achievement that is based on intellectual and critical thinking through

independent and inter-related curriculum objects of study and therefore aligns with the

systems thinking approach to learning.

Patterns of Influence and Design

Organization, patterns, and design are important aspects to curriculum design and

implementation:

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was one of the first individuals to propose a

scheme for selecting the subject matter best suited to the needs of the

pupils. He promoted that knowledge, contributing to self-preservation,

was of the utmost usefulness and should appear first among the things

taught to children. (Kritsonis, 2002, p. 117)

This correlation can be seen as illustrated in the educational philosophies of

Beauchamp and Kritsonis: “Since learning takes place over time, the materials of

instruction have to be arranged in temporal sequence” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 587). Purpose,

70

order, learning, and connectivity are all integral proponents of a meaningful curriculum.

In designing a meaningful curriculum, “an educational institution or school system

claiming to be purposive must make some attempt to classify, codify, and integrate the

knowledge base it has selected to become part of its curriculum” (English in Kritsonis,

2007, p. v). Organization then lends itself to a structure where order and meaning can be

facilitated through the curriculum and learning processes of the student learner.

Analyzing the Effect of a Curriculum Model in the Classroom

Analyzing the effect of a curriculum on student learning and academic

achievement is a complex process which entails looking at the curriculum

implementation process holistically rather than selectively. Michael Fullan, a top

researcher in implementing effective and long-term educational change in districts, has

developed several models for successful implementation of a curriculum model and

academic change in a district’s overall educational agenda. His research on change

theory, theories of merit, flawed change theory, and moral purpose of learning can help

the researcher to analyze more fully the factors that facilitate student learning and

academic achievement.

Change Theory

Any new endeavor, especially in the area focused on student achievement and

learning, requires a dedicated and formal commitment to a particular curriculum

philosophy and framework for student learning and academic achievement. Fullan

contends that learning must be sustainable and cannot be judged by one test, one

scenario, or one example of success. Instead, a deep cultural and educational community

must be developed that will instill deep learning and complex change. These deep and

71

lasting facets of change are implicitly stated and implied in the Ways of Knowing through

the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy.

Flawed Change Theory

Michael Fullan has identified three flawed perceptions of change theory that are

currently being utilized in educational districts and communities throughout various

educational systems. These flawed perceptions include:

1. designing curriculum models suited to a particular test, relying on standards-

based curricula form surmounted through pressure and top-down

administrative mandates

2. believing that professional development alone is the key to developing

successful teachers

3. setting district goals based on standards reforms and achievements.

Fullan contends that these flawed perceptions seem to be attributes of successful schools

and educational environment. However, Fullan points out that these attributes are only

surface reflectors and do not reflect the true depth of community, learning, and progress

that is needed in the 21st century school and classroom.

Premises of Change: Seven Effective Rules for Academic Change

Building upon these theories of analysis, Michael Fullan has also developed a

model of seven principles that provide the structure for change knowledge and theory to

emerge in the classroom. The seven premises for change knowledge implanted by

Michael Fullan are: “(1), a focus on motivation; (2) capacity building, with a focus on

results; (3) learning in context; (4) changing context; (5) a bias for reflective action; and

(6) tri-level engagement; (7) persistence and flexibility for staying the course” (Fullan,

72

2006, pp. 8-11). These agents of change are also implicit in the Ways of Knowing

through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy.

Developing a Moral Purpose in Learning

Having a moral purpose for learning and teaching is a critical component of

another component of Michael Fullan’s developed learning strategies entitled: “Critical

Learning Instruction Path.” In this pathway of learning, educators are encouraged to

develop a passion and purpose for teaching students with the best of their resources and

to the best of their ability. Moral purpose in the classroom involves “precision,

professional learning, and personalization” (Crevola, Hill, and Fullan, 2006, p. 1). Moral

purpose seeks to engage all learners and to seek out the resources necessary for the

success of all students regardless of their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or social class

in the community. By ensuring that all learners receive a personalized and dynamic

education in the classroom, the educational culture and climate of a particular school

district and educational community will ultimately grow into a vibrant, and sustained

educational entity which will support academic growth and success among all learners in

the educational classroom and district.

The ethics realm in the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

curriculum philosophy also supports a sustained atmosphere of moral and right actions in

the classroom. In the ethics realm, “moral conduct is a universal responsibility”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. 438) and requires students, teachers, administrators, and the

educational community to make right decisions based on the needs and aptitudes of the

student population being served. Through the interaction of Kritsonis’s ethics realm of

meaning and Fullan’s model for moral purpose, a collaborative spirit of cooperation and

73

community can be built in the educational community which will foster a systemic

atmosphere for academic change and growth.

Theories of Merit and the Ways of Knowing Through the

Realms of Meaning Curriculum Philosophy

Theories of merit and the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

curriculum philosophy share attributes which are represented in both Fullan’s Theories of

Merit and Kritsonis’s Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. However, both

philosophies are long term solutions and should not be garnered as “quick fixes” to solve

learning problems or structural change issues in the school community or particular

district campus.

Fullan has stated that change is not automatic and could take years to take hold.

With this in mind, educators are urged to “stay the course” and to work towards the goal

of establishing a firm and solid foundation for academic learning and achievement.

Fullan refers to the phenomena of new curriculums not “catching hold” in the first few

years as the implementation dip. He urges educators to work toward the long goals and

“survive” the short term obstacles in order to create an atmosphere of real and sustained

learning in the classroom. Meritorious long term goals include motivation, capacity

building, learning in context, changing context, reflective action, and tri-level

engagement. As illustrated in the chart below, the six realms of meaning support Fullan’s

guide to productive schools and action oriented theories for student change and academic

achievement.

74

Table 2.3

Theories of Action with Merit and the Realms Philosophy

Fullan’s Theories of Merit Kritsonis’s Ways of Knowing Through the Realmsof Meaning Curriculum Philosophy

Motivation Ethics – Morally driven to direct purposes and goals

Capacity Building Symbolics – Establishing foundations of

communication and learning

Learning in Context Empirics – Factually Well Informed

Changing Context Synoptics – Having a comprehensive view of the

entire learning process and value

Reflective Action Synnoetics – Reflective and directed

Tri-Level Engagement Synnoetics – Interaction with various levels of

stake holders in the educational process and

overall curriculum design for student

learning and success.

________________________________________________________________________

Philosophy of the Curriculum

The engendering of meaning and learning in the educational process is one of the

most important and potentially fruitful endeavors in a student’s life. Through education

and the curriculum, students’ minds are developed, reasoning skills enhanced, and critical

thinking skills challenged and developed. The dispersing of education in our schools

must be founded upon sound principles and educational philosophies. Jerome Bruner

articulates this viewpoint in his generational assessment regarding the quality and

structure of an effective curriculum model of instruction:

75

Each generation gives new form to the aspirations that shape education it

in its time. What may be emerging as a mark of our generation is a

widespread renewal of concern for the quality and intellectual aims

of education—but without abandonment of the ideal that

education should serve as a means of training well-

balanced citizens for a democracy. Rather, we have reached

a level of public education in America where a considerable

portion of our population has become interested in a question that

until recently was the concern of specialists: What shall we teach and to

what end?

(Bruner, 1966, p. v).

Inherent in the basic philosophies associated with education is the fact that the

“purpose of education is to widen one’s view of life, to deepen insight into relationships,

and to counteract the provincialism of customary existence-in short, to engender a

meaningful integrated outlook” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). To act upon these basic premises

of education, a philosophy of the curriculum is necessary. A curriculum philosophy is a

“coherent system of ideas by which all the constituent parts of the course of instruction

are identified and ordered” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). A learning model that is ordered and

coherent can also be considered to be a “unitary philosophy of the curriculum” (Kritsonis,

p. vi). A unitary curriculum builds upon knowledge, interacts between subject areas, and

deepens one’s academic knowledge through the understanding of the subject matter and

its relationship to other parts of the curriculum as a whole.

76

Choosing the most effective educational philosophy for the curriculum is

fundamental to all student learning and success. The administrator must first be able to

establish his or her philosophy of the curriculum: “Philosophy is central to curriculum

because the philosophy advocated or reflected by a particular school and its officials

influences the goals or aims and content, as well as the organization of its curriculum”

(Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 30). It is imperative that educational leaders are well

versed and founded on the curriculum principles of various programs related to student

learning and achievement: “Since the 1950’s, many educators have continued to call

attention to the explosion of knowledge” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 150). With

“knowledge doubling approximately every 15 years” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p.150),

educators must make choices on what should be taught, to whom, and when. Educators

must be able to present and organize a knowledge base appropriate to student needs and

learning abilities in order to maximize academic success in the classroom.

Before a curriculum can be fully understood, it is important to know why the

curriculum structure has been created and what philosophical principles have been

established in the development and framework of any model for learning and curriculum

implementation. It is important to note that learning is a principled approach to acquiring

knowledge. Learning leads to the premise that knowledge must be categorized and

presented in such a way that meaning can be engendered and applied to one’s own

personal life, career, and world view. The philosophy of the curriculum is foundational

in the quest for learning and knowledge. This study has been founded upon the basic

premises of a curriculum philosophy that focuses on the alignment and integration of

knowledge in a way that seeks to enhance student learning and academic achievement.

77

This model is based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning (ROM)

curriculum philosophy and its effect on student learning and achievement. To understand

the impact of the ROM curriculum model in the classroom, a thorough understanding of

this model can be understood more fully through a review of the literature and a

comparison of the Realms philosophies with other educational philosophies, trends, and

research studies seeking to effectively implement student learning and achievement in the

classroom.

There are many philosophies of education and curriculum development. The

ROM philosophy is based on Philip Phenix’s Realms of Meaning which has been updated

and redesigned by Kritsonis to incorporate an integrated framework of learning to

engender meaningful interaction between knowledge, the curriculum, and student

instruction. Knowledge encompasses the understanding of the world and its intricate

subtleties that enhance meaningful life and understanding. Utilizing an integrated

framework for learning such as the ROM curriculum model, can help to facilitate student

learning and perpetuate the ability to think critically and at higher cognitive, academic

levels. If within the curriculum framework an “integral perspective is to be attained, a

philosophy of the curriculum is necessary. By such a philosophy is meant a critically

examined, coherent system of ideas by which all the constituent parts of the course of

instruction are identified and ordered” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 5). The philosophy of an

integrated curriculum can help and direct student academic learning and achievement.

To understand the ROM curriculum model and philosophy, each of the six realms must

be analyzed and defined. A description of the philosophy and the attributes of this

stimulating and intellectual framework for learning is listed below.

78

The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Curriculum Philosophy of Learning

The Realms of Meaning curriculum model “grew out of a course that Dr. Phillips

H. Phenix taught at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York” (Kritsonis, 2007,

ix). Later, based on the associations between Phenix and Kritsonis, the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model was reworked and re-tooled utilizing “Kritsonis’s own

version, unique perspective, style, and flare” (English in Kritsonis, 2007, p. vi). The

resulting work from Kritsonis’s research has resulted in a curriculum philosophy now

known as Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning.

The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum

philosophy emerges from the analysis of the possible distinctive modes of human

understanding. Six patterns may be specifically designated respectively as “symbolics,

empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 11). Educators

“use symbols, they abstract and generalize, they create and perceive interesting objects,

they relate to each other personally, they make judgments of good and evil, they reenact

the past, they seek the ultimate, and they comprehensively analyze, evaluate, and

synthesize” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 563). The Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy

begins with addressing the needs of the whole student in a meaningful and provocative

way. Rather than relying on basic memorization of facts and designs, a holistic approach

is utilized in the curriculum model that allows the student to expand his or her boundaries

beyond the basics of factual understanding and design to higher levels incorporating

subject integration, critical thinking views, and higher-level thought processes. Through

this process, student learning becomes more analytical, thought provoking, and

79

intellectually challenging. Therefore, “the foundations of curriculum set the external

boundaries of the knowledge of curriculum and define what constitutes valid sources of

information from which come accepted theories, principles, and ideas relevant to the field

of curriculum” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 14). The enormity of the organized

learning criteria available to student bodies in today’s society is overwhelming. Utilizing

an effective curriculum structure and philosophy is necessary to perpetuate true learning

and student academic achievement.

Understanding the ROM Curriculum Philosophy

The ROM curriculum philosophy embraces a structural, constructivist look at

learning and the curriculum. The ROM philosophy embraces a holistic framework for

learning and is fundamentally organized around six realms of meaning. These realms of

meaning formulate a framework that provides both the teacher and student the

opportunity to engage in higher level thinking, participate in critical analysis of a given

subject, and to be able to view education as a meaningful and engendered approach to

learning. In addition, the ROM curriculum model provides an understanding of the logic

of sequence in academic studies, a guide for the scope of the curriculum, and an

understanding of how the disciplines can be utilized in the curriculum. A working

knowledge of how representative ideas and methods of inquiry can enhance student

learning and curricula mastery in the classroom is also useful in understanding and

developing a curriculum model based on the ROM philosophy. While each realm can

inherently work together to enhance curriculum learning and scholarship, each realm can

be defined and explained definitively in its own category and unique relationship to

student learning and academic achievement.

80

The First Realm of Meaning: Symbolics

The most fundamental expression of meaning is the first realm of symbolics. This

realm is symbolic, communicative, and expressive and “comprises ordinary language,

mathematics, and various types of nondiscursive symbolic forms, such as gestures,

rituals, rhythmic patterns, and the like” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 11). Symbolics is

foundational to all aspects of the ROM philosophy. Subject matter such as found in the

arts and humanities can all be traced back to a foundational symbolic philosophy and

origin. Educators who utilize the symbolics realm enhance their students’ ability to

synthesize and learn challenging material.

Through creative expression and integration of other subject matters into a

student’s learning portfolio, the curricular mix combines “the best representations of our

cultural history and the creative explorations of new cultural challenges” (Sylvester,

2006, p. 36). Symbolics is communicative and embodies both discursive and

nondiscursive communications. Symbolic structures represent the visual representations

of ideas, from the everyday routine items of life such as stop signs and traffic lights to the

complex and intricate varieties of the written word and mathematical postulates and

themes: “Symbols can function alone as meaningful entities, but very commonly, they

enter as components or elements in a more highly elaborated system” (Gardner, 2004, p.

300). Symbols are synonymous with a scholarly approach to learning in that

they enter to the fashioning of full-fledged symbolic products; stories and

sonnets, plays and poetry, mathematical proofs and problem

solutions, rituals, and reviews-all manner of symbolic entities that

individuals create in order to convey a set of meanings, and that other

81

individuals imbued in the culture are able to understand, interpret,

appreciate, criticize or transform. (Gardner, 2004, p. 301)

Applying the realm of symbolics to the academic process is foundational to all true

learning and academic success.

The Second Realm of Meaning: Empirics

The second realm of meaning is assigned to the realm of empirics. Empirics

embrace “the sciences of the physical world, of living things, and of man” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 12). Empirics can be aligned with other realms in order to offer a wider breadth

and depth to the learning process and understanding of this scholarly realm of meaning.

To apply empirics to student learning, it is important to note that neurological

studies have shown that “the brain is the only organ in the body that develops itself from

its interactions with its environment. In a sense, our experience becomes biology”

(Wolfe, 2006, p. 12). By challenging students and providing opportunities for rigorous

curriculum interactions, students can become more engaged not only in the fields of

science and psychology, they can also be immersed in deeper and more relevant

academic understanding and challenges through a rigorous and integrated curriculum

model as exemplified in the ROM curriculum model and framework.

Bacon (1561-1626) also supported the inclusion of the empirical realm in

education. Bacon believed “education should advance scientific inquiry” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 22). Bacon also “provided major rationale for the development of critical

thinking skills [and] proposed the concept of a research university” (Kritsonis, 2007, p.

22). Studies in the empirics realm offer the potential of not only incorporating

knowledge in the classroom, but also of inspiring and cultivating world views, public

82

policy and norms: “Science, that body of procedures and findings which arose in the

Renaissance and its aftermath, and has led to many of the most important innovations of

our time” (Gardner, 2004, p. 361). The empirics realm is an integral component of any

integrated model of study and learning expertise. By incorporating empirical study into

the curriculum, all subject matter is enhanced and broadened through the tenets of a fully

aligned and integrated curriculum model.

The Third Realm of Meaning: Esthetics

The third realm of meaning focuses on esthetics and the beauty of meaning and

fulfillment: “Esthetics contains the various arts such as music, the visual arts, the arts of

movement, and literature” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12). The esthetics realm, when placed in

the curriculum, offers the opportunity for students to communicate their mastery of a

particular subject or area of expertise by expressing themselves through the visual-spatial

arts. Music, art, and physical activity are all critical components of student learning and

academic success. For example, research has shown that there is a direct correlation

between reading and music: “Researchers suggest this relationship results because both

music and written language involve similar decoding and comprehension reading

processes and require sensitivity to phonological and tonal distinctions” (Sousa, 2006, p.

26). It is also important to note that the esthetics realm coupled with the empirics realm

of meaning have lead many researchers to “believe the ability to perceive and enjoy

music is an inborn human trait. This biological aspect is supported by the discovery that

the brain has specialized areas that respond only to music and these areas provoke

emotional responses” (Sousa, 2006, p. 27). This research supports the importance of

including the esthetic realm in the overall curriculum structure of an academic institution.

83

Research data has also shown that “listening to certain music stimulates the parts

of the brain responsible for memory recall and visual imagery” (Sousa, 2006, p. 27).

This offers an explanation why background music in the classroom helps many students

stay focused while completing specific learning tasks. Studies that seek to link the

attributes of music to learning have found that “listening to music stimulates spatial

thinking and that neural networks normally associated with one kind of mental activity

readily share the cognitive processes involved in a different activity” (Sousa, 2006, p.

27). This supports the integrated curriculum philosophy in that “learning or thinking in

one discipline may not be completely independent of another” (Sousa, 2006, p. 27).

Mathematics is closely aligned with music in that the mathematical orientation of beats,

meter, and representative symbols is parallel to algebraic equations, meaningful symbols

that translate into solutions for problems, and representative diagrams that symbolically

represent a given mathematical theorem or rule: “Of all academic subjects, mathematics

is most closely connected to music” (Sousa, 2006, p. 29). The relationship between

music and math is undeniable: “Music students use geometry to remember the correct

finger positions for notes or chords on instruments. Reading music requires an

understanding of ratios and proportions so that whole notes are held longer than half

notes” (Sousa, 2006, p. 29). In addition, “music and mathematics also are related

through sequences called intervals” (Sousa, 2006, p. 29). The integration of both music

(esthetics) and mathematics (symbolics) can aid in the academic achievement of all

students at all levels in the academic environment.

Physical activity, another function of the esthetics realm, is of critical importance

to the overall educational process: “Even short, moderate physical exercise improves

84

brain performance” (Sousa, 2006, p. 30). Physical activities can increase students’

cognitive abilities while at the same time using “up some kinesthetic energy so students’

can settle down and concentrate better” (Sousa, 2006, pp. 30-31). Movement activities

are important also “because they involve more sensory input, hold the students’ attention

for longer periods of time, (and) help them make connections between new and past

learning and improve long-term recall” (Sousa, 2006, p. 30). Movement activities can be

an important aspect in a viable and meaningful curriculum framework.

Art integration is another important aspect of a fully aligned and integrated

curriculum model. Research studies reveal that “the most powerful effects are found in

programs that integrate the arts with subjects in the core curriculum” (Sousa, 2006, p.

30). By integrating the arts into the curriculum, the arts can “enhance the growth of

cognitive, emotional, and psychomotor pathways” (Sousa, 2006, p. 31). When the

esthetic realm through art is incorporated into the classroom, “learning in all subjects

becomes attainable through the arts; curriculum becomes more authentic, hands-on and

project-based assessment is more thoughtful and varied and teachers’ expectations for

their students rise” (Sousa, 2006, p. 31). Based on these studies produced by educational

scholars, art is an integral process of the learning process and therefore should be

implemented in the general instructional and pedagogical processes of the curriculum and

classroom.

Literature is also part of the esthetics realm of meaning. The effects of literature

scholarship “usually extend beyond the esthetic realm . . . a great deal of empirical

knowledge may be acquired in reading novels or seeing plays. . . .Literature is one of the

best sources of insight into personality and culture” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 366). To study

85

literature, the student must intrinsically “discover the unique patterns of sound, rhythm,

meter, and semantic figuration as they are in the creation of singular unitary

compositions” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 363). Building upon a structural knowledge of

literature and the analytical components that make up the framework of literary study, the

student of literature can focus on the highly developed critical reasoning skills found in

the study of literature and literary texts.

By building upon knowledge in the various disciplines, a constructivist

framework of learning can be established. The constructivist approach utilized in the

ROM curriculum philosophy is supported by the writings of Northrop Frye in his essay,

“The Archetypes of Literature” (Northrop Frye [1912-1991], 2001). Frye asserts that

“every organized body of knowledge can be learned progressively; and experience shows

that there is also something progressive about the learning of literature” (Northrop Frye

[1912-1991] , 2001), “The Archetypes of Literature” as rpt. in Vincent B. Leith, The

Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism 1545-1557). Literature is a critical

component for student learning and academic achievement which engages the learner in

literature’s overall relationships to other realms of learning.

The Fourth Realm of Meaning: Synnoetics

The fourth realm of meaning is synnoetics. The synnoetics realm concentrates on

the knowledge of oneself and the “I-Thou” relation: “Synnoetics signifies relational

insight or direct awareness. It is analogous in the sphere of knowing to sympathy in the

sphere of feeling” (Kritsonis, 2007, p.12). Free will, personal choice, and responsibility

can all be attributed to the synnoetics realm of meaning. It is necessary for students to

take responsibility for their actions and the choices that they make. In education,

86

“emotion and attention are our brains activation systems in that our brain will only

respond to emotionally arousing phenomena, and it must then frame and focus on the

silent element that led to the arousal” (Sylvester, 2006, p.34). Historical studies state that

people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau believe that “we should ask of everything in our lives,

whether our private or public lives, that it meets the requirements not of reason, but of

feeling and natural instincts in other words, feeling should replace reason as our guide to

life and our judge” (Magee, 2001, p. 126). Following this logic, when a student learns to

respond to his or educational environment positively, the student has the opportunity to

reach new horizons and to set new and higher goals for his or her own learning goals and

activities.

Ortega Y.Gasset, Spanish philosopher and essayist, believed history and the self

were irrevocably related. Gasset is famous for identifying the nature of self and history:

“In a famous sentence, (Gasset) remarks that ‘man has no nature, what he has is . . . a

history” (Irving Howe, History of the Novel, as cited in Vincent B. Leitch The Norton

Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2001, 1532-47). Philosophically, a knowledge of self

has been important to understanding not only the personal and internal, but also to

establish a relationship with one’s own self and the world. In regards to the idea of self,

“a historically liberating hypothesis advanced during the Enlightenment and the age of

Romanticism, the self becomes a shadow of our public lives, created within the modern

historical moment while often turning upon it as a critical adversary” (Irving Howe,

History of the Novel, as cited in Vincent B. Leitch, The Norton Anthology of Theory and

Criticism, 2001, pp. 1532-47). R. G. Collingwood, English philosopher, aesthetician, and

historian “holds that the value of history is self-understanding” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 487).

87

This intrinsic knowledge of the self and the self’s relationship to the world around this

entity is critical to the self-mastery and discipline required to be academically successful

and intellectually astute. Understanding one’s own self and environment greatly

enhances a student’s ability to cope with the various realities and challenges found in the

educational setting. A knowledge of the self is an important tool in obtaining maximum

educational competencies and academic success and achievement in the classroom.

The synnoetics realm is also reiterated by Collingwood when he states, “Knowing

yourself means knowing, first, what it is to be a man; second, knowing what it is to be the

kind of man that you are and third, knowing what is to be the man you are and nobody

else is . . . The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus

what man is” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 487). Therefore, “the self comes to be treasured as a

reserve of consciousness, a resource beyond the press of social forms . . . The very

assumption that we can locate a psychic presence that we call the self, or that it is useful

to suppose such a presence exists, implies a separation of inner being from outer

behavior” (Irving Howe, History of the Novel, as cited in Vincent B. Leitch The Norton

Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2001, pp. 1532-47). Incorporating the synnoetics

realm into student learning and curriculum structure is therefore an important and

reasoned validation for enhancing the curriculum through the relational aspects of a

student’s own personal synnoetics factors, meanings, and personal understandings.

The Fifth Realm of Meaning: Ethics

The fifth realm of meaning is ethics: “Ethics includes moral meanings that

express obligation rather than fact, perceptual form, or awareness of relation” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 13). Ethics presupposes a foundation of moral and personal knowledge “which

88

reflects inter-subjective understanding, morality has to do with personal conduct that is

based on free, responsible, deliberate decision” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13). The knowledge

and practice of ethical practices and understanding is foundational to all learning and self

mastery. Quintialian (c.a. 30/35 – c.a. 100) was a proponent of the value and nature of

the moral and ethical realms of meaning. Quintilian elaborated on the benefits of

choosing a moral and ethical way of life: The man who seeks true understanding “has a

greater and nobler aim, to which he directs all his efforts with as much zeal as if he were

a candidate for office, since he is to be made perfect not only in the glory of a virtuous

life, but in that of eloquence as well” (Quintilian, 2001, Institutio Oratorio as cited in

Vincent B. Leith, The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, pp. 157-71). John

Locke (1632-1704) followed Quintilian and other predecessors in addressing the moral

and ethical needs of an educational system and society. John Locke’s ideal education

includes four outcomes that are essential to ethics and good morals. These outcomes

include “virtue…wisdom…good breeding [and] learning” (Kritsonis, 2002, p. 54). The

ethics realm is an important and integral component in the overall structure and

development of the curriculum structure. Moral proponents of curriculum “tend to

elevate mind and language alike . . . for what subject can be found more fully adapted to

a rich and weighty eloquence than the topics of virtue, politics, providence, the origin of

the soul, and friendship?” (Quintilian, 2001, Institutio Oratorio as cited in Vincent B.

Leith, The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, pp. 157-71). For this reason, the

moral realm of meaning is an intricate and integral part of the overall learning process for

students who seek meaning and fulfillment in the area of curriculum understanding and

subject mastery.

89

The Sixth Realm of Meaning: Synoptics

The sixth and final realm of meaning is synoptics: “This realm includes history,

religion, and philosophy” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13). The synoptics realm “provides

analytic clarification, evaluation, and synthetic coordination of all the other realms

through a reflective conceptual interpretation of all possible kinds of meaning in their

distinctiveness and in their interrelationships” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13). This historical

realm is all compassing:

History alone gives to time its integral meaning. It unites the abstract

objectivity of parametric impersonal time in science, and the rhythmic

time in language and the arts, with the concrete subjectivity of time in

personal relations and particular moral decisions, yielding a

realization of whole time, in which particular unique happenings actually

occurred. (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 484)

The disciplined nature of historical discourse integrates all facets of the

curriculum program. History is definitely more than just a “recital of dead ‘facts’ that

have no apparent relevance [or meaning]” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 488). There are

relationships in historical studies that can be studied in tandem with other disciplines

which will further add depth and understanding to the curriculum structure. Integrated

curriculum relationships between history and other disciplines can be easily seen in both

the sciences and the arts. For example, “history is like art-especially literature-in that its

goal is particular unique presentation in the form of convincing stories” (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. 485). The differences between the sciences and arts can benefit the student learner in

that the student academician can see not only the relationships between subject matters

90

but also develop deeper and higher cognitive levels of thought and meaningful perceptive

skills through comparing and contrasting various aspects of the academic curriculum.

When comparing two disciplines such as art and history, it can be noted that “history is

unlike art in that, although its words are imaginatively constructed, they are intended as

disclosures of the actual world and not of a fictional world” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 485).

The study of history requires a high level of cognitive mental processes and

analytical judgment. Background knowledge is extremely important in the study and

interpretation of historical events. The making of history itself “is a process of drawing

inferences from available evidence” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 490). When the historian gathers

evidence for historical discourse, “history may then be defined as that imaginative re-

creation of past human evens that best accords with the evidence of the present, or more

briefly, as the best possible explanation of the present in terms of the past” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 490). History recreates the choices and consequences of past generations and

formulates a discussion for the future and facilitates scholarly discussion and research on

current issues passed on past occurrences.

The philosophical realm of meaning is also part of an integrated and intellectually

stimulating curriculum model. Philosophy is the art and study of human thought and

wisdom and is a critical component of deep student understanding, application, and

curriculum design. By incorporating a thoughtful and provocative discourse on learning

substantiated by an in-depth understanding and philosophical discourse, a more rigorous

and in-depth presentation of the curriculum is possible.

Application and Selection of the ROM’s Philosophy in Curriculum Selection

91

Curriculum philosophies of learning do not provide any benefit to the educational

community unless they can be applied to the real world of academic learning in the

classroom. The ROM curriculum philosophy can be useful in identifying parallel

curriculum models that can be implemented in the educational classroom. By identifying

parallel characteristics of the ROM philosophy, curriculum attributes in other models can

be identified that can potentially aid and support the learning process of districts

implementing parallel models of the ROM curriculum philosophy: “The educator must

select qualitatively the most significant materials from the totality of what is known”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. 208). This substantiates the fact that an “interdependence of

specialists is the basis for the advancement of all knowledge and skill” (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. 808). In order for student learning to occur, a curriculum framework must be adapted

in order to add sequence and logic to the learning process. Through researched-based

studies, educational leaders can make viable decisions regarding the curriculum and its

effect on the outcomes of student achievement and learning by studying the research and

making research-based decisions on how to effectively implement a curriculum model in

the educational framework of the classroom.

Selecting a Parallel Curriculum Model Utilizing the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum Philosophy

Educational curricula philosophy is meaningful in that the principles of a

philosophical design can be used to select and utilize a model of instruction in the

classroom that can seek to engender meaningful instruction in the classroom. The

purpose of a curriculum model is to provide an academic framework that will structure

92

the disciplines to be studied in an effective manner in order to facilitate a deeper

understanding and mastery of the material being studied.

There are significant numbers of curriculum designs in the world. However,

determining which model is most beneficial to a student’s overall success is of primary

concern to every educational leader who seeks to meet the diverse needs of high school

students in the classroom. By developing a framework for learning and student academic

achievement, a structural foundation and guide can be developed to effectively administer

learning in the classroom and enhance student academic achievement. One constructivist

model of the curriculum can be found in the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of

Meaning (ROM) curriculum philosophy. This model provides a philosophical basis for

curriculum design, understanding, and implementation. The philosophies embodied in

the ROM model are similar in design and attributes of an emerging new curriculum

design entitled CSCOPETM. Because of the structural similarities in curriculum

philosophy embodied in these two curriculum models, the CSCOPETM philosophies can

be considered a parallel philosophical curriculum related by similarities in philosophies

to the philosophical framework of the ROM curriculum philosophy. Because the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning is a philosophy for choosing the curriculum,

utilizing this philosophy and its six realms has helped to identify components in the

CSCOPETM model which share the same philosophical and educational components.

These similarities and philosophies are shared in detail later in this manuscript. Since the

purpose of this study is to show how a curriculum model which adheres to a prescribed

educational philosophy can affect student academic achievement, the CSCOPETM

curriculum does show similar philosophical and curriculum framework structures with

93

the ROM philosophy of learning, allowing the two curriculum models to be considered

parallel and similar in the core philosophical principles embraced in both learning

models. In order to test the Realms philosophy in the classroom, the CSCOPETM

curriculum model has been selected as an example of a school that utilizes parallel

curriculum philosophies in the teaching and structure of subject matter curriculum. For

the purpose of this study, CSCOPETM schools which have been identified as having

philosophies that are similar to the ROM curricular philosophy are being utilized as

schools to be called in this study Realms of Meaning schools in that they are

implementing to various degrees and limitations similar philosophical attributes

represented in both the CSCOPETM delivery of the curriculum and represented by the

philosophical basis of curricular design found in the ROM curriculum philosophy.

Attributes of the CSCOPETM curriculum have been identified through extant data

available publicly on the Internet, and in communications and interviews, both formal

and informal, with educational leaders knowledgeable of the CSCOPETM model.

Parallel Models of Philosophy and Instruction: CSCOPETM

and the ROM Curriculum Model

The curriculum for general education should focus on the highest good to be

served by the general education teachers and educational structures: “The course of

study should be such as to maximize meanings” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 559). In Texas, the

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) framework forms the state curriculum.

This framework is built upon the premise that student learning and academic achievement

is best promoted by the use of a strong curriculum, excellent instruction, and valid and

reliable assessment procedures. The TEKS provide a broad framework for learning,

94

outlining and proposing what students should be taught through their public school

educational careers. The CSCOPETM model, reflected in the ROM curriculum

philosophy, builds upon this same jurisdiction. Each model incorporates student learning

activities that meet or exceed the TEKS academic requirements for scope and sequence in

the curriculum.

95

Curriculum Alignment

Curriculum alignment holds great promise for being one of the academic tools

which can level the playing field for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-

economic status and background. Alignment can be either vertical or horizontal.

Vertical alignment structures a curriculum scope and sequence through the various grade

levels incorporated into the campus structure. Horizontal alignment assures that courses

are integrated and that knowledge within the disciplines is supported by a broad

knowledge base of integration among curriculum ideas that are inter-related across

disciplines. Especially in the area of high stakes testing it is important to have a

curriculum that is fully aligned in order to support student success and academic

achievement: “The basic construct for curriculum alignment is to ensure that what is

tested is what is taught” (English & Steffey, 2001, p. 25). The CSCOPETM model

reflected in the ROM curriculum model and philosophy emphasizes a curriculum

structure that aligns with the TEKS components for each grade level and that each subject

area is supported with background knowledge and information to ensure a deep level of

understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.

Specifically, the CSCOPETM curriculum model “is based on best practice models

from top researchers” (Texas Educational Service Center Curriculum Cooperative

(TESCCC, 2004, p. 1). The best practice models are drawn from educational research

and academic studies that show how various structures and philosophies of learning are

incorporated into successful academic curriculum structures and models. In the ROM

curriculum philosophy, the structure of the curriculum model emphasizes that one

“should select only curriculum that makes sense and has meaning to the student. The

96

ultimate goal is to improve curriculum in schools. To improve schools, curriculum

content must be selected with realms of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 7). By selecting

course work that is meaningful and structured, a framework for curriculum design is

outlined that will contribute to both a vertical and horizontal alignment of the curriculum.

To assess if curriculum alignment and curriculum integration has been successful, “the

litmus test is always this: has the condition resulted in consistent score gains on the

test(s)” (English & Steffey, 2001, p. 87). For Texas school students, a measure of

academic gain is measured by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and SkillsTM test.

Success or failure on this test measures student academic achievement student and is

currently used as an instrument to decide if a student is allowed to graduate from high

school and receive his or her high school diploma. Therefore, a curriculum model that is

successful must also be a flexible curricula structure that will correspond to the learning

needs and attributes of a diverse and ever-changing student population.

Pedagogical Parallelism

Education that is effective requires that students be taught at standards that exceed

basic facts and a simplistic knowledge of core curriculum ideas. To succeed, a student

must be aware of the interrelationships of the various disciplines and to be able to apply

the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in the educational academic environment.

An effective tool for teachers in this regard is to utilize a technique referred to as

pedagogical parallelism: “Pedagogical parallelism refers to the notion that classroom

teachers create an alternative but parallel environment in which their students not only

learn what is on the test, but learn more. The teachers go deeper than the tested

curriculum content” (English & Steffey, 2001, p. 97). The CSCOPETM model, developed

97

by the Texas Educational Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) is

reflective of this model in that “rigor, relevance (and) quality” (TESCCC, 2004, p. 5) are

important components of the CSCOPETM model. In comparison, the ROM curriculum

philosophy engenders a high level of critical thinking and application which also implies

a strong dedication to the rigorous and educationally relevant course material of the

CSCOPETM model. CSCOPETM and ROM curriculum philosophy embody pedagogical

parallelism structure and focus on parallel ideas of learning by structuring the curriculum

to embody multifaceted dimensions of learning in the overall curriculum structure and

curriculum philosophy. Through the implementation of a pedagogical parallel curriculum

model, subject matter can be integrated and understood in relationship to the dynamics of

other curriculum taught in the classroom.

Schools identified as ROM schools are those schools which utilize and implement

the CSCOPETM curriculum model and philosophy to various degrees of implementation

levels, usage, and strategies. This researcher is utilizing the public information available

from the CSCOPETM curriculum model to identify similar and parallel curriculum

philosophies that build on similar philosophical frameworks of understanding and

meaning in the classroom as outlined and defined in the ROM curriculum philosophy.

CSCOPETM schools have been identified by a school list which was provided by one of

the cooperating Educational Service centers in Texas which house and support the

CSCOPETM curricula program in Texas. CSCOPETM is acquired through a district or

school purchase from one of thirteen region centers in the state of Texas. It is a computer

based curricular format that implements a wide range of curricular activity in the

classroom based on strong educational research and design. Schools that choose to

98

purchase the CSCOPETM model are not mandated to use the program in its entirety, but

may choose either to work with all of the elements of a curriculum or choose sections of

the program that will most benefit their home campuses.

To understand the basis of the CSCOPETM model, and the ROM curriculum

model and philosophy, the underlying philosophy and curriculum of the CSCOPETM

curriculum model and the ROM curriculum philosophy will be discussed to establish the

philosophical and educational strategies that have been used to implement and design the

CSCOPETM/Realms of Meaning parallel curriculum philosophies and attributes.

Curriculum Design and Curricular Alignment

Schools are now regulated by higher standards and expectations based on student

achievement and academic success in the classroom. Higher and more rigorous academic

standards have created an academic atmosphere that requires that educators seek to

structure the learning environment to provide the highest and best learning opportunities

available for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, or social status: “Since the launch

of the accountability movement, many school districts have made progress with aligned

systems of instruction . . . . These aligned systems link school practice with state and

local standards” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 36). In this way, “students learn the material on

what will be tested” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 36). This system of learning is evident in the

ROM curriculum philosophy as well as the CSCOPETM model of instruction. These

curriculum models can be presented both vertically and horizontally in the classroom and

can help to level the playing fields of all students and provide a more in-depth model of

curriculum mastery that will affect student learning and achievement: “In this system,

the curriculum, assessment, and professional development all work together. Students

99

learn the material on which they will be tested, and teachers know what was covered in

prior grades so they can build on students’ common bases” (Vanderark, 2006, p. 36).

The opportunity to expand a student’s knowledge beyond the curriculum is also present

in both the ROM and CSCOPETM curriculum models. Each model provides the structural

framework to teach students more than just the basic required factual components of a

given subject matter and expands the curriculum component to a more integrated and

holistic framework for learning.

Foundational Principles of the CSCOPETM Model

and the ROM Curriculum Philosophy

Background Knowledge and Information

Robert Marzano’s (2004) work on background knowledge and information has

been pivotal in the development of the CSCOPETM curriculum model. For students to be

able to function literately and effectively in an integrated curriculum system, a broad

background of educational material is a necessary component to the overall goal of

learning and achievement: “Background knowledge is inherently multidimensional”

(Marzano, 2004, p. 28). This type of knowledge is foundational to a student’s ability to

compare and contrast the attributes of one discipline to another and to be able to actually

articulate the meaning and function of a particular discipline in a practical and logical

way in the curriculum.

One of the pressing problems of education today is that a student’s level of

knowledge, history, and foundational truths has been replaced with a level of academic

study that simply looks at the surface of a subject without trying to understand the full

meaning and significance of a particular study area or discipline. Lack of sufficient

100

background knowledge puts the general education student at-risk for failure and in danger

of not being able to successfully participate in higher level intellectual discourses and

learning paradigms. Adding to a student’s background knowledge will ultimately

facilitate a deeper understanding of the curriculum and a greater chance of both

individual and corporate academic success for all students.

The Unified Perspectives of CSCOPE TM and the ROM Curriculum Philosophy

In an age of rigorous and demanding educational accountability, educational

leaders are seeking the best and most effective ways to design curricular programs that

truly affect student learning and academic achievement. The CSCOPETM curriculum

model and the ROM model both embody the philosophies of relevant engagement and

high academic standards. Although different in their names and origins, both curriculum

models are unique in that each model is reflective of the philosophical and educational

framework of both the CSCOPETM and ROM curriculum models: “World-wide, people

are aware of the need for the most effective possible education system if we are to meet

the challenges and demands of life in a highly precarious and rapidly changing world”

(Kritsonis, 2007, p. vii). To accomplish these goals, the curriculum component of

CSCOPETM is based on “the most current research-based practices in the field”

(TESCCC, 2008, p. 1). Both models are framed by strong, philosophical frameworks that

emphasize researched based curriculum components designed to maximize student

learning and academic achievement.

Knowledge is empowering and “has permanent value leading to greater meaning

and greater understanding when drawn from the fundamental disciplines as exemplified

in the realms of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. ix). The ROM curriculum model is

101

structured around a framework of six realms of meaning which directly correlate with the

major components and framework strategies of the CSCOPETM model of learning.

Curriculum Integration: CSCOPE TM and the Realms of Meaning Curriculum Philosophy

The CSCOPETM model of learning begins with the mission and goal of

maximizing and facilitating student learning and achievement. Because the realities of

the Texas curriculum begin with a state based curriculum, the TEKS, and a high-stakes

accountability testing system (TAKSTM), researchers and curriculum designers who

helped to implement this model of design based their model on the needs of student

learners in general and student needs based on the state curriculum in particular.

Preeminent in both the CSCOPETM and the ROM curriculum models is that

students will learn and achieve at a deeper and higher cognitive level than previously

mastered using other curriculum philosophies and programs. In order to accomplish this

and the ROM model designed by Kritsonis, offer a pattern for student learning and

success. When these models are utilized within the framework of academic exigency and

expediency, both models have the potential of dramatically affecting the way students

learn and achieve academically in the required academic work mandated through the

TEKS and in the course of the educational process. While it is fully acknowledged that

the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy and the

CSCOPETM curriculum model are two totally separate entities, the purpose of this study is

not to focus on the individual differences of each comparative model, but to see what

similarities in relationship to curriculum philosophies these two entities share.

102

The Importance of Structuring the Curriculum

Marzano, who’s learning and educational principles are foundational to both the

CSCOPETM and ROM curriculum model, has identified five school level factors that

affect student academic achievement. These factors as reported by Marzano are: “(1)

guaranteed and viable curriculum (2) challenging goals and effective feedback (3) parent

and community involvement (4) safe and orderly environment (5) collegiality and

professionalism” (Marzano, 2003, p. 15). These goals, which are incorporated both into

the ROM curriculum model and the CSCOPETM curriculum model, substantiate both the

needs and potential rewards of utilizing an integrated and interdisciplinary curriculum

model.

In today’s highly competitive society, schools are challenged not only to provide

an opportunity to learn in the classroom, schools must now seek “to provide a curriculum

that is highly effective and beneficial to all learners” (Marzano, 2003, p. 15). Robert

Marzano further states that “a guaranteed and viable curriculum at the school-level factor

will have the most impact on student achievement, followed by challenging goals and

effective feedback” (Marzano, 2003, p. 15). These aspects of curriculum design are

evident in the CSCOPETM curriculum model as well as the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy.

A Unitary Philosophy of the Curriculum

Curriculum philosophy can be defined as the values and core principles of a

particular system of learning. Identifying the basic philosophies of a curriculum is

important in structuring the learning process for student academic achievement. For this

reason, “a unitary philosophy of the curriculum is important” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 3). By

103

showing the relationships between the various subjects studied in a curriculum, a

student’s overall mastery of a subject can be enhanced. CSCOPETM literature has

identified the importance of a strong curriculum philosophy based on expert knowledge

in a particular field or subject discipline area:

It is useful to look at how experts make sense of content and new

information. Experts’ command of concept shapes their

understanding of new information: it allows them to see patterns,

relationships and discrepancies and make connections to

relevant knowledge not apparent to novices. (TESCCC, 20008, p. 10)

This is in direct agreement and solidification with the ROM curriculum model:

“The realms of meaning form an articulated whole” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15). This is

important because “a curriculum based upon the realms of meaning counteracts the

fragmentation of experience that is one of the sources of meaninglessness” (Kritsonis, p.

15). The integration of the curriculum model is possible in large part to the symbolic and

synoptic fields. These realms offer a foundational aspect for much of the curriculum and

“serve as binding elements running through the various realms and welding them into a

single meaningful pattern” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15). Students must understand the

fundamental concepts of a given subject matter before attempting to add to their learning

base. Units of study in CSCOPETM build upon previous lessons to “support high quality

instructional planning and delivery” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 2). This constructivist

framework of learning is essential to student learning and success.

104

Classifying Meaning in CSCOPETM and the ROM Curriculum Philosophy

Curriculum planning and structure require a scholarly division of course material

in order to benefit the student learner. The CSCOPETM curriculum and the ROM

curriculum philosophy model have each been divided into scholarly disciplines and broad

categories in order to facilitate a greater depth of student learning, knowledge, and

student academic achievement. The categories of study in both curriculums are structured

“along lines of general similarity of logical structure. In this manner, certain basic ways

of knowing can be described” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 46). Teaching to larger patterns in both

philosophies allows the academic student learner to “characterize major themes,

generalizeable features, and strategies rather than specific solutions” (TESCCC, 2002, p.

11). These constructivist patterns of learning enhance student achievement and add

coherence to the overall educational process.

Representative Ideas

Representative ideas help to garner background information and form the basis

and foundation for effective pedagogy and student academic learning and success.

Representative ideas are symbolic and represent important and specific ideas of a

particular learning model and discipline. Representative ideas are necessary in a

curriculum because the breadth and depth of knowledge available for study require that a

selection of what should be taught in the classroom be based on the magnitude of what is

important and necessary to learning and acquiring knowledge. The TEKS standards are

utilized as the framework for learning in the CSCOPETM model. This integration of the

standards in the curriculum can also be seen in the Realms of Meaning model. Just as the

TEKS offers a representation of knowledge found in each of the disciplines, the same

105

principles apply to curriculum selection and inclusion in the ROM model. In the ROM,

only “those items should be chosen that are particularly representative of the field as a

whole” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 19). A Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy establishes

the importance of utilizing symbolic infrastructures in the learning process to incorporate

a newer and higher significance level of meaning in the classroom. In the CSCOPETM

model, “the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) has

developed a systematic K-12 curriculum designed, maintained, and continuously

developed by a team that represents all areas of the state” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 1).

Representative ideas are important to this curriculum model in that the purpose of a

strong and effective curriculum “is to provide a common language, structure, and process

for curriculum development and implementation” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 1). The

CSCOPETM curriculum model is built on representative ideas and therefore is parallel and

consistent with the ROM curriculum philosophy in regards to the use and adherence to

representative ideas and constructs within the curriculum.

Curriculum Selection and Organization: CSCOPE TM and the Realms of Meaning

There are four principles of curriculum selection and organization that are

consistent in both the CSCOPETM curriculum model and the Realms of Meaning model.

These principles include disciplined inquiry, content selection from a large reservoir of

material, comprehensive methods of inquiry, and a curriculum that inspires active

participation and imagination.

Curriculum Content Selection

The CSCOPETM as well as the ROM curriculum model are both in agreement that

“students reveal their understanding most effectively when they are provided with

106

complex, authentic opportunities to explain, interpret, apply, shift, perspective,

empathize, and self-assess” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 13). These skills develop methods of

inquiry skills that “develop a repertoire of flexible strategies learned and practiced in a

community of learners where the emphasis on learning how to learn, and not (learning)

the one correct answer” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 10). The CSCOPETM model is based on the

fundamental disciplines of curriculum knowledge and direction: English language arts,

mathematics, social studies, and science. Kritsonis (2007) also contends that “all

material should come from the disciplines” (p. 809). The fields of English language arts,

mathematics, social studies, and science are easily integrated with the other realms of

meaning which include ethics, synnoetics, and esthetics.

Course Selection, Sequence, and Scope

Course selection should follow a logical sequence and scope in deference to the

needs of the student body being served: “Developmentally, language clearly comes first

(symbolics) and integrative studies last (synoptics). Moral meanings (ethics) appear

relatively late, after a firm sense of oneself and of one’s relationships with others have

been established (synnoetics)” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 306). In regards to science and art,

“the priority developmentally seems to rest with art (esthetics)” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 306).

Students who learn to appreciate the esthetic values of learning are more often ready to

apply these sensitivities and skills to understanding the empiric and factually aligned

components of a science curriculum. Therefore, how a curriculum is aligned and

structured is important to the overall process of curriculum integration and design. By

aligning the curriculum in a logical and systematic way, both the CSCOPETM model and

the ROM curriculum philosophy model assure that student learning is “logical and

107

developmental factors are relevant to designs about the sequencing of studies” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 806). By organizing the curriculum content, a student can more readily see the

interdisciplinary characteristics of each discipline studied and how this knowledge relates

to the overall understanding and involvement in the learning process.

The Four Principles of Curriculum Instruction

CSCOPETM outlines four principles of curriculum instruction: “(1) disciplined

inquiry, (2) content selection, (3) comprehensive methods of inquiry, and (4) invoking a

curriculum that inspires active participation and imagination” (TESCCC, 2002, p. 1).

These four proponents of curriculum instruction are directly supported in the ROM

curriculum philosophy and model of curriculum design.

Disciplined Inquiry

The CSCOPETM curriculum model utilizes the disciplined inquiry approach

through CSCOPE’sTM Vertical Alignment Documents. Specific and disciplined inquiry

into the various academic disciplines is built around the TEKS framework and developed

to include a knowledge base of the curriculum that is taught and aligned through a district

wide curriculum plan and learning focus. Each discipline is built upon sound academic

principles for the subject matter studied and is enhanced through integrating other

curriculum subject areas into the major areas of academic consideration. This

constructivist approach to learning allows the student to build upon his or her learning

strengths and to add new knowledge and subject mastery to the student’s portfolio of

learning. Kritsonis (2007) states, “if one possesses the tools of inquiry, he is not in need

of a large store of accumulated knowledge. He is able to adapt and improvise to meet the

needs of particular situations and is less dependent upon the results of others” (p. 728).

108

Disciplined inquiry is important because “the overall strategy of inquiry in the several

realms does not change at all. The respective logics of language, science, art, personal

understanding, morals, and the synoptic disciplines remain constant” (Kritsonis, 2007, p.

729). According to Kritsonis (2007) and the ROM curriculum model, “good

teaching . . . lies in a program of guided rediscovery, in which the student discovers for

himself what others before him have found out” (p. 735). Likewise, the CSCOPETM

model embodies the idea of student reflection and inquiry in the process of student

learning and academic achievement. In both models, “students will make sense of

complex ideas by thinking deeply, weighing alternatives, justifying their thinking

process, and making connections with prior learning and experiences” (TESCCC, 2008,

p.6). Kritsonis states that “methods of inquiry are relevant to the methods of teaching

that discipline” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 812). In the CSCOPETM model, consistent with the

philosophical basis and foundational principles of the ROM curriculum model, “students

construct meaning through disciplined inquiry” (TESCCC, 2008, p. 10). This basic

philosophical premise of inquiry relevance is directly and effectively utilized in both the

CSCOPETM model and the ROM curriculum philosophy.

The CSCOPETM model effectively bundles learning segments in bundles of

related and inter-related material. This organization of the curriculum provides access to

a wide array of subject matter and inter-disciplinarian methods of student inquiry. This

organization of subject matter “presupposes a belief that the goal of education is to

produce self-directed, self-aware students who are independent learners” (TESCCC,

2008, p. 6). A disciplined method of inquiry leads to a thoughtful and inter-active

109

educational experience for students engaged in the learning process and helps to stimulate

and promote an active level of scholarly activity.

Comprehensive Methods of Inquiry

The organization of a curriculum is critical to the understanding and framework of

imparting knowledge and instruction. In the CSCOPETM model, curricula alignment is an

integral part of the overall curriculum design and learning process. Courses are not

taught in isolation and are logically presented throughout the student’s academic career

and academic programming. Guidelines for choosing an effective curriculum model as

presented by the ROM curriculum philosophy emphasize the importance of defining and

aligning the curriculum to make learning meaningful and curriculum presentation logical

and connected. In the CSCOPETM model the comprehensive method of inquiry is found

in the Instructional Focus Documents: “The instructional focus documents are used to

group the specified standards from the Vertical Alignment Documents into a local

sequence for instruction” (TESCCC 2008). Through alignment, a curriculum ensures

that the required and appropriate subject material is taught across both grade levels and

academic course disciplines. In the ROM curriculum philosophy knowledge is

”bundled” in categories represented by the realms and include six classifications of

learning which include symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics.

Inspiration, Participation, and Imagination

Inspiration, participation, and imagination are three critical components for active

student learning, involvement, and academic engagement. The ROM curriculum model

mirrors these proponents of inspiration, participation, and imaginations. Students must

be able to see meaning and purpose in their educational studies. Kritsonis (2007)

110

ascertains “if a student has no interest in the curriculum, he will not want to learn” (p.

813). According to the ROM curriculum model, “materials for instruction should always

be selected that appeal to the imagination of the students” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 813).

Imagination and creativity are important elements of the ROM curriculum model in that

“distinctive human qualities of mind and spirit are the clue to human motivation”

(Kritsonis, p. 813). CSCOPETM actively prescribes to the importance of inspiration,

participation, and imagination in the curriculum. By teaching to the active imagination

and inquisitive nature of a diverse population of student learners, the curriculum is better

able to meet and reach diverse populations who work at different levels of academic

understanding, have various degrees of intelligence, and have unique and varied learning

styles. Teachers are encouraged in both the ROM curriculum philosophy and the

CSCOPETM model to adhere to high rigorous standards but are also given the freedom to

present the material in a manner conducive to the teacher’s own unique teaching style and

mode of classroom academic presentation preference in the classroom. In the CSCOPETM

model as well as the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy “the curriculum

destination is non-negotiable since we are legally bound as educators to implement the

state standards. However, the actual journey that teachers plan with their students may

look quite different in that it will be responsive to differing student interests and abilities”

(TESCCC, 2008, p. 8). This is how the needs of the individual student are met in that the

opportunity for curriculum differentiation allows individualization of lesson plans and

curriculum implementation. Teacher creativity can also be inserted into the curriculum to

enhance a student’s overall opportunity for learning and academic success in the

classroom.

111

Curriculum and Socializations

The Realms of Meaning model “is itself inherently social. Meanings are

relational. Meanings are shared” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 21). The CSCOPETM model also

provides for social interaction and participation by all educational leaders who participate

in the facilitation and implementation of a district’s curriculum. In the CSCOPETM

model, “administrators and teachers are supported with sustained, intensive staff

development to ensure systemic change district wide” (TESCCC 2008). From the

adolescent learner’s perspective, “students reveal their understanding most effectively

when they are provided with complex, authentic opportunities to explain, interpret, apply,

shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess” (TESCCC 2008). This synnoetic

perspective supports and encourages interaction. The CSCOPETM curriculum model is

built around a communication model that involves district/system curriculum leaders,

campus curriculum leaders, and teacher communication and social interaction in order to

commuhnicate and develop the CSCOPETM model in the individual student’s life, thereby

providing the opportunity for increased academic growth and change.

State Requirements, CSCOPETM, and the Realms

In the CSCOPETM model the curriculum philosophy is designed to articulate

guidelines and specific core subject areas must be included in the state curriculum.

Theses subject areas (aligned with the ROM curriculum model) are designated as

follows: English language arts (symbolics and esthetics), mathematics (symbolics),

science (empirics), and social studies (synoptics). These core courses are the basis of all

educational programs for students who attend Texas public schools. The enrichment

curriculum provided by the TEKS matrix for learning include fine arts (esthetics), health

112

(empirics and synnoetics), languages other than English (symbolics), and technology

applications (symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, synoptics).

The CSCOPETM 5 E Model and the ROM Curriculum Model

The CSCOPETM curriculum model and the ROM model both encourage and

support inspiration, participation, and imagination in the curriculum. Both curriculums

have embodied a curriculum philosophy parallel and consistent with the 5E instructional

model. The 5E model consists of the framework embodied in the words engage, explore,

explain, elaboration, and evaluate.

This framework is consistent with both the CSCOPETM and ROM curriculum

philosophies and structure allowing both curriculum philosophies to facilitate student

learning through acrimonious symbolic, esthetic, and synoptic features of learning.

Principle One: Engage

A fundamental principle of the CSCOPETM model is that all students be engaged

and active in the curriculum. Engagement can take many forms. Through speech,

written communication, conversations, and participatory involvement in the classroom,

engagement plays a crucial role in the student’s learning process. In the ROM model, the

symbolics realm helps to define the structure for engagement and meaning in the

classroom. Language and communication contain “meanings, ideation, or the mental

power to form ideas” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 113), thereby allowing the student to become

actively involved in the educational process.

When students are active participants in their learning environments, learning

becomes more practical and productive. The practical intellect encourages active

participation (engagement) while the theoretical allows for knowledge of theory and

113

foundational knowledge: “Aristotle made a useful distinction between the theoretical or

speculative intellect belonging to mathematics, science, and philosophy and the practical

intellect belonging to art and morals” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 278). This distinction

encourages and allows for integration and inter-relationships between the curriculums as

justified and proposed by both the CSCOPETM curriculum philosophy and the ROM

curriculum philosophy.

Principle 2: Explore

The second principle of the CSCOPETM curriculum philosophy is the curriculum

mandate to explore. Encouraging students to seek out answers, explore solutions, and

predict outcomes is synonymous with the empirics realm of meaning. This realm of

meaning “includes the sciences of the physical world of living things, and of man. These

sciences provide factual descriptions, generalizations and theoretical formulations and

explanations that are based upon observation and experimentation in the world of matter,

life, mind, and society” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12). It is in the empirics realm that students

learn to explore the unknown and seek answers outside of the realm of the known to

empower and strengthen creative and constructive thinking conducive to a more rigorous

and demanding curriculum.

Principle 3: Explain

When educators are able to take the curriculum and present the material in a

format that meets the needs of the learner, then the explanation and strategy for learning

is an integral part of the total student learning experience: “Evidence of student

understanding is revealed when students apply (transfer) knowledge in authentic

contexts” (TESCCC 2008). In dealing with curriculum development and

114

implementation, the teacher is one of the primary conduits for instruction and learning.

The ability to communicate and explain is of the utmost importance in the classroom

setting and environment.

A fundamental grasp of the symbolics realm helps to build strong academic

foundations and allows teachers to use mental images and hands-on activities to enhance

student learning. Teachers must be able to utilize intellectual communication strategies

in order to fully present the subject matter being taught in the classroom. Through

thorough and effective explanation strategies in the classroom, students can grasp a more

intricate and complex meaning of the curriculum.

Explanations for educational ideals and concepts can be provided in various

scenarios and contexts: “Some language and mathematics should be learned as such in

their own domains in order to gain insight into the distinctive qualities of symbolics as a

kind of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 595). In contrast, “some symbolic forms should

also be learned in connection with other types of inquiry, in order to make evident how

symbolism functions in the various other realms of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 595).

The realm of symbolics is foundational to student learning and thus forms the

foundational basis for all student learning and understanding.

Principle Four: Elaboration

The fourth principle of the CSCOPETM curriculum philosophy that is parallel to

the ROM curriculum model is the principle of elaboration. By learning to elaborate on

the important aspects of the curriculum, students master basic concepts and move on to

higher constructs of learning through the ability to elaborate, explain and connect

learning to other areas of disciplined inquiry and subject mastery. The ROM model

115

emphasizes an integrated curriculum which allows and supports the principle of

elaboration in the curriculum. Each of the six realms supports the philosophy of

elaboration and can be detailed in the realm’s six fundamental patterns of meaning.

Principle Five: Evaluate

The fifth principle of the CSCOPETM model reflective in the ROM curriculum

philosophy is the principle of evaluation. Evaluation is reflective in the synoptic realm in

that meanings in the synoptics realm are “comprehensively integrative” (Kritsonis, 2007,

p. 1). In the synoptics realm learning takes place through “analytic clarification,

evaluation, and synthetic coordination of all the other realms through a reflective

conceptual interpretation of all kinds of possible kinds of meaning in their distinctiveness

and in their interrelationships” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13). In the study of mathematics,

“mathematical understanding consists in comprehending the method of complete logical

abstraction and of drawing necessary conclusions from basic formal premises” (Kritsonis,

p. 132). The synnoetics realm is also prevalent in the evaluation process of the

CSCOPETM and ROM curriculum models. A student’s understanding is revealed “most

effectively when they are provided with complex, authentic opportunities to explain,

interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess” (TESCCC 2008).

Curriculum Alignment: CSCOPETM and the ROM Curriculum Model

CSCOPETM is designed with both vertical and horizontal curriculum components.

Each lesson builds upon a constructivist theory and builds on established representative

curriculum components allowing a smooth transition form year to year in the given

subject matter. CSCOPETM has an allotted time period for each segment of instruction,

yet allows for flexibility in the curriculum design to account for slow learners or for

116

students who have not mastered content in a previous year. The ROM model mirrors and

reflects the philosophy that the curriculum should be developed and modeled in a fashion

that seeks to meet the individualized needs of learners. The ROM curriculum

philosophy, as well as the CSCOPETM curriculum model emphasizes the uniqueness of

the learner and the need to address learning inconsistencies and ensure that mastery of the

content is achieved.

According to the ROM curriculum model “human nature itself supplies the clue to

the minimal scope of the curriculum” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 554). The CSCOPETM model

has built into its curriculum framework a facet for instruction that allows the flexibility to

help the at-risk or behind student learner. Meeting the needs of the diverse learner is

advocated both in the ROM curriculum model and the CSCOPETM curriculum model.

Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

The ROM model also predisposes a vertical alignment strategy within its

curriculum founded upon the student’s ability and readiness to learn. Although a student

may have been promoted to a certain grade level, this does not mean that the student has

mastered previous concepts and is ready to move ahead in the learning process.

In the ROM model of instruction lessons are arranged in accordance to the

learning style, age, and category of the student: “Appropriate lessons in the realm of

personal relations vary according to the stage in life . . . .Teaching should be planned so

as to take account of the particular tasks confronting the person at the stage in life in

which he is living” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 623). The CSCOPETM model also reflects the

ROM philosophy of responsive teaching and incorporates into the curriculum that a

117

student’s “incomplete understandings, false beliefs, and misconceptions may be barriers

to their successful mastery on new and more complex ideas and content”

(TESCCC 2008). The ROM model highlights the fact that “the educator needs to

understand the sources of failure at any stage in the light of possible failures of

achievement at earlier stages” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 622). The educator must also “be

prepared to make available such remedial reeducation as may be necessary to share up

the weak foundations” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 622). Good teaching requires that some

convincing patterns be used to coordinate the materials taught” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 743).

This alignment philosophy is physically realized in the CSCOPETM curriculum model

where vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment structures have been developed.

Within the CSCOPETM curriculum and the ROM model there are component lines

of instruction focused on horizontal alignment in the curriculum. Alignment decisions are

based on the premise that a student’s learning is based on the needs and challenges of

various life stages and developments. The ROM model contends that “the stages of life

are not separate and independent ways of function. They are continuous with each other,

interrelated, and overlapping” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 624). In the CSCOPETM model,

“establishing a curriculum continuum, vertical as well as horizontal, of student

performance expectations is critical . . .This ensures that the teacher understands exactly

what is to be taught and can plan effective instruction” (TESCCC 2007). In this model,

there are non-negotiable items as well as opportunities to expand learning to a higher and

more rigorous level of curriculum and curriculum intervention.

118

Related Research Studies: Best Practice Models

A related research study focusing on best practice modules illustrates how student

learning and academic achievement research has benefited the educational community.

Through research modules and studies such as the “Best Practices” model and Henning’s

curricula research on the importance of data driven decision making and teacher

leadership, educators are able to disaggregate these findings to implement more effective

learning opportunities for student academic achievement and success in the classroom.

To maximize this knowledge, educators must determine what the ideal curriculum model

is for their school and student body. According to Kritsonis (2007), “The ideal

curriculum is one in which the maximum coherence is achieved, and segmentation is

minimized” (Kritsonis, p. 593). Within this construct, utilizing a curriculum philosophy

firmly rooted in the structural framework of the realms of meaning, truly offers a

definitive curriculum outline for success that utilizes the “interrelationships of the various

kinds of meaning and the integration of meanings into the person as a whole” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 593). The integration of the curriculum allows for the development of meaning

in academic studies by facilitating the growth and formation of the complete person. The

complete person, as seen through Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

should be skilled in the use of speech, symbol, and gesture (symbolics),

factually well informed (empirics), capable of creating and appreciating

objects of esthetic significance (esthetics), endowed with a rich and

disciplined life in relation to self and others (synnoetics), able to make wise

decisions and to judge between right and wrong (ethics), and possessed of

an integral outlook (synoptics). (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15)

119

In today’s competitive society, students must be engaged in meaningful venues of

study in order to perpetuate the academic growth necessary to compete and participate in

the modern academic classroom and 21st century workplace.

Texas High School Best Practice Study

In an effort to understand the components of effective schools, leadership, and

student academic success, numerous studies have been enacted to foster an understanding

of what policies and procedures contribute to student success. The “Texas High School

Best Practice Study” was part of a larger national research study to investigate the

practices of schools that consistently outperform their peers. The Texas study looked for

the characteristics of high performing schools and compared these attributes to the

structure and performance of schools who were not achieving academically at the same

level. Through this study, best practices were identified that enhanced student

achievement in the areas of “curriculum and academic goals; instructional programs,

practices and arrangements; monitoring: compilation, analysis, and use of data and

recognition, intervention and adjustment” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 2). Four Texas high

schools were included in this study and included Katy Taylor High School, Brownsville

Lopez High School, Fredericksburg High School, and San Antonio Breckenridge High

School.

The National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA) State Best Practice

study was founded upon one primary research question: “How do higher performing

schools in the state differ from average-performing schools?” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1).

Supplemental questions were also posed, which included “How do the educational

structures differ between the two types of schools?” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1).

120

Study Goals

The study was conducted in the format of a case study: “Although the current

federal research trend favors experimental research conducted to establish causal links,

well-executed case study research serves a valuable purpose in illuminating possible

correlations and promising areas for random-trial research” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1).

The case study format allowed for the strengths and curriculum structures to be more

fully detailed and explained in regards to the factors of each significant finding in this

study.

Case Study: Significant Findings

In the “Best Practice” study, curriculum and academic goals were a prominent

part of the project’s research agenda. Significant findings in curriculum implementation

are listed below in alignment with the report from the four schools selected for the study.

Taylor High School, Katy Independent School District

At the time of this report (2003), Katy Taylor High School had an exemplary

performance rating and

received additional Performance Acknowledgements for attendance,

campus comparable improvements in math and reading, algebra end of

course exam, AP/IB Results, college admissions tests,

TAAS/TASP equivalency; and the Recommended High School

Program. (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1)

In regards to their curriculum structure, a vertical and horizontal alignment of the

curriculum was developed and implemented throughout the district. This was designed

to create a more unified and cohesive learning environment throughout the district and

121

individual school campuses. In addition, “the district curriculum uses the TEKS as a

starting point but includes higher standards to prepare students for advanced work”

(Just for Kids, 2005, p. 3). This curriculum structure was appropriate in that the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) framework provides specific itemized learning

objectives that should be mastered at each grade level in Texas schools. The third

curriculum component within the academic structure was the mandate that “what is

taught is not negotiable, but how it is taught is left up to the teachers” (Just for Kids,

2005, p. 1). This allowed teacher creativity while at the same time allowing for overall

academic cohesiveness throughout the district.

Lopez High School – Brownsville Independent School District

Another school which has shown advanced academic standing throughout the

state of Texas is Lopez High School of Brownsville ISD. Situated between the Texas and

Mexico border, the district faces many challenges that other school districts do not have

to contend with: “Nearly half of the students served by the Brownsville ISD are

identified as English language learners. This poses a significant challenge for the district,

as well as the individual schools, because many of these students have never received a

formal education and have little or no English language skills” (Just for Kids, 2005. p. 1).

Despite these challenges, the district and campus goals “are committed to the success of

every student that walks through their doors. This is reflected in their desire to provide

quality programming and in their belief that all students can learn” (Just for Kids, 2005,

p. 1). Curriculum and academic goals are foundational pillars of this high performing

school: “The district’s curriculum uses the TEKS as a starting point in order to create the

district’s graduate profile” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1). From this vantage point, the

122

district utilizes the principle of backward design in order to align, plot, and plan the

district and individual campus goals for instruction and student achievement.

In order to enhance learning opportunities, the superintendent has stressed that

curriculum documents be utilized in the classroom and used as a planning tool for

campus instruction. Curriculum documents are developed for each subject area and

realigned throughout the year to enhance instruction: “Instructional arrangements are

based on student needs and developed through the collaborative efforts of the principal,

counselors, department chairs, and the dean of instruction” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 5).

Teachers are allowed to make comments and suggestions to the documents and to address

changes in the curriculum structure that will seek to evoke positive educational change in

the student’s overall academic performance and success.

Fredericksburg High School – Fredericksburg Independent School District

Fredericksburg ISD is located in a small rural community in the Hill Country of

the central portion of Texas: “The district provides curriculum guides, built upon the

state standards, that identify what teachers should teach” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1). The

curriculum is vertically aligned to ensure a smooth transition between grade levels and

horizontally aligned “so that their instruction can build on the experiences students have

in other classes, including Advanced Placement courses” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1). The

superintendent ultimately makes the decision of the curriculum that will be used, but

input from the campus principals and classroom teachers are accepted.

Selection of instructional material is a coordinated effort between the school and

educational district leaders in the community: “The superintendent reports that the

district is ‘innovative but not experimental and that relevant research is reviewed before

123

adopting large-scale programs” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 2). Although guided as to what to

teach in the classroom is mandated, how to teach is left up to the teacher. The

superintendent reports that “the district does not require all teachers to use the same

resources, and states, ‘this is where the art of teaching comes in’ ” (Just for Kids, 2005, p.

2). This format gives teachers the freedom to utilize their own teaching styles and

pedagogical strengths to enhance classroom learning and student academic achievement

and performance.

Breckenridge High School - San Antonio Independent School District

Breckenridge High School supports student learning through a top-down

curriculum implementation program. Curriculum planning, goals, and instructional

mandates are clearly made at the central office district level: “The superintendent

facilitates ongoing grade level discussions about the scope and sequence and regularly

builds on the district nine month assessments” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1). The principal

follows the superintendent’s lead by “using testing results to ensure teachers are

following the curriculum and are aligned with the TEKS” (Just for Kids, 2005, p. 1). An

aligned curriculum allows each grade level to constructively build upon previous years

experience to support and enhance new learning that occurs in the classroom. This model

has been successful for Breckenridge and has helped the district to gain significantly in

student progress and achievement.

Significant Study Findings

Through these studies, a foundational basis and academic perspective was

obtained that added to the body of academic research and best practice studies. These

combined case studies have provided a framework and structure for curriculum design,

124

implementation, and student academic achievement in the classroom based on what has

been successful in other schools. Reviewing the concepts, philosophies, and procedures

of successful school districts such as the school listed above can aid to the understanding

of how to translate best practice teaching strategies and curriculum implementations to

other schools and districts faced with the dilemma of creating and maintaining high

performing academic schools and learning communities.

John Henney’s “Academic Research: Curricula Perceptions Research”

A second research study that focused on subject matter parallel and related to this

study was initiated by John E. Henney from the University of Northern Iowa. Henning’s

study title summarizes the nature of his research, “Academic Research: Curricula

Perceptions.” The focus of this “study was to provide a description of how a group of

teacher leaders analyzed standardized achievement test scores in order to improve

instruction” (Henney, 2006, p. 736). The methodology of this study involved selecting

teacher leaders recommended by their principals. Data collection from this study came

“from the program participants’ analyses of the Iowa Test of Basic Skill (ITBS) scores for

their school building” (Henney, 2006, p. 731). Data from the ITBS tests were correlated

among subject areas to determine the percentile of students who fell below the 40th

percentile in academic scores between various pre-determined subject areas. The data

was disaggregated and trends were analyzed in relationship to student academic

achievement and success in the study. Various academic patterns and achievement goals

were analyzed that “compared the trends of low, medium, and high performers from year

to year” (Henney, 2006, p. 735). This disaggregated data provided the impetus for

significant change by identifying the areas that needed the most attention for school

125

improvement. Educators were provided with significant data that provided guidelines for

improving student academic achievement and performance.

One significant contribution of this study was that new data and knowledge

research was added to the current body of educational literature: “Each new description

adds another model of practical application for the benefit of teachers, principals, and

professors who are interested in making principled decisions based on standardized

achievement data” (Henney, 2006, p. 736). By differentiating between what works in the

classroom and what does not, a better, more advanced curriculum formulae is able to be

developed and sustained in the classroom environment where student learning ultimately

takes place.

Conclusion

Today’s educational secondary institutions are faced with the daunting challenge

of providing a strong educational foundation and curriculum for its student body. The

various curriculum models range from single subject texts to an array of multi-

disciplinary subject areas. Roland Barthes (1915-1980) has brought to light the fact that

the discipline of learning in today’s society can most effectively be realized through an

interdisciplinary unit of study. According to Barthes, “what is new and which affects the

idea of the work comes not necessarily from the internal recasting of (disciplines), but

rather from their encounter in relation to an object which traditionally is the province of

none of them” (Barthes, (1968) From Work to Text, as rpt. in Vincent B. Lietch (2001)

The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, pp. 1457 – 61). In line with Barthes

observation that integration of learning is an important component to human

understanding and meaning, this study has focused on how an integrated and inter-related

126

curriculum philosophy based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

can affect student learning and academic achievement. Making the right decision on the

type of curriculum model used on the district and campus level classroom can ensure that

no child will be left behind in America’s progressive and dynamic public school

educational system.

Communication, investigation, understanding, and application are all important

aspects of a well-rounded and viable educational curriculum philosophy. Challenging

students to be eloquent in their learning and masterful in their ability to grasp new

concepts in line with the ROM philosophy is recounted by great, philosophical discourse

from the past. Education should teach discernment, wisdom, and give access to the

application of all knowledge and learning. Dante Alighieri believed in the beauty and

eloquence of the educational process: “I see that such eloquence is unquestionably

needed by almost everyone, for not only men, but even women and children, the extent

their nature allows, [should] strive for it” (Leitch, 2001, p. 247). Dante saw the purpose

of education accelerating past the basic lines of rote memorization and repetitive,

meaningless tasks. Indeed, his purpose in espousing the virtues of education was to

“enlighten the discernment of those who, like the blind, roam the streets thinking for the

most part that what is really behind is in front” (Leitch, 2001, p. 247). In essence, Dante

was saying that discernment and understanding are essential to the virtues of sound

knowledge and instruction.

What educational leaders prioritize will ultimately define the nature and scope of

our entire educational system. Curriculum theory, design, and implementation should be

at the forefront of all educational discourse in that the curriculum will ultimately decide

127

the level and depth of student achievement and academic success: “In the end, we will

conserve only what we love, we love only what understand, we will understand only what

we are taught” (Sengalese, 2008, quotation Moody Gardens, Galveston, TX). A firm

understanding of a curriculum philosophy, such as the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy, applied in the application of curriculum materials in the classroom can

successfully implement a viable and rigorous implementation of the curriculum:

“Knowledge can be derived from a variety of sources. Knowledge has permanent value

leading to greater meaning and greater understanding when drawn from the fundamental

disciplines as exemplified in the realms of meaning” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. ix). Curriculum

design implemented through a realms philosophy can ultimately provide the framework

for long-term and sustainable educational growth and development for all students.

128

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

At the forefront of all teaching and academic pedagogy, intuitive educators and

educational leaders have sought to answer the basic question regarding what curriculum

or knowledge base will best prepare students for overall academic success and

achievement in the classroom. To investigate the issue of curriculum selection and its

affect on the overall academic achievement of students who are taught by a particular

framework of curriculum design, a study regarding the effects of the curriculum is useful

and beneficial to the academic community. The questions to consider in regards to

methodologies, philosophies, and curriculums used in this study address the effects of

how a curriculum based on the parallel principles of the ROM curriculum philosophy and

the CSCOPETM curriculum model affect student learning.

The rationale for this study is based upon the premise that a curriculum

philosophy based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning leads to an

integrated curriculum which leads to student academic achievement. In line with the

specific goals and educational directives of any organization, any successful curriculum

model must “deepen insight into relationships, and to counteract the provincialism of

customary existence-in short, to engender a meaningful integrated outlook” (Kritsonis,

2007, p. 5). It is incumbent upon all educational leaders who oversee instruction to be

aware of how curriculum models and philosophies affect student achievement.

An impetus for accountability in the educational process further mandates the

need for a reliable and valid curriculum model to support and engender student learning

129

and academic achievement. In 2001, a state issued mandate updated the state-wide

accountability system to a new and more rigorous measuring unit for student academic

achievement and success. At its inception, the developers of this testing program stated:

The TAKSTM testing program will, by law, include a higher education

readiness component. Performance on the Grade 11 exit level

mathematics and English language arts tests will be used to

assess not only a student’s level of academic preparation for graduation

from a Texas public high school, but also the student’s readiness to enroll

in an institution of higher learning. (Texas Education Agency,

2001)

To prepare students for educational success, administrators must ensure that a curriculum

philosophy and curriculum structure chosen for utilization in the classroom is one that

offers a strong framework for student learning and academic success. While educators

must take into account accountability standards such as the TAKSTM testing program,

teaching to the test will not ensure academic success. Instead, educators must seek to

provide a curriculum structure that enables student discovery, high achievement, and

rigorous academic standards.

To understand how curriculum affects student learning and academic

achievement, this research study looked at two venues of educational delivery and the

type of schools that implement a particular curriculum model and philosophy in the

classroom. The first type of delivery is based on a curriculum philosophy that utilizes a

research based philosophy of integrated learning and increased subject matter learning

from a constructivist perspective. Utilizing the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of

130

Meaning as the guide and framework for choosing a philosophy of education conducive

to sound learning and researched based paradigms, a new curriculum model currently in

use in selected districts throughout the state was identified that builds upon similar

assumptions and philosophies inherent in the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy.

Utilizing the principles of the ROM curriculum philosophy, the relatively new

curriculum model now known as CSCOPETM, was identified as a curriculum to have

similar goals and philosophies as the ROM curriculum model. Schools in Texas that

utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum in their classrooms were thereby recognized as schools

which utilized a curriculum with similar tenets and parallel philosophies and models of

instruction as the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum

philosophy. Schools that utilize the CSCOPETM model in their classrooms were then

designated as Realms of Meaning (ROM) schools in that the curriculum philosophies,

structure, and framework of each curriculum model had significant parallel attributes of

similarities relevant to both the ROM curriculum philosophy and CSCOPETM curriculum

model. CSCOPETM schools, those schools currently utilizing the CSCOPETM model of

instruction in the classroom, were identified from a 2008 listing of schools and districts

which had purchased the CSCOPETM model for use in their districts. At the time of the

beginning of this study there were ten Educational Service Centers who were providers

and trainers of the CSCOPETM model. The number of participating Texas Educational

Service Centers has risen to twenty. For this study, a list of all school districts utilizing

the CSCOPETM was accessed by obtaining a roster of schools that had purchased the

CSCOPETM curriculum with a list provided by a Texas Educational Service Center in

April 2008. The list was provided by e-mail and included elementary, middle, and

131

secondary school campuses. From this list, the researcher identified each high school

campus in the district and then compiled a list of high school names that were members

of districts which had been identified as purchasers of the CSCOPETM curriculum model.

Once the high school list was compiled, detailed reports from the Testing/Accountability

section of the Texas Education Agency (tea.state.tx.us) website were accessed. From this

site, the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports for each school were

generated for the 2007-2008 academic school year. These reports provided in-depth

reports on a schools academic performance, statistically analyzed utilizing student

performance on the TAKSTM test as one of the major indicators as to whether or not the

districts and individual campuses within that district were meeting federal and state

standards for academic success and accountability.

The comparative group for this study involved those schools that do not adhere to

a ROM philosophy in the classroom and therefore are not utilizing the CSCOPETM

curriculum model. This secondary group is referred to as non-ROM schools and is

representative of schools in Texas who do not use the ROM curriculum model and

philosophy in the classroom. To identify the comparative group for this study, a campus

Comparable Improvement (CI) report accessed through the Academic Excellence

Indicator System (AEIS) TEA website was generated for each high school identified as a

CSCOPETM (ROM) school campus: “Comparable Improvement (CI) is a measure that

shows how student performance on the TAKSTM reading/ELA and mathematics tests at a

given school has changed (or grown) from one year to the next, and then compares that

change to that of the 40 schools that are demographically most similar to the given, or

target school” (http://tea.state.tx.us). From these lists, one school not identified as

132

utilizing the CSCOPETM model was randomly selected for each CSCOPETM school. Each

selected school from this list became a member of the comparative group for this study.

These schools were then listed and identified as non-ROM schools indicating that these

schools do not utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum model identified through the principles

outlined in the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning philosophy for choosing

a curriculum.

The Conceptual and Theoretical Framework of this Study

The conceptual and theoretical framework of this study was based on the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and what if any impact this model has on student academic

achievement based on the outcome scores of the 11th grade exit level TAKSTM test in the

areas of mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies. The Realms of

Meaning curriculum model is built on a philosophy for choosing the curriculum known

as Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. Through this philosophy a new

curriculum currently in use in various schools and districts throughout Texas was

identified as sharing many of the same principles and philosophies as the ROM

curriculum model. Utilizing extant data available through the Internet and through

published curricula information obtained by the researcher from the state director of this

curriculum model, a thorough comparison was made of the two models. Through this

model, a detail summary was presented that showed how many of the philosophies

employed by the ROM curriculum philosophy were also a part of the CSCOPETM

curriculum model. The significance of this comparison allowed the researcher to

identify the CSCOPETM curriculum model as being a parallel curriculum model that

shared significant shared philosophies in the implementation of learning and student

133

knowledge and academic achievement. Having identified a curriculum model that

employed the facets of the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning, the

researcher then designed a research study that employed the use of a ROM curriculum

philosophy as reflected in the parallel curriculum model and tested this model against

schools that utilized a curriculum model and curriculum philosophy that was not

congruent with the philosophies and paradigms of the Ways of Knowing through the

Realms of Meaning curriculum model. For the purpose of this study, the curriculum that

was found to be parallel in philosophy and structure to the ROM philosophy was called a

ROM curriculum model. School districts that utilized a curriculum that was not a ROM

curriculum model were identified as non-ROM schools.

Research Questions

This research was guided by the following quantitative and qualitative research

questions and null hypotheses.

Quantitative Research Questions

1. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

2. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group English language arts TAKSTM

scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model

and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

3. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group science TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

134

4. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall social studies TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

5. To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools?

Qualitative Research Questions

This study answered the following qualitative research questions.

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

7. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were developed in order to answer questions one

through four as listed above.

H01: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

135

H03: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group social

studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

Method of Procedure

The research design for this study employed a mixed methods quantitative and

qualitative study design. The quantitative section of this study utilized descriptive

statistics “to describe systematically the facts and characteristics of a given population or

area of interest, factually and accurately” (Isaac and Michael, 1997, p. 50). The purpose

of this study was four fold: (1) to identify schools that are Realms of Meaning schools,

(2) to discover if student achievement is impacted because of the school’s status as a

Realms of Meaning school, (3) to understand the perceptions of classroom teachers and

educational leaders on their view of the effectiveness of the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model in the classroom, and (4) to understand the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the Realms of Meaning curriculum model in the classroom.

136

Figure 3. 1The Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for this Study

________________________________________________________________________

Research Methods

Both descriptive and comparative research techniques were employed in the

explanatory design of the mixed methods study. According to Fraenkel and Wallen

(2006), in a triangulation design the researcher simultaneously collects both quantitative

and qualitative data, compares results, and then uses those finds to see whether they

validate each other (p. 443). In an explanatory design, the researcher first collects and

analyzes quantitative data, and then obtains qualitative data to follow up and refine the

quantitative findings. (p. 443). For this study a triangulation design was utilized.

The triangulation design involved a mixed method design incorporating both

descriptive and comparative research techniques The triangulation design as described

by Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) is appropriate in that “the researcher simultaneously

Non- ROM Curriculum Philosophy

CSCOPETM

Implementation

ROMCurriculum Philosophy

CSCOPETM

Implementation

Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the ROM curriculum model and schools that do not implement the ROM curriculum model?

Student

Academic

Achievement

137

collects both quantitative and qualitative data, compares results, and then uses those finds

to see whether they validate each other” (p. 443). This research investigation also utilized

a “systematic approach to (a) identifying relationships of variables representing concepts

(constructs) and/or (b) determining differences between or among groups in their

standing on one or more variables of interest” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 2). Through

systematic evaluation strategies, the researcher addressed each of the quantitative and

qualitative questions utilized for this study.

In order to understand how curriculum philosophy and research affects student

learning, the effects and perceptions of the CSCOPETM curriculum model have been

investigated in order to see what impact or influence this particular curriculum

philosophy and curricular framework has on student learning in the classroom. Contacts

with various Educational Service Centers (ESC) were also made in order to glean as

much information as possible on the similarities and philosophical attributes that the

CSCOPETM model shares with the ROM curriculum philosophy.

In addition, the researcher met with the state CSCOPETM director, made contact

with randomly selected superintendents of schools who utilize or have utilized this

model, and garnered information from teachers who utilize this curriculum model in their

classrooms. By testing CSCOPE’sTM effectiveness and vision for student academic

achievement, the researcher was also testing the validity and reliability of the ROM

curriculum philosophy.

The factor of interest in these comparisons was that the ROM schools have

significant philosophy similarities and constructs with the CSCOPETM model and

therefore, because of this shared philosophy of learning, an integrated research study was

138

enacted upon in order to analyze how curriculum, and therefore the curriculum

philosophy, can impact or potentially impact student learning.

Quantitative Data

The quantitative data for this study was generated from the online, extant data

base of the Texas Education Agency. From this website, 11th grade academic TAKSTM

school scores were generated for ROM and non-ROM schools and then analyzed to see if

there was a significant difference in the level of student academic achievement based on

p < .05.

Qualitative Data

The qualitative portion of this study was conducted through descriptive statistics

and survey research. Descriptive statistics are “statistics in which frequency distributions

or relationships between variables are described” (Sirkin, 2006, p. 591). Survey research

is “a term sometimes applied to non-experimental research based on questionnaires or

interviews” (Kritsonis, Griffith, Marshall, Herrington, Hughes & Brown, 2008, p. 141).

Utilizing the Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument (see Appendix A) and the

Teacher Demographic Profile (see Appendix E) data sheet. Emergent themes evolved

which revealed patterns and themes emerging from the various perceptions and opinions

of the participating teachers responding to this study.

Research Design

Quantitative Data

This research consisted of both independent and dependent variables: “A variable

is something that exists in more than one amount or in more than one form” (Spatz, 2001,

p. 7). This research study included two types of variables: independent and dependent.

139

An independent variable can be defined as “a variable that is presumed to cause a change

in another variable” (Kritsonis, Griffith, Marshall, Herrington, Hughes & Brown, 2007, p.

123). The independent variables for this study included the types of schools being

investigated and compared. These schools included: (1) schools that implement a

Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model and (2) schools that do not implement a

Realms of Meaning (non-ROM) curriculum model.

A dependent variable is “a variable that is presumed to be influenced by one or

more independent variables” (Kritsonis, et al., 2007, p. 118). The dependent variable in

this study constituted student academic achievement as measured by the 11th grade

mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies TAKSTM (Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) scores. Descriptive statistics were collected from

the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A) and extant data bases to

describe participating schools. The descriptive statistics included percentages about the

socio-economic status (SES), English language learners, ethnicity of students, gifted and

talented populations, and special education populations. TAKSTM scores in mathematics,

English language arts, science, and social studies were collected from extant data bases of

participating schools for the 2007-2008 school year.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the capacity CSCOPETM high

schools were functioning as ROM schools. A t-test for independent means was used to

compare the TAKSTM score means of ROM and non-ROM schools. A comparison was

made using the 2007-2008 TAKSTM data for math, English language arts, science, and

social studies.

140

Identification of the Population

In that the foundational purpose of this study was to identify schools which utilize

a curriculum model with similar curriculum philosophies as prescribed in the ROM

curriculum philosophy, schools utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model were noted as

ROM schools, while schools not utilizing a curriculum which mirrored similar

philosophical curriculum philosophies as the ROM curriculum philosophy were noted for

the purpose of this study as non-ROM schools.

To conduct this study, CSCOPETM schools – those schools which had purchased

the CSCOPETM curriculum for academic use, were identified in order to develop a

population and sample size that would reflect CSCOPE’sTM overall impact on the

curriculum. CSCOPETM school districts were identified through a list provided by one of

the Texas Educational Service Centers which kept records on the purchaser names of

participating districts. Utilizing this list, the researcher was able to ascertain the names of

high schools which were utilizing the CSCOPETM model in the classroom. These high

schools were then identified as ROM schools in that by utilizing the CSCOPETM

curriculum model in the classroom, participating high schools and districts were

implementing a curriculum with parallel, pedagogical similarities coherent and in line

with the ROM curriculum philosophy.

CSCOPETM schools in this study were identified as ROM schools with no

insinuation or claim that the two curriculum philosophies are one and the same. Schools

which did not subscribe to the CSCOPETM philosophy and curriculum in the classroom

were considered for the purposes of this study non-Realms of Meaning (non-ROM)

schools. The schools identified as CSCOPETM schools will remain confidential, but the

141

original list of schools selected for this study will remain under lock and key for an

extended period of time not to exceed three years.

The population schools utilized in this study contained a grouping of all identified

high schools who utilized the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the classroom during the

2008 school year based on a purchase list provided by one of the Educational Service

Centers (ESC) which was authorized to keep this information for the overall distribution

and record keeping of the CSCOPETM program. Utilizing criterion sampling, the subject

schools were selected from districts in Texas who taught 11th grade math, English

language arts, science, and social studies and met the criteria of being either a ROM or

non-ROM school. According to Isaac & Michael (1997) “the logic of this strategy is to

study all cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance” (p. 224). Once

schools were identified for this study, each school was placed in one of two categories.

Group one was comprised of schools that had purchased for use the CSCOPETM

curriculum model. Group two was comprised of schools which had not purchased this

curriculum model and therefore were not utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in

the classroom. Two hundred and thirty-one schools were identified as meeting the

criteria as ROM schools.

The comparison school population group was selected by criterion sampling. The

predetermined criteria for the comparison group were that these schools did not

implement the ROM curriculum model in the 11th grade math, English language arts,

science, and social studies classroom. Comparison schools were selected from the Texas

Education Agency comparable improvement list which provided a listing of 40 schools

with similar demographic characteristics which included ethnicity, socioeconomic status

142

of the campus, the percentage of limited English proficient students (LEP), and the

percentage of mobile students on each campus. Once non-ROM schools were identified,

systematic random sampling was employed to select the participating schools for group

two.

In Texas, there are twenty state wide education service centers. These service

centers provide educational training and develop various products that can be utilized

throughout various districts in the state of Texas. The CSCOPETM curriculum model

was created through a consortium of educators through selected Educational Service

Centers in the state of Texas. At the beginning of this study, ten service centers provided

access to the CSCOPETM curriculum model. Since the inception of this study the number

of districts utilizing this curriculum model has dramatically increased. However, for the

purpose of this study, schools in the original 10 district list provided to the researcher at

the inception of this study will remain the focus of discussion.

School districts that utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum model have access to the

program through a district wide purchase. Once the curriculum is purchased, the district

may use the curriculum with the support and professional back-up of trained CSCOPETM

educators in the region centers. School districts choose the level of involvement with the

CSCOPETM curriculum, making its use throughout the various schools wide-ranging and

diverse in regards to the amount and type of implementation the school district chooses to

utilize.

High schools implementing the CSCOPETM curriculum model represent the ROM

sample for this research study. Two hundred and thirty-one high schools have been

identified as being ROM schools and implementing the CSCOPETM curriculum model.

143

Two hundred and thirty-one high schools not utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model

were chosen based on random sampling, campus population size, and similar campus

demographic characteristics including ethnicity, socio-economic status, limited English

proficiency (LEP) learners, and mobility status.

Random sampling was used to identify the non-ROM participating schools for

this district. Random sampling ensures an unbiased and fair representation of the facts

and occurs when “selecting cases or subjects in such a way that all have an equal

probability of being included and the selection of one case has no influence on the

selection of any other case” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 198).

For each ROM school identified, two reports were generated from the Texas

Education Agency performance reporting section on the TEA website

(www.tea.state.tx.us). The first report was the Academic Excellence Indicator System

(AEIS) report that reported on the campus academic achievement scores for students in

the areas of mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies. The second

report generated was the Comparable Improvement (CI) chart which was accessed for

each of the 231 identified ROM schools. This report statistically listed 40 schools with

like characteristics of the selected target school which included ethnicity, socio-economic

status, limited English proficiency (LEP) learners, and mobility status of the targeted

school reported on. This list was generated and listed randomly by the school’s state

identification number. To choose which school would be included in the population and

sample size for the non-Realms school category, the researcher further identified both the

Realms and non-Realms potential school populations by district population size. This

number was generated from the AEIS report for each school under consideration. Using

144

an Excel spreadsheet, the researcher began with the first listed ROM school and then

identified the first non-Realm school from the Comparable list chart which was similar

not only in ethnicity, socio-economic status, limited English proficiency (LEP) learners,

and mobility status, but also had a similar school population.

The researcher began with the first school name on the Comparable Improvement

(CI) list and continued throughout the list until a suitable school with the comparable

attributes of ethnicity, socio-economic status, limited English proficiency (LEP) learners,

and mobility status was matched. Charter, elementary, junior high, and senior high

schools without an 11th grade campus were not included in this study.

Instrumentation

The Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A) was used to

determine the capacity CSCOPETM high schools were functioning as ROM schools. The

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument used in this study was composed of two parts:

Part A and Part B. Part A included 28 quantitative Likert type questions which focused

on the six realms of meaning in the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. Part B

included 37 quantitative Likert type questions regarding the ROM curriculum

philosophy. Likert scales were used in this section in that they helped to reveal the

attitudes and understanding of the participating teachers in reference to the curriculum

philosophy and implementation of such philosophy in their own subject and classrooms:

“Attitude scales determine what an individual believes, perceives, or feels about self or

others, activities, institutions, or situations” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 131). The

responses from this instrument ranged from zero to four with zero representing don’t

know and four as strongly agree.

145

To compare the level of academic achievement for 11th grade students in the areas

of mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies, extant data from the

TAKS 2008 testing period was utilized to gather the scores needed for this study.

Utilizing the Texas Education Agency, AEIS reports were generated for each ROM and

non-ROM school included in the population and sample size for this study. Five hundred

and twenty reports were generated representing the ROM and non-ROM school

population and sample sizes for this study. TAKSTM scores for each school were entered

in an Excel spreadsheet for the subject areas of mathematics, English language arts,

science, and social studies. The reliability and validity of utilizing the TAKSTM scores as

a measurement for academic achievement was researched and validated through

information located from the Texas Education Agency website and presented as evidence

for the reliability and validity of this test for the purposes of analyzing student academic

achievement.

The TAKSTM test was developed in response to Texas Senate Bill 103 requesting

that a more rigorous and challenging test assessment be designed for students in the

Texas public school system.

Committees of Texas educators met from January to March 2000 to

review the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). For

each targeted subject area and each grade level, committee members

identified those student expectations that should be assessed in the

new statewide assessment” (Texas Education Agency (TEA), 2001, p. 92).

Specific prototype TAKSTM objectives were developed and reviewed “by test

contractors Harcourt Educational Measurement and NCS Pearson” (TEA, 2001, p. 92).

146

Twenty-nine review committee meetings were held during this time period attended by

583 Texas educators.

The TAKSTM field test went through extensive data and field testing scrutiny. In

all subject and grade level areas tested, “approximately 2 million TAKSTM field-test

booklets, including 407 district field-test forms, were distributed to districts and

campuses around the state” (TEA, 2001, p. 93). The field testing booklets for the core

subject areas were distributed and administered between April 22, 2002 through May 10,

2002. The total number for statewide field tested exit level tests sent out by the Texas

Education Agency for field testing and data review included:

Grade 11 English Language Arts - 5,532

Grade 11 Mathematics – 40,251

Grade 11 Social Studies – 40,414

Grade 11 Science – 39,198

During the field-test administration window, a survey was distributed to a

small sample of teachers to determine approximately how long it

took students to complete the field tests. The survey also asked for

student and teacher comments about the testing process and test

administration procedures. (TEA, 2001, p. 93)

TAKSTM performance on Grade 11 exit level mathematics and English Language

Arts tests was also used by law “to assess not only a student’s level of academic

preparation for graduation from a Texas public high school but also the student’s

readiness to enroll in an institution of higher education” (TEA, 2001, p. 96).

147

Pilot Study

Three expert witnesses were asked to test the psychometric properties of the

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument. These witnesses were educational leaders

who are experienced and knowledgeable in the attributes of curriculum, curriculum

implementation, and the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy. Through a thorough review of the Teacher Curricula Perceptions

Instrument, the expert witnesses were able to asses the reliability and validity of this

instrument for the purposes and relationships identified and needed to expedite this study.

The state of Texas has already established the reliability and validity of the

TAKSTM test given to 11th grade students in the state of Texas in the subject areas of

mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies. By aligning the TAKSTM

test with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), a determination was made as

to the validity and reliability of the test. In this case, “construct validity is evaluated by

investigating what qualities a test measures” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 128). A pilot test

or further investigation into the reliability and validity of the TAKSTM assessment test

was not needed.

Research Procedures

The researcher began with the premise that the philosophy of the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy could enhance student

learning and academic achievement. To test this theory, the researcher began

investigating curriculum models that reflected and modeled similar principals of

instruction and curriculum philosophy as modeled in the ROM curriculum philosophy.

Through the researcher’s investigative efforts, a new and innovative curriculum model

148

was discovered that upon further investigation showed similar characteristics and

philosophical structures embedded in the curriculum. The researcher then utilized the

extant knowledge bases available through this curriculum’s internet information site and

began to make comparisons on the significant attributes and similar characteristics of

each model. The researcher further investigated the philosophies of contributors who

contributed to the development of this curriculum model. The researcher found that

similar philosophies and frameworks existed between both the CSCOPETM curriculum

model and the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. The researcher did a thorough

comparison of each curriculum philosophy utilizing information published online and

provided by the state CSCOPETM director and Kritsonis’s curriculum as addressed in the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. In addition, the researcher attended a

district informational meeting on CSCOPETM, an Educational Service Center (ESC)

CSCOPETM training meeting, and spoke with various professionals involved in the

oversight and development of the CSCOPETM curriculum model. A two hour meeting

was granted to the researcher in Austin, TX to discuss more about the CSCOPETM

program and vision with the state director. From these investigative procedures, the

researcher determined that the ROM curriculum philosophy employed many of the

fundamental and basic principals utilized by the CSCOPETM curriculum mandates.

Utilizing this knowledge, the researcher then developed a research design that

implemented a comparison of schools that utilized a ROM philosophy as evidenced

through the curriculum structure of the CSCOPETM framework for learning.

The first procedure in this study was for the researcher to identify school districts

and schools that utilize the parallel curriculum structures of the CSCOPETM model of

149

curriculum design and the Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum philosophy. To test

how schools perform who ascertain to a ROM curriculum philosophy, identified schools

which utilized the CSCOPETM curriculum models were utilized as schools which had

manifested similar characteristics (as explained in detail in chapter 2) with the ROM

curriculum philosophy.

For the qualitative portion of this study, the researcher randomly selected twenty-

three Texas school districts currently utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model on the

11th grade level. Contact was then made with each district superintendent (see Appendix

B) in order to gain permission to contact teachers on the high school campus in order to

solicit voluntary participation in participating in this study and completing the Teacher

Curricula Perception Instrument and the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher

Response Instrument. Eleventh grade teachers on each identified campus were invited to

participate in this study.

Once permission was received from the district superintendent’s office to contact

the participating high schools, The Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument was mailed

directly to the teachers selected for participation in this study. The contents of the

mailing envelope included a cover letter (see Appendix C), the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument, Demographic Teacher Profile instrument (see Appendix D) and

a self-addressed stamped envelope which was used to return the instrument to the

researcher upon completion of the instrument by the study participant.

Extant data was then retrieved from the TEA website for non-ROM identified

schools. AEIS reports for the 11th grade mathematics, English language arts, science, and

150

social studies TAKS scores for the 2008 TAKS administration spring semester for each

identified non-ROM school were printed to be utilized in this study.

Data Collection and Recording

Two different school types were identified to conduct this study: ROM

schools and non-ROM schools. Data was collected and recorded to measure the

significance of the curriculum intervention strategies in place for ROM schools as

compared to non-ROM schools. A number was assigned to each school for anonymity

purposes and categorized by the type of curriculum model implemented. TAKSTM data

was then be extracted from the district student achievement scores on the 11th grade exit-

level mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies TAKSTM test.

Extant data bases were used to extract the student achievement scores as measured by

TAKSTM.

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) houses the TAKSTM student academic

achievement scores. These extant data bases can be found on the TEA webpage

(www.tea.state.tx.us) and are available to the public without cost or obligation.

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports for ROM and non-ROM schools

were printed. TAKSTM scores for the academic subject areas of mathematics, English

language arts, science, and social studies were entered in an Excel spreadsheet.

Upon receipt of the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument, data was recorded

in an Excel spreadsheet and then transferred to the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) software. Teachers’ names are not included in the study and have

remained anonymous.

151

Once data was entered in an Excel spread sheet, the information was then

transferred to the SPSS software version where a t test for independent means was

generated for each independent subject category.

Data Analysis

To analyze the findings, t tests for independent means were calculated to answer

research questions 1-4. The mean TAKSTM scores were compared between schools

implementing the ROM curriculum model and schools not implementing the ROM

curriculum model. A t test for independent means was computed to determine if the

difference in mean TAKSTM scores is statistically significant. Utilizing the data from the

independent t test for independent means and analysis procedure, each null hypothesis

was either accepted or rejected. A significance level of .05 (p < .05) was used to

determine whether to accept or reject the null hypotheses.

Descriptive statistics were used to answer research question five. Frequencies and

percentages were calculated to determine the capacity from Part A of the Teacher

Curricula Perceptions Instrument to determine the capacity each high school is

functioning as a ROM school. Descriptive statistics were also be used to describe the

demographic properties of each participating ROM high school.

Qualitative Data

In the qualitative portion of this study, an instrument was designed to determine to

what capacity a school was functioning as a Realms of Meaning school. In addition,

teachers were given the opportunity to participate in three open-ended questions at the

end of the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument in order to determine their

perceptions on the benefits and/or risks of implementing the Realms of Meaning

152

curricular model. The findings of this portion of the study have been reported by

analyzing the perception of the overall CSCOPETM curriculum model, which inherently

reflects a philosophical comparative view with the ROM curriculum model, through the

teacher responses from the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument, Part B. The

findings for the remaining two questions have been combined and report on the teachers

perceptions of the benefits and risks of utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the

classroom.

Qualitative Research Questions

To direct this portion of the study, qualitative research questions were developed

to address teacher response to the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum. The two qualitative

research questions were as follows:

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM

(ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

7. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum model?

Research Design

There were two qualitative variables for this study. The independent variable is

the ROM school and the dependent variable is the teacher perceptions of the benefits

and/or risks of the ROM school model. Qualitative variables “exist in different kinds

rather different amounts” (Spatz, 2001, p. 384). Qualitative variables are also nominal

which “pertains to the act of naming” (Sirkin, 2006, p. 595). By utilizing the independent

and dependent variables in this study, a comparison could be made of the overall effect of

one curriculum model over the other in relation to the time period the testing occurred.

153

This section of the study was based on descriptive statistics and emergent themes.

Descriptive statistics were appropriate for this study in that descriptive statistics are a

“division of statistics focused on describing, summarizing, or making sense of a

particular set of data” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 134) Statistics were calculated to

describe the demographics of teacher participants. Frequencies and percentages were

analyzed. Descriptive statistics were also used to determine the effectiveness of the

ROM schools curriculum model. Three open ended questions were utilized in this study

to determine the perceptions teachers have in regards to the ROM curriculum, the

benefits these teachers feel that are associated with the ROM curriculum, and the risks

these teachers feel that are associated wit the ROM model, and the risks that area

associated with the ROM model. Teachers’ responses were documented using emergent

themes and analyzed.

Subjects of the Study

There are 20 Educational Service Center districts in the state of Texas. Of these

districts, 10 districts as of April 2008 had been identified as having schools within their

districts that were implementing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in their schools.

These districts were as follows: Region 1, Region 2, Region 6, Region 7, Region 8,

Region 10, Region 13, Region 16, and Region 19, and Region 20 Educational Service

Centers (ESC).

Teacher participants from ROM curriculum model schools comprised the

population of the qualitative study. The superintendent from each school district was

contacted and sent a letter requesting permission to contact the exit-level high school

teachers on their campuses. Superintendents willing to allow their districts to voluntary

154

participate in this portion of the study returned a signed permission letter to the researcher

via fax. This letter was then copied and sent with an educator research packet directly to

the principal of each school. Teachers were then selected by the principal through

snowballing or chain sampling. “The aim of this approach is to locate key informants or

information-rich cases that zoom in on significant aspects of a study. The process begins

by asking, “Who knows a lot about ________?” One informant leads to another, until the

more knowledgeable ones are identified through repeated reference, along with the more

significant events” (Isaac & Michael, 1997, p. 224). Once teachers were identified for

the study, a total of 80 research packets were sent to potential research participants.

Instrumentation

The TAKSTM test was the qualitative information utilized for this study. For the

qualitative portion of this study, two researcher-designed instruments were utilized. The

first instrument was entitled Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response

Instrument. The Teacher Demographic Profile section of this instrument solicited

information from the teacher participants and reported on specific demographics

attributes of teachers who responded to this instrument by way of their voluntary

participation in completing the instruments utilized for this study. Questions presented in

this portion of the Demographic Teacher Profile included:

1. How many years have you been n the teaching profession?

2. What CSCOPETM curriculum subject area are you involved in?

3. How many years have you worked with the CSCOPETM curriculum model?

4. What educational degree(s) and teaching certifications do you hold in the state

of Texas?

155

The second portion of the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response

Instrument included in this instrument included three open ended questions. The

questions used in this section of the study were as follows:

1. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM

(ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

2. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits of implementing

the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

3. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the risks of implementing the

CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum model?

Data generated from the Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument Part A was

utilized to formulate conclusions for research question five. Emergent themes were also

developed from the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument to

complete the analysis and data collection and reporting of this question.

The title of the second instrument that was used in this study is the Teacher

Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A) and was comprised of two sections.

Part A included 28 Likert type statements. The response statements were developed

directly from the text of the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy in order to generate exact representations of the ROM curriculum philosophy

in the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument. In Likert scales, as utilized in this

portion of the study, participants respond to a series of statements and indicate to what

level they agree or disagree with the statement presented. A Likert type instrument

labeled from 1 to 4 will be used with 0 being don’t know, 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree,

3 agree, and 4 strongly agree.

156

Part B was utilized to answer question six of the qualitative section of the Teacher

Curricula Perceptions Instrument. There were 37 response statements generated for this

portion of the test. The response statements were developed directly from the text of the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy in order to

generate exact representations of the ROM curriculum philosophy in the Teacher

Curricula Perceptions Instrument. This instrument targeted the teacher population and

was used to gain information regarding the perceptions of teachers who utilize the

CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum model in their classrooms to glean their thoughts and

perceptions of using the CSCOPETM model in their classrooms.

The responses from this instrument will remain under lock and key for no less

than seven years from the time the initial instrument was implemented for this study. The

informed consent for this study from the Institution Review Board (IRB) will also be

protected and stored under the same guidelines as listed above for the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument.

The first instrument utilized in this study was the Teacher Curricula Perceptions

Instrument (see Appendix A). The Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument was

distributed to participating teachers and was organized into two sections. Part A (the

quantitative section) included 28 Likert type questions. Part B had 40 Likert type

questions. The responses to these questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics

including frequencies and percentages.

To further expand this study. a qualitative instrument was used entitled

Demographic Teacher Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E)

From the Demographic Teacher Profile (see appendix E) demographic information was

157

collected on each teacher participating in the study. Demographic information included

the participating teacher’s school, district, and grade level taught. In addition,

information was gathered that detailed how long a teacher had taught in the public school

system, what grades and subjects were taught, and what subject in the current CSCOPETM

curriculum was or had been taught in the classroom. Descriptive statistics were

calculated from the responses and displayed in table format. From the Teacher Response

Instrument (see Appendix E), teacher responses to the open-ended response items were

recorded and triangulated to determine major themes and outcomes of this portion of the

research examination.

Pilot Studies

A pilot study was not conducted to determine the reliability and validity on the

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument and Demographic Teacher Profile and

Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E). Three expert witnesses were utilized to

determine the validity and reliability of the instruments utilized in this study. Changes

were made to the instruments based on the feedback of the expert witnesses.

Validity and Reliability

The reliability and validity of the qualitative portion of the test was verified by

expert witnesses. Expert witnesses who were familiar with the Ways of Knowing through

the Realms of Meaning reviewed the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see

Appendix A) and the Demographic Teacher Profile and Teacher Response Instrument

(see Appendix E) to judge the reliability and validity of these two instruments.

Reliability refers to the “consistency or stability” (Kritsonis et al., 2008, p. 136).

Validity of the instruments was validated by the expert witnesses to ensure “a judgment

158

of the appropriateness of the interpretation, inferences, and actions made on the basis of a

test score or scores” (Kritsonis et al., 2008, p. 144). Through these instruments the

degree to which a student was performing as a ROM curriculum model school was

determined as well as the teachers perception of utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum

model in the classroom.

Procedures

Once the participating school districts were chosen, the superintendents of each

district were contacted to enlist support and participation for the study (see Appendix B).

The superintendent of each qualified, participating district was contacted by letter in

order to gain permission to send the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument to

teachers in his or her district. Three superintendents denied the researcher permission to

continue with this study, 20 districts gave permission for the researcher to continue her

study. Once permission was received from the superintendent, the researcher prepared 11

x 13 research packets to each district randomly chosen for this section of the study.

Included in the larger envelope was a letter to the secondary campus principal (see

Appendix C) and a copy of the signed permission letter from the district superintendent

giving permission for this study to be conducted. Four smaller envelopes were then

added to this packet which included an invitation to the core subject area 11th grade

teachers on each campus who had experience in the use and implementation of the

CSCOPETM curriculum model in their classroom. Each teacher research packet included

a letter of invitation (see Appendix D), a copy of the Teacher Curricula Perception

Instrument (see Appendix A), and a copy of the Demographic Teacher Profile and

Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E). A follow-up letter was sent to all school

159

participants which included the opportunity for those teachers who had not responded to

the instruments previously provided to complete the instruments (see Appendix F). A

Certificate of Appreciation (see Appendix G) was also included in each packet as a

thank-you from the researcher for the participant’s voluntary participation in this study.

The teacher research packets were mailed via the U.S. postal service. A self-addressed,

pre-stamped envelope was included in each teacher research packet to facilitate the

teacher’s ability to return the instruments to the researcher in a timely manner. As

responses were returned, they were coded for date of receipt and data was entered into an

Excel spreadsheet. Once the instruments were received, the process of analyzing and

coding the information will begin. After recording the information provided by the

Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument and the Demographic Teacher Profile and

Teacher Response Instrument the researcher then began the data analysis portion of this

study.

Data Collection and Recording

Identified teachers were assigned a number to ensure confidentiality. The study

instruments including the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A),

the Demographic Teacher Profile and the Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix

E) were mailed to the participating teachers at each school. After the teachers completed

the instruments they were instructed in writing to return the instrument in a self-

addressed envelope which was included in the instrument packet.

Upon receiving the returned instruments, demographic data was entered into an

Excel spreadsheet. Data gathered from the open-ended questions were first generated in

a Microsoft word document that included a listing of all open-ended responses received

160

from teacher participants. These responses were coded for emerging themes. Emerging

themes were developed utilizing the themes and philosophies embedded within the ROM

curriculum framework.

Data from Part A and B, reported in an Excel spreadsheet, were transferred to a

second spreadsheet created in the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)

statistical software package. Results were recorded and analyzed in reference to the

emergent themes as developed and reported through the teacher response portion of the

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A). Data from the

Demographic Teacher Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E) was

recorded in a Microsoft word document. Mean averages were recorded for number of

years the participant has in teaching and in utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum in the

classroom. Individual responses to the three open-ended questions on the Demographic

Teacher Profile and Teacher Response Instrument were entered in a Microsoft office

document. From these responses emergent themes were developed on teachers

perceptions of utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum in the classroom and their perceptions

of the benefits and risks of utilizing the CSCOPE TM curriculum model in the classroom.

This information was organized and saved in a dissertation project file on my computer to

be used at the appropriate time in the study.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and emergent themes. Data from

the quantitative section and qualitative section was triangulated to validate results. The

data collection method in this study was based on Part A and B of the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A). Frequencies and percentages were analyzed

161

based on the teacher’s response to each of the 65 questions posed on the researcher

developed Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument. (see Appendix A). A spreadsheet

was initiated in order to record the responses and information generated from this portion

of the study. Utilizing this format, open-ended responses were categorized and analyzed

using emergent themes. Emergent themes were determined from the open-ended

questions taken directly from the instrument. Emergent themes are those main ideas and

repeated scenarios that link the teacher’s perceptions to general conclusions and

applicable theory. Once the instruments were reviewed, frequencies and percentages of

the emergent themes were calculated and then reported in narrative style.

Demographic statistic information was then collected on each teacher participant

utilizing the Demographic Teacher Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see

Appendix E) created by the researcher. Demographic information included subject

taught, total years teaching experience, years teaching this subject, and degree or degrees

held. Descriptive statistics were analyzed based on the responses from the teacher

participants from the ROM curriculum model. A spreadsheet was initiated in order to

record the responses and information generated from this portion of the study.

The results from the qualitative portion were triangulated with results from the

qualitative portion of this study for validation. Triangulation methods were important to

this study and were defined as the procedure in which “the use of multiple methods, data

collection strategies, and/or data sources to get a more complete picture and to cross-

check information” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p.593). Once triangulated, the results were

recorded and reported as data for the final dissertation findings and conclusion section of

this study.

162

Summary

Chapter III has included a detailed summary and explanation of the methodology

and procedures proposed to carry out this study. Detailed explanations of the research

design and methods have been outlined. Descriptions of the study including population

and sample have also been included. Instruments, both quantitative and qualitative, have

been explained in detail including information regarding the reliability and validity of

each study instrument included in this study. A thorough explanation about procedures,

data collection, and data analysis have also been included in order to fully explain the

nature, scope, and testing procedures for this study.

163

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The curriculum plays a major role in student success. Understanding the effect of

a particular curriculum model and the philosophy underlying its inception is of critical

importance to the educational community and is therefore is an integral component of the

overall plan and mission of educating our nation’s youth. In this study four objectives

were outlined for consideration: (1) to identify schools that are Realms of Meaning

schools, (2) to discover if student achievement is impacted because of the school’s status

as a Realms of Meaning school, (3) to understand the perceptions of classroom teachers

and educational leaders on their view of the effectiveness of the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model in the classroom, and (4) to understand the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the Realms of Meaning curriculum model in the classroom.

Within this chapter, the findings of the qualitative and quantitative portion of this

study have been reported. In the quantitative portion of this study, the data analyses of

the differences in academic achievement between schools that utilize a ROM curriculum

model in relationship to schools that do not use a ROM curriculum model based on the

2008 high school TAKSTM scores of 11th grade math, English language arts, science, and

social studies in these population groups have been reported. Extant data was accessed

from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website (tea.state.tx.us) for each identified

ROM and non-ROM schools from school scores of academic achievement. Eleventh

grade Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKSTM) results were generated for

both the ROM and non-ROM schools for the 2008 TAKSTM administration in math,

English language arts, science, and social studies. A t-test for independent means was

164

generated to determine if there were significant differences between schools that utilize a

ROM curriculum philosophy in the classroom and schools that do not utilize a ROM

curriculum philosophy (non-ROM) in the classroom.

To support the qualitative portion of this study, two instruments were developed

by the researcher to investigate the perceptions of teachers who actually utilize the ROM

curriculum model in the classroom. The qualitative data were collected from teachers

who utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum in the classroom based on their completion of the

Teacher Demographic Profile (see Appendix A) and Teacher Response Instrument and

the Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument (see Appendix E). In the qualitative

portion of this study the perceptions of teachers who utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum

model in 11th grade classrooms were analyzed based on emergent themes and reported in

this section. Teachers specifically responded to the following questions:

(1) What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

(2) What are the benefits of using CSCOPETM curriculum in the classroom?

(3) What are the risks of using the CSCOPETM curriculum in the classroom?

The emergent themes were determined from the responses to these three questions by

voluntary teacher respondents who utilize the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the

classroom. The percentages were based on the total number of respondents; the totals

may have varied in that some responses may have included more than one theme or

respondents may have refrained from answering a particular question.

The qualitative portion of this study also analyzed demographic information

collected from the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see

165

Appendix E) from each randomly selected teacher participants who utilize the ROM

curriculum in their high school classrooms. There were 84 teacher research packets sent

to potential participants in the qualitative portion of this study who were invited to

respond to the Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument and the Teacher Demographic

Profile and Teacher Response Instrument. Thirty teachers responded for a 37.5 % rate

of return. Two teachers were disqualified from participating in this study to the fact that

they indicated that they had never taught utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in

the classroom. Teachers who agreed to participate in this study, mailed back their

completed responses to the Teacher Curricula Perception Instrument and the Teacher

Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument.

Demographic information was collected from each respondent on the Teacher

Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument. Teachers responded to this

section of the instrument by answering the following questions: (1) How many years

have you been in the teaching profession; (2) What CSCOPETM curriculum subject area

are you involved in?; (3) How many years have you worked with the CSCOPETM

curriculum model? ; and (4) What educational degree(s) and teaching certifications do

you hold in the state of Texas? Findings for each of these responses were tabulated and

reported in the significant findings section of this study.

Research Questions

This research has been guided by the following quantitative and qualitative

research questions and null hypotheses:

166

Quantitative Research Questions

1. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

2. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group English language arts TAKSTM

scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model

and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

3. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group science TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

4. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall social studies TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

5. To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools?

167

Qualitative Research Questions

This study answered the following qualitative research questions.

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

7. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were developed in order to answer questions one

through four as listed above.

H01: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H03: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group social

studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

168

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

Findings

Based on TAKSTM reports generated from the Texas Education Agency, 231

TAKSTM reports were generated from the TEA website representing the public high

schools that utilized the CSCOPETM curriculum model/ROM philosophy in the classroom

during the 2008 TAKS administration. A second group of 231 TAKSTM reports were

generated representing 11th grade high school campuses that did not utilize the ROM

curriculum in the classroom. The ROM schools were identified through a printed list of

CSCOPETM schools provided by one of the CSCOPETM offices based in a Texas

Educational Service Center Region which kept records on schools which had purchased

the CSCOPETM curriculum. In that the curriculum in its present form is only three years

old, the researcher was not able to access any earlier records of schools which utilized the

CSCOPETM curriculum model in the classroom.

For the qualitative portion of this study, 25 ROM schools were randomly selected

for participation. Superintendents of each school district were contacted by the

researcher in order to gain permission to contact their high school campuses for this

study. ROM school contacts were identified from an initial list of schools provided by a

CSCOPETM participating Texas Educational Service Center. The list was not in any

determinant order and therefore was already in a random order. The researcher began at

the top of the list and began making phone calls to each perspective district until 25

contacts were made. From this initial contact list, a letter to the district superintendent

(see Appendix B) was faxed to each district contacted. Superintendents were asked to

169

return the letter via fax to the researcher and indicate by checking one of the two

provided boxes if the researcher could contact their high schools in order to invited

teachers to participate in this study.

Statistical information for the quantitative portion of this study was compiled by

utilizing computer accessed extant data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in the

Academic Excellence Indicator Systems (AEIS) report, the 2008 AEIS reports for each of

the 231 identified ROM schools were accessed by the researcher and printed giving the

researcher access to reports on student academic achievement in the areas of math,

English language arts, science, and social studies. In addition, demographic information

was retrieved from this data base that provided additional information about the students

scored in the 2008 exit level TAKSTM administration. For the qualitative portion of this

study, a total of 80 research packets were sent to identified CSCOPETM potential teacher

respondents. Thirty completed research instruments packets were returned producing an

overall 37.5% rate of return. Two surveys were eliminated due to the respondent’s lack

of actual experience with the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the classroom.

The results from the findings of this study are reported in the following order: (1)

findings from research questions 1 – 4 which utilized descriptive statistics generated from

the t test for independent means analyzing the differences or lack of differences in 2008

11th grade TAKS scores in the subject areas of math, English language arts, science, and

social studies between ROM and non-ROM schools; (2) findings for research question 5

which were generated from teacher responses on the Teacher Demographic Profile and

Teacher Response Instrument, Part A; (3) findings for research question 6 were generated

from the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument, Part B; (4)

170

findings for research question 7 were based on teacher open –ended responses from the

Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument, Your Opinion Matters

instrument.

In addition, teacher demographic information is also reported in this section of

the study based on teacher responses on the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher

Response Instrument answering questions regarding the years respondents have been in

the teaching profession, the CSCOPETM curriculum model the respondents are involved

in, and the educational degree(s) and teaching certifications held by respondents in the

state of Texas.

Results

Research Question One

1. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

H01: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

A t test for independent means was performed to produce test results for H01. The

independent variables for this qualitative section included the Texas schools being

investigated and compared for this study. These schools included: (1) schools that

implemented a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model, and (2) schools that did not

implement a Realms of Meaning curriculum model. This group was identified in the

171

study as non-Realms of Meaning schools or non-ROM. The dependent variable was

student achievement as measured by the 11th grade mathematics 2008 TAKSTM scores in

the identified ROM and non-ROM school categories.

Data were measured at the 95% level of significance. Table 4.1 records the mean,

std. deviation, and std. error mean for group statistics for Math 2008 TAKSTM scores.

Results of the t-test on Table 4.2 shows a t of .886 that was not statistically significant (p

= .376). Therefore the null hypothesis of H01 was not rejected.

Table 4.1

Group Statistics for Math 2008 TAKS TM Scores

Subject School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Math 08 1 233 79.03 10.522 .689

2 229 78.96 11.000 .727

Table 4.2

Math t-Test for Independent Means

Sig.* Mean Subject t df (2-tailed) Differences

Math 08 .078 460 .938 .078 Equal variances assumedEqual variances .078 458.25 .938 .078 assumed

*p < .05

172

Research Question Two

2. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group English language arts TAKSTM

scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model

and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

H02: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

A t-test for independent means was performed to produce test results for H02. The

independent variables for this qualitative section included the Texas schools being

investigated and compared for this study. These schools included: (1) schools that

implemented a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model, and (2) schools that did not

implement a Realms of Meaning (non-ROM) curriculum model. The dependent variable

was student achievement as measured by the 11th grade English language arts 2008

TAKSTM scores in the identified ROM and non-ROM school categories.

Data were measured at the 95% level of significance. Table 4.3 records the mean,

std. deviation, and std. error mean for group statistics for English 2008 TAKSTM scores.

Results of the t-test on Table 4.4 shows a t of .886 that was not statistically significant (p

= .376). Therefore the null hypothesis of H02 was not rejected.

173

Table 4.3

Group Statistics for ELA 2008 TAKS TM Scores

Subject School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

ELA 08 1 233 91.32 5.68 .372

2 229 90.83 6.36 .420

Table 4.4

ELA t-Test for Independent Means Sig.* Mean Subject t df (2-tailed) Differences

ELA 08 .886 460 .376 .497 Equal variances assumedEqual variances .885 452.55 .377 .497 not assumed*p < .05

Research Question Three

3. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group science TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

H03: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

174

A t test for independent means was performed to produce test results for H03. The

independent variables for this qualitative section included the Texas schools being

investigated and compared for this study. These schools included: (1) schools that

implemented a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model, and (2) schools that did not

implement a Realms of Meaning (non-ROM) curriculum model. The dependent variable

was student achievement as measured by the 11th grade science 2008 TAKSTM scores in

the identified ROM and non-ROM school categories.

Data were measured at the 95% level of significance. Table 4.5 records the mean,

std. deviation, and std. error mean for group statistics for science 2008 TAKSTM scores.

Results of the t-test on Table 4.6 shows a t of .165 that was not statistically significant (p

= .869). Therefore the null hypothesis of H03 was not rejected.

Table 4.5Group Statistics for Science 2008 TAKS TM Scores

Subject School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SCI 08 1 233 79.96 10.04 .658

2 229 80.12 10.87 .718

175

Table 4.6Science t-Test for Independent Means

Sig.*. Mean Subject . t df (2-tailed) Differences

SCI 08 .165 460 .869 -.161 Equal variances assumedEqual variances .165 455.79 .869 -.161 not assumed

*p < .05

Research Question Four

4. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall social studies TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group social

studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

A t-test for independent means was performed to produce test results for H04. The

independent variables for this qualitative section included the Texas schools being

investigated and compared for this study. These schools included: (1) schools that

implemented a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model, and (2) schools that did not

implement a Realms of Meaning curriculum model. This group was identified in the

176

study as non-Realms of Meaning schools or non-ROM. The dependent variable was

student achievement as measured by the 11th grade science 2008 TAKS scores in the

identified ROM and non-ROM school categories.

Data were measured at the 95% level of significance. Table 4.7 records the mean,

std. deviation, and std. error mean for group statistics for social studies 2008 TAKSTM

scores. Results of the t test on Table 4.8 shows a t of .384 that was not statistically

significant (p = .701). Therefore the null hypothesis of H04 was not rejected.

Table 4.7

Group Statistics for Social Studies 2008 TAKS TM Scores

Subject School Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SS 08 1 233 94.90 3.88 .254

2 229 94.74 4.74 .313

Table 4.8

Social Studies t-Test for Independent Means

Sig.* Mean Subject t df (2-tailed) Differences

SS 08 .384 460 .701 .155Equal variances assumedEqual variances .383 439.75 .702 .155 not assumed

*p < .05______________________________________________________________________________________

177

Research Question Five

5. To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools?

To answer question five, responses from the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument

were utilized. The Teacher Curricula Participations Instrument was a 16 page

instrument that included two sections: Part A, reflected a teachers understanding of the

Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model. Prior to the Likert-response section of this

the instrument, Within Part A of this instrument, teachers responded regarding their

understanding of the six realms of meaning: symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics,

ethics, and synoptics. There were five Likert style questions in the symbolics realms

section, three Likert style questions in the empirics realms section, six questions in the

esthetics realm section, two questions in the synnoetics realms section, two questions in

the ethics realms section, and ten questions in the synoptics realms section.

Each teacher participant was asked to circle the number which most closed

reflected their knowledge of the six Realms of Meaning and their knowledge of the

Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. Totals from each teacher respondent were

then analyzed to form the following conclusions.

Realm One: Symbolics

Symbolics had a total of five question statements with a total point range of

twenty points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is

functioning as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to symbolics was 425. The

possible range of scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have

178

been 0 to 600. The average score for symbolics was 14.17. This indicates that the

teachers agree that symbolics is implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning

as ROM schools.

Figure 4.1Symbolics Average Representations _____________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Agree

0 5 10 15 20 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Symbolics 0 600 425 14.17

Realm Two: Empirics

Empirics had a total of three question statements with a total point range of twelve

points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is functioning

as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to empirics was 175. The possible range of

scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have been 0 to 360.

The average score for empirics was 5.83. This indicates that the teachers disagree that

empirics is implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools.

179

Figure 4.2Empirics Average Representations ________________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Disagree

0 3 6 9 12____ Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Empirics 0 360 175 5.83

Realm Three: Esthetics

Esthetics had a total of three question statements with a total point range of twelve

points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is functioning

as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to empirics was 175. The possible range of

scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have been 0 to 360.

The average score for empirics was 5.83. This indicates that the teachers disagree that

empirics is implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools.

Figure 4.3Esthetics Average Representations _______________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Agree

0 6 12 18 24 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Esthetics 0 720 401 13.37

180

Realm Four: Synnoetics

Synnoetics had a total of two question statements with a total point range of eight

points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is functioning

as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to synnoetics was 153. The possible range of

scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have been 0 to 240.

The average score for synnoetics was 5.1. This indicates that the teachers agree that

empirics are implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools.

Figure 4.4

Synnoetics Average Representations ________________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Agree

0 2 4 6 8 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Synnoetics 0 240 153 5.1________________________________________________________________________

Realm Five: Ethics

Ethics had a total of two question statements with a total point range of eight

points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is functioning

as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to esthetics was 182. The possible range of

scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have been 0 to 240.

The average score for ethics was 6.07. This indicates that the teachers strongly agree that

ethics is a strong and important part of the curriculum.

181

Figure 4.5Ethics Average Representations ______________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Strongly Agree

0 2 4 6 8 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Ethics 0 240 182 6.07______________________________________________________________________

Realm Six: Synoptics

Synoptics had a total of ten question statements with a total point range of forty

points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the capacity the high school is functioning

as a Realms of Meaning school with respect to synnoetics was 831. The possible range of

scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have been 0 to 1200.

The average score for synoptics was 27.7. This indicates that the teachers agree that

synoptics is implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools.

Figure 4.6Synoptics Average Representations ______________________________________________________________________

Average Representation

Agree0 10 20 30 40 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Realm Possible Score Score Average

Synoptics 0 1200 831 27.7________________________________________________________________________

182

Research Question Six

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy

embodies more than just a framework knowledge of the six realms of meaning, i.e.,

symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics. A well rounded

approach to the curriculum also entails an understanding and implementation of the scope

and depth of fundamental curriculum issues which include an implantation and

knowledge of the following components for the curriculum implemented in the general

education classroom. These framework components representative of the curriculum for

general education in the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy include: (1) the logic of sequence in the studies, (2) the scope of the

curriculum, (3) the use of the disciplines, (4) representative ideas, and (5) methods of

inquiry. Teacher responses for research question six were generated from teacher

perceptions on the Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument.

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in the five combined areas of the logic of sequence in the studies, the scope of the

curriculum, the use of the disciplines, representative ideas, and methods of inquiry in the

classroom had a total of twenty-eight question statements with a total point range of

3360. The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in the five combined areas listed above based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy was 2167. The possible range of scores based on the number of teacher

instruments received could have been 0 to 3360. The average score for the combined

183

areas of the logic of sequence in the studies, the scope of the curriculum, the use of the

disciplines, representative ideas, and methods of inquiry in the classroom was 72.23.

This indicates that the teachers agree that the combined curricula areas implemented in

the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools are integral parts of the

curriculum philosophy in the classroom. The findings show that teacher participants

agree with the overall perceptions of the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy.

Figure 4.7

Overall Perceptions of the Realms of Meaning Curriculum Philosophy in the Classroom _______________________________________________________________________

Agree

0 28 56 84 112 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average

Overall Curriculum Ideas 0 3360 2167 72.23________________________________________________________________________

Logic of Sequence Average Representations

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in regards to the logic of sequence in the classroom had a total of five question statements

with a total point range of twenty points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the logic

of sequence in the studies based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy was

429. The possible range of scores based on the number of teacher instruments received

could have been 0 to 600. The average score for synnoetics was 14.3. This indicates that

the teachers agree that the logic of sequence implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools

functioning as ROM schools is an integral part of the curriculum philosophy in the

184

classroom. As Figure 4.8 shows, participating teachers agree with the Realms philosophy

of understanding and implementing the logic of sequence into the curriculum.

Figure 4.8

Logic of Sequence Average Representation

Agree

0 5 10 15 20 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average

Logic of Sequence 0 600 425 14.17

Scope of Curriculum Average Perceptions

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in regards to the scope of curriculum in the classroom had a total of seven question

statements with a total point range of twenty-eight points. The perceptions of teachers

regarding the scope of curriculum based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy was 637. The possible range of scores based on the number of teacher

instruments received could have been 0 to 840. The average score for the scope of

curriculum was 21.3. This indicates that the teachers strongly agree that the scope of

curriculum implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools functioning as ROM schools is

an integral part of the curriculum philosophy in the classroom. Figure 4.9 indicates that

teacher participants strongly agree with the Realms philosophy in relationship to the

scope of the curriculum.

185

Figure 4.9

Scope of Curriculum Average Representation

Strongly Agree

0 7 14 21 28Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average

Scope of Curriculum 0 840 637 21.23

The Use of Disciplines

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in the use of disciplines in the classroom had a total of 15 question statements with a total

point range of 60 points. The perceptions of teachers regarding disciplines in the

curriculum based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy was 1352. The

possible range of scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have

been 0 to 1800. The average score for use of disciplines was 45.07. This indicates that

the teachers strongly agree that the logic of sequence implemented in the CSCOPETM

high schools functioning as ROM schools is an integral part of the curriculum philosophy

in the classroom.

186

Figure. 4.10

The Use of Disciplines Average Representation______________________________________________________________________

Agree

0 15 30 45 60 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average

The Use of Disciplines 0 1800 1352 45.07

Representative Ideas

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in representative ideas in the classroom had a total of five question statements with a total

point range of twenty points. The perceptions of teachers regarding the logic of sequence

in the studies based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy was 339. The

possible range of scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have

been 0 to 600. The average score for representative ideas was 12.97. This indicates that

the teachers agree that the logic of sequence implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools

functioning as ROM schools is an integral part of the curriculum philosophy in the

classroom.

187

Figure 4.11

Representative Ideas Average Representation

_____________________________________________________________________

Agree

0 5 10 15 20

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average Representative Ideas 0 600 339 12.97

Methods of Inquiry

The perceptions of teachers regarding the overall CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum

in methods of inquiry in the classroom had a total of five question statements with a total

point range of twenty points. The perceptions of teachers regarding methods of inquiry

in the studies based on the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy was 406. The

possible range of scores based on the number of teacher instruments received could have

been 0 to 600. The average score for methods of inquiry was 13.53. This indicates that

the teachers agree that methods of inquiry implemented in the CSCOPETM high schools

functioning as ROM schools is an integral part of the curriculum philosophy in the

classroom.

188

Figure 4.12

Methods of Inquiry Average Representation

________________________________________________________________________

Agree

0 5 10 15 20Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ROM Curriculum Philosophy Possible Score Score Average

Representative Ideas 0 600 406 13.53

Summary

Research questions one through four of the quantitative portion of the study

analyzed the differences or lack of differences in the academic achievement of 11th grade

high school students in the subject areas of math, English language arts, science, and

social studies. ROM and non-ROM schools were identified. TAKSTM scores from each

representative school were then listed in an excel spreadsheet. The data were then

transferred to the SPSS statistical software. A t test for independent means was generated

for each subject matter to determine if there was a significant difference in the academic

achievement of students utilizing the ROM curriculum philosophy and curriculum model

in comparison to non-ROM curriculum philosophy and curriculum model in the

classroom. In the 2008 subject areas tested in the areas of math, English language arts,

science, and social studies there was no significant difference in the academic

achievement of students utilizing the ROM philosophy and curriculum model as

compared to the non-ROM philosophy and curriculum model.

189

Research question five reported on the teachers’ responses in regards to the

evidence as to what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument their high schools were functioning as Realms of Meaning

schools?

The findings for research question five indicate that in the areas of symbolics,

esthetics, synnoetics, and synoptics teachers agreed in the importance and implementation

of these realms of meaning in the classroom, thereby indicating their classrooms and

therefore their schools were operating as ROM schools in these areas. Teachers strongly

agreed in the importance and implementation of the ethics realm in the classroom,

thereby indicating their classrooms and therefore their schools were operating as ROM

schools in the ethics realm.

Teachers however disagreed that the empirics realm of meaning was being

implemented in the classroom. Therefore, in the empirics realm, teachers disagreed that

their classrooms and therefore their schools were not operating as a ROM school in the

area of empirics.

Qualitative Research Questions

Research question six showed that teacher’s perceptions toward the ROM

curriculum philosophy were positive. Teachers agreed that the logic of sequence in the

curriculum, the scope of the curriculum, the use of disciplines, representative ideas, and

methods of inquiry were important components of the curriculum process.

In research question seven, teachers were expressive in their views about the

perceived benefits and risks of the utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the

classroom. Emergent themes regarding the benefits included the following:

190

a. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model was an

excellent resource and benefit to new teachers.

b. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model covered

the TEKS well.

c. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model was

user friendly

d. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model did

provide some resources for the classroom.

e. Teachers’ perceptions were that the alignment of the of the CSCOPETM

curriculum model provided a structure for student learning and academic

achievement.

f. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model helped

to mirror bet practice structures and ideas in the classroom.

g. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model helped

to mirror best practice structures and ideas in the classroom.

h. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model ensured

that all important subject areas were being covered in the classroom.

i. Teachers’ perceptions were that the CSCOPETM curriculum model

addresses different learning styles and needs.

Emergent themes for the risks of utilizing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the

classroom are as follows:

a. Teachers’ perceptions were that the curriculum was too narrow in focus

and scope.

191

b. Teachers’ perceptions were that there was a lack of creativity and teacher

autonomy.

c. Teachers’ perceptions were that the pacing of the curriculum did not give

enough time to teach and re-teach important concepts.

d. Teachers’ perceptions were that there were not enough activities to meet

the needs of special populations which included special education

students, limited English proficient students (LEP), and the more

accelerated needs of the gifted and talented student population.

e. Teachers’ perceptions were that the curriculum encouraged a lack of

accountability from both students and teachers utilizing this model.

f. Teachers’ perceptions were that there were gaps in the curriculum in that

they felt that not all material was covered appropriately and aligned

properly within the district.

g. Teachers’ felt that management was forcing the curriculum on them and

that if they did not measure up with the new curriculum model they would

be reprimanded or blamed for lack of student improvement and

achievement in the classroom.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to see if there was a difference in student academic

achievement in schools that utilized the ROM curriculum model in the 11th grade

classrooms in the subject areas of math, English language arts, science, and social studies

as compared to the academic achievement of 11th grade classrooms in the subject areas of

math, English language arts, science, and social studies of schools that did not implement

192

the ROM (non-ROM) curriculum philosophy in their classrooms. Results of the t-test for

independent means produced no statistically significant differences between any of the

four subject areas of math, English language arts, science, and social studies. In that the

curriculum is so new, the results of this portion of the test can be said to be inconclusive

as more research needs to be conducted to see if there are significant differences in

academic improvement in the classroom as students and teachers adjust and adapt to the

new curriculum model.

However, teachers utilizing the ROM curriculum model agreed that five realms of

meaning were important factors in the teaching philosophies of their classrooms

indicating that these teachers were operating in ROM schools (those schools

implementing the ROM in the classroom) in the realm areas of synoptics, esthetics,

synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics. Teachers disagreed that the empirics realm was

important to their teaching philosophies thereby indicating that in the empirics realms

their schools were not functioning as ROM schools.

In the implementation and philosophy of the curriculum in the areas of the logic

of sequence in the studies, the scope of the curriculum, the use of disciplines, and

representative ideas, teachers agreed that these philosophical curriculum components

were important to the curriculum philosophy and curricula implementation in the

classroom.

Michael Fullan, an important figure in the movement to address positive change

in schools, cautions all who would seek to implement change in the curriculum and to

implement a program for academic achievement and success for all students, must

realistically ascertain the real-world learning environment and the realistic model of

193

implementing a new curriculum. One component educators must look at in regards to

making significant change in the classroom and in the overall educational program of a

district is to factor in the implementation dip that research has shown can be expected

when implementing a new curriculum model. Districts must allow for time to implement

the model properly, adjust the curriculum modules as necessary for optimal student

learning, and provide sufficient training time and professional development opportunities

for teachers in the classroom to implement the new curriculum model.

194

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Chapter V includes a summary of the study, research questions, hypotheses,

methods, and findings. Conclusions are drawn from the review of the literature,

hypotheses, and the quantitative and qualitative research questions posed during the

study. Implications and recommendations for further studies are also included. The

introduction for this study is presented first and includes (1) the statement of the problem,

(2) the purpose of the study, (3) quantitative research questions, (4) qualitative research

questions, (5) null hypotheses, and (6) methodology. A summary of this research study is

then presented. Significant findings and trends are reported in this section. The third

section presents the conclusions for the study based on significant findings of this

research, educational trends, and academic research and previously published studies.

Recommendations for further study and research are also included in this chapter.

Summary of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Our country is now facing a time in our history when we do meet or exceed many

of the world’s standards for academic achievement and success: “For the first time in the

history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not

equal, will not even approach, those of their parents” (Gardner, 1983, p. 4).

Acknowledging the fact that curriculum plays a major role in student academic

achievement and that there is a need to address the foundational core and fortress of all

student learning, the issue of concern and statement of the problem that was addressed in

195

this study can be articulated as follows: Is there a difference in student academic

achievement based on the type of curriculum philosophy used in the school setting to

prepare students for learning, academic achievement, and success?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was four-fold: (1) to identify schools that are Realms of

Meaning schools, (2) to discover if student achievement is impacted because of the

school’s status as a Realms of Meaning school, (3) to understand the perceptions of

classroom teachers and educational leaders on their view of the effectiveness of the

Realms of Meaning curriculum model in the classroom, and (4) to understand the benefits

and/or risks of implementing the Realms of Meaning curriculum model in the classroom.

Research Questions

The following quantitative and qualitative research questions and null hypotheses

guided this study.

Quantitative Research Questions

1. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

2. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group English language arts TAKSTM

scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model

and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

3. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall group science TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

196

4. Is there a difference in the 11th grade overall social studies TAKSTM scores

between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model and

schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning curriculum model?

5. To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools?

Qualitative Research Questions

This study answered the following qualitative research questions.

6. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the overall CSCOPETM (ROM)

curriculum in the classroom?

7. What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of

implementing the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were developed in order to answer questions one

through four as listed above.

H01: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model.

197

H03: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group

science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference in the 11th grade overall group social

studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model.

Method of Procedure

A mixed method research design utilizing both qualitative and quantitative

research was used in this study. Quantitative research was utilized in questions 1 -5 in

order to statistically analyze the differences or lack of differences in the academic

achievement between schools that utilize the ROM curriculum philosophy and schools

that do not utilize the ROM curriculum philosophy. The qualitative portion of this study

was based on two researcher developed instruments that analyzed the perceptions of

teachers in regards to their usage of the CSCOPETM curriculum model and their

knowledge of the ROM curriculum philosophy and its importance to the application of

classroom principles and educational philosophies.

198

Quantitative Methods

Utilizing the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum

philosophy, a parallel curriculum model was identified that utilized the Realms

philosophy and parallel curriculum principles in the classroom. Once identified, a list

was obtained of schools that had purchased this curriculum model and were listed has

having the curriculum in spring 2008. This information was obtained directly from an

Educational Service Center representative who had compiled this state-wide list of

schools which had purchased the curriculum model which had been identified as having

parallel philosophies and learning attributes of the ROM curriculum philosophy. From

this list, high schools were identified that utilized the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the

classroom. Because this study is based on the philosophy of the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model, the similarities of curriculum philosophy and design were utilized to

ascertain that the attributes of the CSCOPETM and the Realms of Meaning curriculum

philosophy shared significant academic attributes. Once determined that there were

unique similarities and parallel philosophies in both the CSCOPETM and the ROM

curriculum model, schools utilizing the CSCOPETM schools were designated as schools

which utilized a similar curriculum philosophy as ROM schools indicating the parallel

philosophies and curriculum ideas embodied in both designs.

A comparative list of schools that did not utilize the CSCOPETM model was

generated from a Comparative Improvement school list from the Texas Education

Agency (tea.state.tx.us) which provided the names of schools with similar demographic

characteristics as the CSCOPETM schools list. A total of 231 high schools in the state of

Texas that utilized the Realms of Meaning curriculum model were identified. Another

199

231 schools were randomly selected to include the non-ROM school population. The

academic achievement levels of 462 schools were reviewed for this study in both ROM

and non-ROM high schools.

For each of the 462 high schools, Academic Indicator Excellence Reports were

generated individually for each school. The 2008 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills (TAKSTM) reports were then printed out for 11th grade exit level TAKSTM scores for

exit-level math, English language arts, science, and social studies. The scores for both

the ROM and non-ROM in these subject areas were then recorded in an Excel spreadsheet

and then transferred to an SPSS software file. Once entered, descriptive statistics were

performed to generate data that fully described the participants of this study in regards to

race, ethnicity, and special population status. A t-test for independent means was then

generated utilizing the statistical data provided generated from the student TAKSTM

scores from the 2008 TAKS TM test administration in math, English language arts,

science, and social studies. Using a significance factor of .05, test scores were utilized to

see if there was a difference in academic achievement for schools that utilized the ROM

curriculum model and schools that did not use this model.

Qualitative Methods

Classroom teachers utilizing the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum model in the

classroom were randomly selected to participate in this portion of the study through the

process of systematic random sampling. Utilizing the list of schools previously identified

as ROM schools, the researcher began with the first listing of the school names and began

the procedure of gaining permission for sending out the teacher instruments to qualified

ROM schools: “Systematic sampling is not used very often, but it is appropriate in

200

certain situations” (Gay and Airasian, 200, p. 110). In this study, systematic sampling

was appropriate in that the population list provided through the Texas Education Agency

online (TEA.state.tx.us), in the form of the AEIS Comparable School Progress report was

already presented in a random listing order. Twenty seven school districts were

randomly selected for participation in this portion of the study. Direct contact was made

by phone with the administrative offices of 28 potential participating districts in order to

speak with the superintendent or another administrator in regards to gaining permission to

contact participating teachers for this study. The researcher personally visited six

administrative offices in the potential participating districts in order to further explain the

study and to gain approval to send a research packet to potential teacher participants in

their districts. From this number, six school districts denied participation. One district

was excluded in that the school district name, although included on the list, was not a

CSCOPETM school. Two districts declined approval from the study and indicated so by

checking “No, I do not give permission for the 11th grade core discipline teachers to be

invited to be a part of this study” on the initial request letter sent to superintendents of

potential research study districts (see Appendix B). No explanation was given as for the

reason for their denial. Four other schools responded verbally and gave reasons for their

decision not to allow the researcher to invited 11th grade core discipline teacher to

participate in the qualitative portion of this study. A far west school district curriculum

director indicated that at this time not all teachers were on board with the CSCOPETM

model, therefore she believed that giving permission for participation at this time would

not be appropriate at this time. Two rural school superintendents declined with

comments. The first superintendent stated that although they had purchased the

201

CSCOPETM program, they had not fully implemented the program at this time. He

further stated that they were pleased with the program, but wanted to give their teachers

an opportunity to be thoroughly trained before the curriculum was implemented. The

second rural school district superintendent simply declined stating that they had decided

not to continue to use the curriculum due to the rigorous requirements of implementing

the program. One school district declined from the program in that they were no longer

utilizing the CSCOPETM model and had chosen another curriculum model for use in their

district. Based on the researcher’s ability to gain permission to seek teacher participants

from eligible campuses, a total of 20 campuses became the focus for seeking teacher

participants in the qualitative portion of this study.

Once permission was gained from the eligible, participating school districts, a

letter was generated and sent to the high school principal of each district (see Appendix

C) asking for permission to contact their high school campuses in order to invite their 11th

grade CSCOPETM teachers in the subject areas of math, English language arts, science,

and social studies to participate in this study. Four research participant envelopes were

prepared and sent to potential participating school districts. The initial packet was

addressed to the principal of the high school and included a copy of the permission letter

from the superintendent to conduct the study, a letter to the principal explaining the

study, and a letter of invitation to the potential teacher participant (see Appendix D). The

two instruments for this study were included in each individual packet which included the

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument (see Appendix A) and the Teacher

Demographic Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E). A self

addressed stamped envelope was also included in the envelope to allow the teacher

202

respondents to return their completed instruments to the researcher. After an appropriate

period of time, the researcher gave a second opportunity to potential teacher participants

by sending a second letter of opportunity (see Appendix F). Professional certificates of

appreciation were mailed to each campus principal in order that participating respondents

could have this certificate as a record of their participation in this study and

documentation of participation for their own professional portfolios (see Appendix G).

Teacher research packets were sent to each participating district which allowed

for participation by at least one math, English language arts, science, and social studies to

participate in this study. Two schools asked for additional packets. A total of 80 teacher

research packets which included a Letter to Campus Administrator (see Appendix C), a

Cover Letter to Teachers, (see Appendix D), one copy of the Teacher Curricula

Perception Instrument (see Appendix A), and one copy of the Teacher Demographic

Profile and Teacher Response Instrument (see Appendix E) and a self-addressed,

stamped return envelope. Six of the district research mailing envelopes teacher research

packets were hand-delivered to the participating districts and contained a minimum

number of 24 packets. Fourteen district envelopes were mailed to the remaining

participating school districts and contained 56 teacher research packets. Teachers

responded by returning the completed instruments to the researcher in the self-addressed

envelopes provided in the earlier research packet. Thirty Teacher Curricula Perception

Instruments (see Appendix A) were returned in the self-addressed stamped envelopes

provided by the researcher. Thirty Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Response

Instruments were also returned via United States mail service in the self-addressed,

stamped envelope provided by the researcher. A Notice of Second Opportunity in the

203

form of “Notice of Second Opportunity for Teacher Participation” (see Appendix F) was

sent out to all participating high schools following the initial letters of invitation and

instruction giving a second opportunity for teacher participation in this study. The rate of

return for this portion of the study was 37.5%. Two of the 30 returned packets were

disqualified in that the teachers indicated that they had not utilized the CSCOPETM

curriculum model in the classroom. A Certificate of Participation (see Appendix G) was

sent to each teacher participant as a thank-you for their professional participation in this

study.

Responses of all teacher respondents were analyzed for recurring themes and then

coded accordingly. These coded data were used to further explain and understand the

findings presented in the qualitative portions of the study and to aid in the formulation of

conclusions and recommendations made in this study.

Summary of Findings

Quantitative Research Findings

Each research question addressed in this study is listed below with an explanation

of the major findings discovered during this study. An alpha level of .05 was used for all

statistical tests.

Research Question One

The findings for research question one were found by generating a t test for

independent means with the following conclusions. With an alpha level of .05,

p = .938. Based on these statistical findings, there was no significant difference in the

11th grade overall group mathematics TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the

204

Realms of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Research Question Two

The findings for research question two were found by generating a t test for

independent means with the following conclusions. With an alpha level of .05, p = .377.

Based on these statistical findings, there was no significant difference in the 11th grade

overall group English language arts TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the

Realms of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Research Question Three

The findings for research question three were found by generating a t test for

independent means with the following conclusions. With an alpha level of .05, p = .869.

Based on these statistical findings, there was no significant difference in the 11th grade

overall group science TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms of

Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Research Question Four

The findings for research question four were found by generating a t test for

independent means with the following conclusions. With an alpha level of .05, p = .702.

Based on these statistical findings, there was no significant difference in the 11th grade

overall group social studies TAKSTM scores between schools that implement the Realms

of Meaning curriculum model and schools that do not implement the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

205

Research Question Five

Research question five addressed the following educational concern and asked:

To what capacity as reported by classroom teachers on the Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument are CSCOPETM high schools functioning as Realms of Meaning

schools?

Teachers responded to this question by answering Likert-type questions in a

researcher generated Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument. Each of the six realms

was described prior to the instrument. Participants were then able to choose one of the

following options in regards to what capacity high schools were functioning as Realms of

Meaning schools: (1) don’t know, (2) strongly disagree, (3) disagree, (4) agree, and (5)

strongly agree. Teachers answers were then calculated by averaging the sum total of

possible scores and finding the average teacher response for each category.

Findings from this portion of the study included the following:

1. Teachers agreed that symbolics was important in the classroom and agreed

that symbolics was a part of their curriculum philosophy and that utilizing this

knowledge, the teachers agreed that their high schools were functioning as

Realms of Meaning schools.

2. Teachers disagreed that empirics was important in the classroom and

therefore disagreed that empirics was a part of their curriculum philosophy

Utilizing this knowledge, the teachers disagreed that their high schools were

functioning as Realms of Meaning schools.

3. Teachers agreed that esthetics was important in the classroom and agreed that

esthetics was a part of their curriculum philosophy and that utilizing this

206

knowledge, the teachers agreed that their high schools were functioning as

Realms of Meaning schools.

4. Teachers agreed that synnoetics was important in the classroom and agreed

that synnoetics was a part of their curriculum philosophy and that utilizing

this knowledge, the teachers agreed that their high schools were functioning

as Realms of Meaning schools.

5. Teachers agreed that ethics was important in the classroom and agreed that

ethics was a part of their curriculum philosophy and that utilizing this

knowledge, the teachers strongly agreed that their high schools were

functioning as Realms of Meaning schools.

6. Teachers agreed that synoptics was important in the classroom and agreed that

synoptics was a part of their curriculum philosophy and that utilizing this

knowledge, the teachers agreed that their high schools were functioning as

Realms of Meaning schools.

Research Question Six

Research question six addressed the following educational concern and asked:

What perceptions do teachers have regarding the benefits and/or risks of implementing

the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum model?

Emergent themes were developed for both the benefits and risks of the utilizing

the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum philosophy in the classroom based on teacher’s

responses on teacher’s open-ended responses on the Teacher Demographic Profile and

Teacher Response Instrument. The emergent themes of the risks involved in this study

are as follows: (1) curriculum too narrow in focus and scope, (2) lack of creativity and

207

teacher autonomy, (3) pacing, (4) not enough activities to meet the needs of special

populations which included special education students, limited English proficient (LEP)

students, and the more accelerated needs of the gifted and talent student population, (5)

teachers felt the curriculum encouraged a lack of accountability from both students and

teachers utilizing this model, (6) teachers also noted gaps in the curriculum in that they

felt that not all material was covered appropriately and aligned properly within the

district, and (7) teachers felt that management was “forcing” the curriculum on them and

that if they did not measure up with the new curriculum model they would be

reprimanded or blamed for lack of student improvement and achievement in the

classroom.

An integrated curriculum allows the student to compare and contrast information,

events, and phenomena through integrative eyes and intellectual structures: “Deep

understanding occurs when the presence of new information prompts the emergence or

enhancement of cognitive structures that enable us to rethink our prior ideas” (Brooks

and Brooks, 1999, p. 15). Constructivist teaching is a challenging but rewarding process:

“A constructivist framework challenges teachers to create environments in which they

and their students are encouraged to think and explore. This is a formidable challenge,

but to do otherwise is to perpetuate the ever-present behavioral approach to teaching and

learning” (Brooks and Brooks, 1999, p. 30). The Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum

model builds upon a constructivist framework: “It remains a provocative model that

continues to nourish and stimulate thinking about what is important in creating coherency

and purpose in general education settings” (English as rpt. in Kritsonis, 2007, p. v). The

Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum philosophy involves the interaction of categories

208

and design in the learning process: “The selection of categories is essentially a search for

patterns” (Fenwick English in Kritsonis, 2007, p. vi). A thorough analysis of patterns and

philosophies of learning leads to the emergence of “six fundamental patterns of meaning.

These six patterns may be designated respectively as symbolics, empirics, esthetics,

synnoetics, ethics, and synoptics” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 11). By exploring the six realms of

meaning, the entire range of possible meaning and curriculum knowledge can be

acknowledged and perpetuated in a general framework of curriculum efficacy and

knowledge. The six realms of meaning provides a framework for education and learning

which provides a structured approach to the learning process through the philosophical

guidelines of the ROM curricula philosophy.

Teacher concerns reveal that there is uncertainty regarding the curriculum, their

responsibilities, and management’s support in regards to this new curriculum model in

the classroom. Management and teachers alike must realize that effective change does

not occur overnight. Fullan reflects on a time around the late 90s,

that we had a 3-6-8 rule. It takes about three years to turn around an

elementary school, about six years to turn around a high school, and eight

years to turn around the district or county, depending on its size . . . Now

you can cut the 3-6-8 rates in half by using the knowledge more

systematically and achieve major improvement in a district within four

years.” (Fullan, 2004, p.1)

Change does not occur overnight, but will slowly emerge if leaders maintain a solid

commitment to the future of the district and determine to “stay the course” (Fullan 2004)

in their chosen plan of viable and productive research based strategies for educational

209

reform and change in the classroom, district, state, and federal educational institutions

and agencies. While teachers in this study responded to both the positive and negative

aspects of this curriculum model based on their own perceptions of the curricula, a

greater insight and depth of knowledge can be gained from this portion of the study by

comparing the various responses of new teachers in the classroom vs. older, more

seasoned teachers with more experience in education and the teaching profession.

Conclusions

The researcher carefully assessed how the data from both the quantitative and

qualitative portions of this study worked together to produce findings applicable to

student learning, curricula research, and curriculum implementation. The researcher

returned to the review of the literature to triangulate the combination of data and to

produce and draw reasonable conclusions to this study. The triangulation of the data

produced the following conclusions.

Conclusion One

The null hypotheses for H01, H02, H03, and H04 were developed to test the mean

academic achievement scores of 11th grade exit level high school students in ROM and

non-ROM schools in order to see if there was a difference in academic achievement

between these two schools in the core subject areas of math, English language arts,

science, and social studies. Student academic achievement was determined by the

campus rating the 2008 accountability school year. A t-test for independent means was

performed on data from both the ROM and non-ROM schools during this time period.

The results of the t-tests for all four sets of mean academic achievement scores in the

subject areas listed above were not statistically significant when the alpha was set at

210

p < 05. The four null hypotheses for this study were not rejected.

The findings of the first four research questions illustrate how significant

academic change is not an overnight occurrence. This is supported by educational

research conducted by Michael Fullan and others who contend that educators must not

expect an overnight remedy for long-term improvement in academic achievement.

The limitations of this study included the fact that the degree of use and

implementation of this curriculum model was not fully known and could not be fully

discovered by the researcher. Therefore, the commitment of utilizing the ROM

philosophies in the classroom could have varied significantly from campus to campus

therefore leaving the definitive findings of the ROM influence in the classroom

inconclusive. It could be reasonably argued that not enough data was available to make a

conclusive judgment on the full impact of the ROM curricula option in the classroom.

A triangulation of the statistical data and the review of literature also revealed a possible

connection and explanation for the lack of significant differences between schools that

utilize the ROM curriculum in the classroom in relationship to the schools that do not

utilize the ROM curriculum, i.e., the non-ROM schools.

The research which has supported this study has found that student academic

success in relation to the curriculum in the classroom is not an automatic result of

implementing new curriculum designs in the classroom. The findings in this study

related to research questions 1-4 support Michael Fullan’s assessment regarding

curricular change and impact on a school and district. Although research questions 1 – 4,

indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected; these findings do not discredit or

invalidate the worth of the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy or the CSCOPETM

211

model for curricular instruction. In fact, this study supports Fullan’s research on change

theory and sustainability in education. True curricular change requires years of

sustainable growth possible only when a strong and substantial foundation for learning is

established. This research has shown that the foundation for the CSCOPETM model is

based on strong, principled, research and reflects the constructivist approach to learning

and academic achievement as mirrored in the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy.

Fullan states that sustained and measurable academic growth can be obtained when

utilizing strong, researched based curricula, but that educational leaders must take a

strong and principled approach to implementing their chosen curriculum model and

philosophy over a committed and extended period of time.

Educational and community leaders must evaluate the process and progress of

learning in the classroom. The implementation dip diagram below is an example of a

realistic expectation model that shows how sustained and expected growth can occur in a

district or educational classroom setting. Change is necessary for our schools to stay

relevant; however, the process can be seen as initially self-defeating. However, educators

who choose to commit to sound educational practices and researched-based curriculum

models can expect positive and sustained potential growth and academic achievement for

their student body populations.

212

Figure 4.13

The Implementation Dip

http://www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/07/implementation-.html

The CSCOPETM model in its present form is only three years old. The newness of

this curriculum model indicates that significant academic growth will not occur

overnight. Educators who choose this model and commit to implementing the model in

the classroom are supported by research studies and academicians such as Michael Fullan

who has stated that positive change can occur when implementing a new curriculum

model or learning tool in the classroom if educators will simply “stay the course” (Fullan

2004).

Conclusion Two

Question five addressed the issue of what capacity teachers were operating in

their classrooms as ROM schools. This question of the study is important in that teachers

who understand and are committed to a curriculum philosophy in the classroom are more

likely to work towards mastering the tenets of the curriculum and applying the

curriculum philosophy more enthusiastically and energetically in the classroom. The

213

Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument utilized in this study show that teachers agree

with the principles of symbolics; disagree with empirics, and agree that esthetics

synnoetics, and synoptics are integral components of a successful curriculum model in the

classroom. They strongly agree that ethics is an important component of a strong

curriculum model. The Realms of Meaning philosophy incorporates these attributes in the

curriculum. It can be noted that these philosophies are also reflected in the CSCOPETM

curriculum model. By affirming the importance of five of the six areas of ROM

curriculum philosophy, these teachers have initiated the process of capacity building

which gives teachers ownership of the curriculum and allows teachers to build and

develop their own professional skills and teaching talents through the nature and scope of

the curriculum. According to Fullan’s research, the depth of capacity building indicators

in a school is indicative of the long-term success and viability of academic progress and

therefore a substantial foundation for academic change and student success.

Conclusion Three

Question six looked at the degree to which teachers understood the Realms of

Meaning curriculum philosophy structures and framework. The results of this study

indicate that teachers agree that (1) the curriculum for general education should include

the scope of the curriculum; (2) they strongly agree in the logic of sequence of studies;

(3) they agree that the use of disciplines is important to the curriculum; and (4) agree that

representative ideas and (5) methods of inquiry are important aspects of the curriculum

model they utilize in the classroom. Once again, Fullan’s study indicates that for a

curriculum to be successfully implemented in a district, teachers must understand the

underlying rationale and principles involved in the curriculum. This study has shown that

214

teachers have a firm grasp of the Realms philosophy and therefore have a substantial

educational foundation to build upon for sustained and measurable academic growth in

the classroom.

Conclusion Four

Question seven examined the perceptions of teachers on the benefits and risks of

implementing the CSCOPETM curriculum model in the classroom. Through a

triangulation of the literature and a review of the findings, the following conclusions were

made regarding teachers perceptions of the benefits and risks of the curriculum. The

emergent themes of the risks involved in this study are as follows: (1) curriculum too

narrow in focus and scope, (2) lack of creativity and teacher autonomy, (3) pacing, (4)

not enough activities to meet the needs of special populations which included special

education students, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and the more accelerated

needs of the gifted and talent student population, (5) teachers felt the curriculum

encouraged a lack of accountability from both students and teachers utilizing this model,

(6) teachers also noted “gaps” in the curriculum in that they felt that not all material was

covered appropriately and aligned properly within the district, and (7) teachers felt that

management was “forcing” the curriculum on them and that if they did not measure up

with the new curriculum model they would be reprimanded or blamed for lack of student

improvement and achievement in the classroom.

To address the risks expressed by the teacher, research has shown that an

integrated curriculum model will allow a greater depth and meaningful dialogue between

teachers and students in classroom instruction: “Deep understanding occurs when the

presence of new information prompts the emergence or enhancement of cognitive

215

structures that enable us to rethink our prior ideas” (Brooks and Brooks, 1999, p. 15). By

adhering to the constructivist framework provided both in the ROM curriculum

philosophy and the CSCOPETM curriculum model, the curriculum base will broaden and

provide the needed depth of understanding and curriculum knowledge necessary to

effectively teach the student body population. The CSCOPE’sTM design flexibility

allows curriculum writers to improve upon the curriculum instantaneously through the

use of computer technology and infusion of new academic components and additions as

deemed appropriate. As the curriculum develops, the state director has stated that the

writers and distributors of this program are committed to improving and strengthening the

curriculum in order to better meet the needs of all constituents. Continuance of the

constructivist principles in the curriculum design will help to ensure that the educators

concerns regarding the benefits and risks of this model can be more fully addressed.

Teachers’ responses to this portion of the study show how the Realms of Meaning (ROM)

curriculum philosophy provides structure and guidance to the everyday needs and

nuances of curriculum program development and implementation. By exploring the six

realms of meaning, the entire range of possible meaning and curriculum knowledge can

be acknowledged and perpetuated in a general framework of curriculum efficacy and

knowledge.

Implications

It is recognized today “that knowledge does not belong to specialists alone, but

that, through general education, understanding of a high order can and should be

available to everyone” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. v). It is important that in these challenging

times, the curriculum is not watered-down and geared to the lowest common denominator

216

for student achievement and success. Instead, educators should seek to challenge

students to master challenging and rigorous course material as adhered to in the ROM

curriculum philosophy. Students should be provided a rigorous curriculum with

consistent alignment throughout the grades levels and a definitive plan of instruction and

delivery. As this study indicates, implementing a curriculum utilizing the philosophical

framework based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum

model has the potential to bring about measurable and sustained student academic growth

and achievement in the education process.

At the core of this study, the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

curriculum philosophy has examined, reviewed, and triangulated researched material

through an extensive review of literature, statistical tests, and studies to see if utilizing the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy can impact

student academic learning and achievement. The sample size of this population was

limited to 11th grade students in the public school setting who participated in the 2008

administration of the exit level TAKSTM test. It should be noted that while this research

reviewed this sample population, the CSCOPETM curriculum model and therefore the

ROM curriculum philosophy has been utilized across the state of Texas in growing and

increasing numbers over the past three years throughout all grade levels. The researcher

met with CSCOPE’sTM state director in Austin, Texas to discuss a wide range of topics in

regards to the development, implementation, and vision for the CSCOPETM curriculum in

Texas. According to the director, CSCOPETM in its present form has only been available

for a total of three years. At the time of our interview, April 2008, the CSCOPETM

distribution sites had increased from the original ten ESC sites which had been

217

operational at the beginning of this study, to a total of 13 ESC distribution support sites in

Texas. In addition, he stated that at the time of our interview there was a least one school

in every ESC district which had purchased the CSCOPETM curriculum model for one or

more schools in their district. The director cautioned me that they did not require full

compliance to their curriculum model when purchased by other districts. Therefore, it

was acknowledged that not all schools in this study would be utilizing the CSCOPETM

model to the same degree and therefore this could be one of the reasons why there

appeared to be no significant difference between schools that utilized the CSCOPETM,

ROM curriculum philosophy and those non-ROM schools which did not adhere to this

philosophy. This disparity in usage can also indicate that the quantitative portion of this

study is inconclusive in that the availability of data to significantly test the academic

achievement of the 11th grade students in the subject areas of math, English language arts,

science, and social studies was not available due to the newness of the tested curriculum

model.

Revisions are ongoing to meet the increasing demand and popularity of this new

curriculum model. Periodic updates through e-mail communications on the progress and

development of the CSCOPETM program are sent regularly to CSCOPETM subscribers. A

recent state conference generated over 1,000 statewide participants and attendees which

support the fact that educational leaders, supervisors, and educational leaders are

supporting this program. These educational leaders who have supported their

administrators, teachers, and other school leaders to participate in this conference shows

that statewide curriculum leaders have committed to this program and are willing follow

218

Michael’s Fullan’s guidelines in “persistence and flexibility for staying the course”

(Fullan, 2006, pp. 8-11).

The impact of the effects of a particular curriculum model or philosophy can more

fully be ascertained by analyzing multiple years of implementation which will allow

future researchers to monitor the growth and success of this program. While some

teachers have applauded the structure of the Realms philosophy implemented through the

CSCOPETM curriculum model, others have found that this curriculum model is not

effective in their personal classroom and school districts. However, this diversity of

opinion can be expected. The rigor of this curriculum model requires a high degree of

professionalism and intellectual integrity and commitment. However, those educators

who are willing to stay the course and commit to a sound structure of learning and

academic excellence in the curriculum will find that, as Fullan’s educational research

indicates, this researched based curriculum philosophy can provide the impetus for

positive academic change and growth in any school regardless of size, population, or

socio-economic status.

The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy

provides a viable framework for choosing a curriculum and utilizing its philosophies to

build upon the curriculum to enhance student learning and academic achievement. This

philosophy provides a springboard for aligning the curriculum that when implemented in

the classroom will provide to both faculty and staff a theoretical framework and structure

from which to generate sustained student academic achievement and measurable

academic improvement in the classroom.

219

The ROM curriculum philosophy, evidenced in practicality through the

CSCOPETM curriculum model, shows great promise in incorporating higher levels of

student academic achievement and success in the classroom. According to the Realms

philosophy, “knowledge can be derived from a variety of sources. However, knowledge

has permanent value leading to greater meaning and greater understanding when drawn

from the fundamental disciplines as exemplified in the realms of meaning” (Kritsonis,

2007, ix). The ROM curriculum philosophy, evidenced in practicality through the

CSCOPETM curriculum model, shows great promise in incorporating higher levels of

student academic achievement and success in the classroom utilizing a heuristic study for

of the curriculum. As this study shows, implementing a curriculum utilizing the

philosophical framework based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

curriculum model has the potential to bring about measurable and sustained student

academic growth and achievement in the education process.

This study has provided a benchmark for further studies that can focus on student

improvement and academic achievement based on the sustained use of a ROM

curriculum philosophy in the classroom. A growing body of research alludes to the

importance of generating a sustainable curriculum model and learning paradigm that will

guide educators in presenting the vast and growing field of knowledge to students in a

way that challenges students to integrate their knowledge and apply their learning

opportunities to real world situations and life strategies. While educators look for

effective ways to teach and educate their students, the renewed interest in curriculum

structure and presentation has afforded the opportunity for researchers to test what

220

curriculum models and philosophies show the greatest potential for increasing student

learning and academic achievement.

In the quest for qualifying and constructing the curriculum in a way that enhances

the student’s ability to grasp higher and more challenging concepts, this research has

shown that providing a framework for learning that challenges students and allows for a

greater growth in academic achievement and success can provide a foundation for

learning that can be built upon to provide sustainable growth and future academic

achievement and success

Fenwick English has stated that the Realms of Meaning

remains a provocative model that continues to nourish and stimulate

thinking about what is important in creating coherency and purpose in

general education settings. It is not the answer, but is an answer to some

of the most pressing curricular issues today, not the least of which are

the pressures of national curricular content standards and new forms of

national assessment. (English, as cited in Ways of Knowing through the

Realms of Meaning, 2007, p. vi)

Knowledge and the pursuit of wisdom are attributes of successful and productive

individuals in our society. Therefore, understanding curriculum philosophy and its

impact on student learning and academic achievement is an important aspect of all

planning and research for student academic success. As this study has shown, academic

change is not an overnight sensation, but a journey towards a long and committed path of

structured learning and academic discipline. Those who seek to learn, to teach, and to do

will ultimately find that a structured curriculum model as found in the Ways of Knowing

221

through the Realms of Meaning is an integral and viable philosophy upon which

knowledge, learning, and wisdom skills can be obtained.

In conclusion, the six realms of meaning explore the full range of meaning and

knowledge in the curriculum. The realms then can be regarded as being foundational to

all basic competencies in the general education curriculum. In addition, the Realms

philosophy offers a structure and guide for the competencies needed to live a full and

complete life. In the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy, the attributes of a

complete person are outlined, and thus the foundational scope and sequence of all

learning and knowledge mastery are articulated:

A complete person should be skilled in the use of speech, symbol, and

gesture (symbolics), factually well informed (empirics), capable of

creating and appreciating objects of esthetic significance (esthetics),

endowed with a rich and disciplined life in relation to self and others

(synnoetics), able to make wise decisions and to judge between

right and wrong (ethics), and possessed of an integral outlook

(synoptics) (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 15).

These aims are based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning, a

philosophy for choosing the curriculum to support and enhance deep learning and critical

thinking in the educational programs of students and adults who desire to know and study

on a deeper and more prolific level of learning. To those who ascertain to know truth and

to study critically, this study has revealed how a framework for learning and the

acquisition of knowledge can be structured and applied in the classroom. As King

Solomon sought to uncover the mysteries of the world, students in today’s academic and

222

educational communities can seek to know and explore the thresholds of knowledge “that

people may know skillful and godly wisdom and instruction; discern, and comprehend

the words of understanding and insight, receive instruction in wise dealing and the

discipline of wise thoughtfulness, righteousness, justice, and integrity” (Proverbs 1:1-3).

Inherent in these basic philosophies is an affirmation of how knowledge depth and

understanding can benefit the whole person in all learning and educational pursuits.

Meaningful approaches to education will utilize a holistic curriculum framework

which will help engender academic achievement and meaning in the classroom. The

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning supports utilizing this framework for

learning and utilizes the ROM philosophy to engender “the aims of general education for

the development of the whole persons” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 1).

Recommendations for Practical Implementations of this Study

As Michael Fullan’s research has pointed out, significant and long-lasting change

is not an overnight or easy process and endeavor. To effectually work towards making

significant strides in helping our students learn more effectively and to be able to utilize

this knowledge in an integrated and in-depth manner, a long term solution and plan is

needed to implement the philosophical and structural philosophies of the Realms of

Meaning curriculum philosophy in the classroom setting.

The following practical suggestions for implementation of the Realms of Meaning

curriculum philosophy based on the findings are as follows.

Recommendation One

The findings of this study are in line with the most current research studies and

findings regarding student academic achievement and the curriculum. While we do not

223

reject the null hypothesis for research questions 1 - 4, a foundation has been laid for

strong curricular change in that the participating teachers have exhibited a strong capacity

for understanding the Realms philosophy and therefore through further professional

development and professional academic support, have shown their aptitude and

willingness to commit to long time proactive intervention and persevere and “stay the

course” (Ful1an, 2006, 8-11). Districts implementing the CSCOPETM curriculum model

utilizing the ROM philosophy in the classroom should continue utilizing this curriculum

based on Fullan’s research which states it takes at least 3 to 6 years to fully implement

curricula academic change. (Fullan, 2006, 8-11)

Recommendation Two

Educators and curriculum leaders should increase the utilization of the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy in the classroom and in

the curriculum structure.

Through utilizing the ROM curriculum philosophy in the classroom, many of the

everyday practical applications of the CSCOPETM model could be improved by

implementing the ROM curriculum philosophy more fully into the program. For

example, a major risk enumerated consistently within the responses found in the Teacher

Curricula Perceptions Instrument was that the CSCOPETM impeded teacher creativity in

the classroom. Teachers saw the loss of creativity has stifling and as an endangerment to

their professional pedagogical practices in the classroom and ability to meet the needs of

their students in creative and effective teaching strategies.

The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy

addresses this issue through the implementation of the esthetics Realms of Meaning in

224

the overall creative process. Teachers who fully understand the Realms model will be

able to integrate a high degree of professional and effective teaching practices in the

classroom while at the same time integrating creativity and artistic components in the

curriculum that will elevate and strengthen their academic presentations to their students.

Recommendation Three

Teachers should be allowed to have professional input into curricular decisions

made at the high school level. In this study, responses included teacher participants who

believed that the new curriculum was being forced upon them without their consent,

approval, or buy-in to the new curriculum philosophy and framework. Teachers who do

not feel their values or input is important to school administrative leaders may feel

alienated from the educational process and therefore potentially hamper the successful

implementation of any new curriculum and will not allow the new curriculum to be

implemented to its highest and best potential in the classroom.

Recommendation Four

Teacher training and professional development activities should include how to

incorporate curriculum philosophies and strategies in the curriculum based on curricular

philosophies such as the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. When

utilizing the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy in

the classroom, teachers should be fully instructed on the Realms philosophy and its

thorough and practical framework for enhancing student learning and academic

achievement in the classroom. Once teachers are thoroughly familiar with the Realms

philosophy and how it impacts student learning and the curriculum, professional

development activities can be developed that will allow teachers to share with their peers

225

and educational administrators how the Realms philosophy is beneficial to their overall

teaching strategies and enhancement of learning opportunities for students in their

classroom. This recommendation is supported by Fullan’s moral purpose in education

(California News Report, 2004). Educational leaders should enact a moral purpose in

their leadership to allow “precision, professional learning, and personalization” (Crevola,

Hill, & Fullan, 2006, p. 1).

Recommendation Five

Once a curriculum has been chosen for implementation, educators should be

encouraged to “stay the course” (Fullan, 2006, pp. 8-11) and work towards long term

solutions and results utilizing the curriculum chosen. When a sound curriculum

philosophy has been introduced into a school classroom or district, immediate and

dramatic results should not be expected in the first few years of the implementation

process. While progress can be seen on individual and selected areas of subject matter

progress, as a whole, a district must commit to the faithful and sustained implementation

of the curriculum program process selected for the district. As Michael Fullan’s research

has stated, the Change Theory model suggests that it can take as long as three to six years

for sustained, deep, and significant educational growth to be realized within a school or

district. (Fullan, 2006)

Recommendation Six

Educators should incorporate the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of

Meaning in undergraduate and graduate level teacher preparation programs.

Teachers will ultimately implement change in the classroom; therefore, teacher colleges

and university must implement a curriculum philosophy in their classrooms which teach

226

the teachers how to recognize, direct, and implement a sustained and integrated approach

of learning to the classroom.

Recommendation Seven

Educational leaders should continue research on the effectiveness of utilizing the

ROM curriculum philosophy in the classroom. Through scholarly discourse and

continued research, a deeper understanding of the effect of curriculum design and

implementation can be facilitated through new published articles, journals, and textbooks.

Scholarly research can facilitate new guidelines for teacher training and guide principals,

educators, and other administrators to implement and choose a curriculum model best

suited to the learning needs and aptitudes of each leader’s educational sphere of

influence.

Recommendation Eight

Educational leaders should write and publish material on the Ways of Knowing

through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy that will enhance student learning,

teacher productivity, and academic administrative leadership qualities and outcomes in

the classroom. Academic and scholarly journals and articles based on best practice

studies and current research such as found in “Educational Leadership Directives:

Analyzing the Effect of an Integrated Curriculum Model on Student Academic

Achievement Based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning” can

inform and educate teachers on the multi-faceted layers of student learning, achievement,

and academic success.

227

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the results of this study, the researcher recommends the following

suggestions for further study in the following categories.

Pre-School and Elementary Recommendations for Future Research

1. A study could be conducted that investigates how the Ways of Knowing through

the Realms of Meaning curriculum model is utilized in the Montessori curriculum and

how this utilization affects student learning for pre-school and elementary school

students.

2. A study could be conducted that analyzes the symbolics realm and its relationship to

the teaching of reading and math at the pre-school and elementary grade levels.

Middle School and High School Recommendations for Future Research

1. A study could be conducted that analyzes the effect that the integration of the

esthetics realm and the empirics realm have on student academic achievement.

2. A study could be conducted that analyzes the effect of an integrated social studies

curriculum based on the synoptics realm of the Ways of Knowing through the

Realms of Meaning.

Special Populations Recommendations for Research Based on the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum Philosophy

1. A study could be conducted that evaluates the effects a Realms curriculum model

has on the learning and academic achievement of special needs students.

2. A study could be conducted analyzing the effect of a Realms curriculum model

on student learning with English language learners in the areas of science and

math.

228

3. A study could be conducted that analyzes the effect an integrated curriculum

philosophy has on the academic achievement of gifted and talented students over

a sustained three year time period.

College and University Recommendations for Future Research Study

1. A study could be conducted that analyzes the effect of implementing the Ways of

Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy in the academic

curriculum of remedial learners in math and reading remedial courses on the

freshman and sophomore college levels.

2. A study could be conducted that analyzes the effects of implementing the Ways

of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy in freshman

English classes to enhance and improve academic writing skills at the college

level.

229

REFERENCES

Botstein, L. (2006).The trouble with high school. The School Administrator. 16-19.

Breaden, M. (2008). English language learners. Education Week. 5

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Brown v. Board of Educ. 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Bruner, Jerome. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Carroll, L. (1994). The complete works of Lewis Carroll. New York, NY:

Barnes and Noble.

Crevola, Carmel, Peter Hill, and Michael Fullan. "Critical learning instruction path:

Assessment for learning in action." Orbit 2006: 10-14. Print. Dougherty, C.

(2005).

English, F.W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level

playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability.

Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

English, F. W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of

educational administration. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in

education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Fullan, Michael. "Change theory: A force

for school improvement." Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper

No. 157(2006): 1-13.

230

Fullan, Michael. "The Moral Imperative.” California Curriculum News Report. 2004.

Gardner, D. (Ed.). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and

applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Henney, J. (2006). Teacher leaders at work: Analyzing standardized achievement data to

improve instruction. Education Around the World. 126, 729-737.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego:

EDITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Just for Kids. Identifying and studying high-performing schools. 1, [1-24].

Kritsonis, W. A. (2002). William Kritsonis, PhD on schooling: Historical, philosophical,

contemporary events and milestones. Ohio, TX: Book Masters, Inc.

Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. Houston, TX:

National Forum Journals.

Kritsonis, W. A., Griffith, K.G., Marshall, R.L. , Herrington, D., Hughes, T.A. &

Brown, V.E. (2008). Practical applications of educational research and basic

statistics. Houston, TX: National Forum Journals.

Leitch, V. B. (2001). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W.

Norton & Company, Inc.

Magee, B. (2001). The story of philosophy. New York: DK Publishing.

231

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement:

Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Mooney, C.G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori,

Erikson, Piaget & Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 PL 107-110 (NCLB). (2001). Retrieved - January 8,

2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues.

Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Peck & Scarpetti, 2005, p. 7

Petersen, G. & Young, M. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and its influence on

current and future district leaders. Journal of Law and Education. 33, 343-363.

Rand, A. (1964). The virtues of selfishness. New York, NY: New American Library.

Sengalese B.D., (2008, June 8) Conservationist, Posted Quotation – Moody Gardens,

Galveston.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas T., Smith B., Dutton J. & Kleinar, A. (2000).

Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and

everyone who cares about education.

Sirkin, R. M. (2006). Statistics for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sousa, D.A. (2006). How the arts develop the young brain. The School Administrator,

26 – 31

232

Spatz, C. (2001). Basic statistics: Tales of distributions. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Sunderman, G., Orfield, G., & Kim, J. The principals denied by NCLB are central to

visionary school reform. Education Digest, 72, Retrieved August 12, 2007, from

http//eddigest.com.

Sylvester, R. (2006). Texas Education Agency. The School Administrator: Cognitive

Neuroscience Discoveries and Educational Practices Retrieved August 6, 2008,

from http://tea.state.tx.us

Texas Education Agency Website, tea.state.tx.us

Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2001). TAKS Test Development and Implementation

[Brochure]. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency, Retrieved September 15, 2008,

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/techdig02/chap18.pdf

pp. 93, 94, 96

Texas Education Code: 79th Legislative Session, (2005). Texas education code chapters

1 through 46. Denton, TX: Rogers Publishing and Consulting, Inc.

Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) , (2008).

CSCOPE. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment web site: http://cscope.us/

Texas Senate Bill 103

Vanderark, T. (2006). High challenge, high support. The School Administrator, Retrieved

August 15, 2006, from http://Vaderark@gatesfoundation.org

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

233

APPENDICES

234

APPENDIX A

TEACHER CURRICULA PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT

235

Teacher Curricula

Perceptions Instrument

Based on the Curriculum PhilosophyWays of Knowing through the Realms of

Meaning

The Realms of Meaning Curriculum Model is a Parallel Curriculum Model with the

CSCOPE Model of Curriculum and Instruction

Questions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588,

236

mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at 936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

237

Teacher Curricula Perceptions InstrumentWays of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Realms of Meaning (ROM) Understanding

Part A

Teacher Instructions: The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum model is built on a philosophical, researched based structure for the curriculum. CSCOPETM utilizes the same philosophies, therefore, CSCOPETM can be said to be a Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model.

Part A is based on actual curriculum wording of the ROM curriculum model, yet still is highly related to the intuitiveness and curriculum philosophy of CSCOPETM. Utilizing your knowledge of the Realms of Meaning curriculum model, good teaching practices, rate each of the statements according to the closest association of your knowledge and understanding of sound researched practices and the ROM curriculum model as reflected in your expertise and experience with CSCOPETM.

To understand the dialogue in Part A, the following definitions might be helpful to you while you are responding to each statement.

The Six Realms of Meaning

1. Symbolics: “The first realm, symbolics, comprises ordinary language, mathematics, and various types of non-discursive symbolic forms, such as gestures, rituals, rhythmic patterns, and the like. These meanings are contained in arbitrary symbolic structures, with socially accepted rules of formation and transformation, created as instruments for the expression and communication of any meaning whatsoever” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 11).

2. Empirics: “The second realm, empirics, includes the sciences of the physical world, of living things, and of man” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12).

3. Esthetics: “The third realm, esthetics, contains the various arts, such as music, the visual arts, the arts of movement, and literature. Meanings in this realm are concerned with the contemplative perception of particular significant things as unique objectifications of ideated subjectivities” Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12).

4. Synnoetics: “The fourth realm, synnoetics, embraces what Michael Polanyi calls “personal knowledge” and Martin Buber the “I-Thou” relation. Synnoetics signifies “relational insight” or “direct awareness.” It is analogous in the sphere of knowing to sympathy in the sphere of feeling. This personal or relational

238

knowledge is concrete, direct, and existential. It may apply to other persons, to oneself, or even to things” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 12).

5. Ethics: “The fifth realm, ethics, includes moral meanings that express obligation rather than fact, perceptual form, or awareness of relation. In contrast to the science, which are concerned with abstract cognitive understanding ,to the arts, which express idealized esthetic perceptions, and to personal knowledge, which reflects intersubjective understanding, morality, morality has to do with personal conduct that is based on free, responsible, deliberate decision” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13).

6. Synoptics: The sixth realm, synoptics, refers to meanings that are comprehensively integrative. This realm includes history, religion, and philosophy. These disciplines combine empirical, esthetic, and synnoetic meanings into coherent wholes. Historical interpretation comprises and artful re-creation of the past, in obedience to factual evidence, for the purpose of revealing what man by his deliberate choices has made of himself within the context of his given circumstances” (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 13).

239

Teacher Curricula Perceptions InstrumentWays of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Realms of Meaning (ROM) Understanding

Part A

Symbolics-Ordinary Language, Mathematics, and Symbolic Forms

1. The test of a person’s knowledge of a language is whether or not he can use it. 0 1 2 3 4

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 2. The uses of ordinary language are largely practical.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. “Knowing a language is not the same as “knowing about language.”

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Mathematical symbolisms are essentially theoretical.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. The student of mathematics can be said to know mathematically only if he understands and can articulate reasons for each assertion he makes.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

240

Empirics: Sciences of the Physical World, Living Things, and Man

1. Empirical meanings require ordinary language and mathematics for their expression.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Science, or systemic empirical inquiry, is concerned with matters of fact, not with symbolic conventions.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Science is characterized by descriptions that are essentially abstract.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Esthetics: Arts, Music, Visual Arts, Arts of Movement, and Literature

1. The power of the esthetic work is to create delight in the observer.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. The artist’s problem is to use materials to express an esthetic idea to achieve certain perceptual effects.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. The arts of movement are the foundation for the earnings that take place under the heading of physical education. This also includes health, recreation, and physical education.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

241

4. The fundamental concept of the arts of movement is the organize unity of the person.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. The arts of movement are the source of esthetic meanings in which the inner lives of persons are objectified through significant dynamic forums using the human body as the instrument.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. The central fact is that the objects of knowledge in the art of literature are particular verbal patterns designed to serve specific literary purposes.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Synnoetics: Personal Knowledge

1. Synnoetic meanings require engagement.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Synnoetic meanings relate subject to subjects.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Ethics: Moral Knowledge

1. The essence of ethical meanings, or of moral knowledge, is right deliberate action, that is, what a person ought voluntarily to do.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. The realm of ethics is right action. The central concept in this domain is obligation of what ought to be done.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

242

Synoptics: Religion

1. The content of religious meanings may be anything at all provided it is regarded from an ultimate perspective.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. In the religious sphere, the basis of understanding is said to be faith. 0 1 2 3 4

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. The person of faith believes God is the Source of all beauty.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Religious realms incorporate all the realms of meaning.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Synoptics: Philosophy

1. The distinctive feature of philosophy is the interpretation of meanings.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Philosophers seek to construct a synoptic view of the entire range of experiences.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Philosophy is devoted to the interpretation of the fundamental patters in the realms of meaning.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

243

4. One can regard the objects of nature as objects to be used and consumed.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Synoptics- History

1. Personal engagement is required to understand history. 0 1 2 3 4

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. History is the study of what human beings have deliberately done in the past.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

244

Teacher Curricula Perceptions InstrumentWays of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Realms of Meaning (ROM) Curriculum Philosophy

Part B

Teacher Instructions: The Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning Curriculum model is built on a philosophical, researched base structure for the curriculum. CSCOPETM utilizes the same philosophies, therefore, CSCOPE TM can be said to be Realms of Meaning (ROM) curriculum model.

Part B is highly related to the structure and research framework of the curriculum. Material for this portion is taken direction from the ROM curriculum model but is highly related to the intuitiveness and curriculum philosophy of CSCOPE TM. Therefore, utilizing your knowledge of classroom curriculum, students learning, and good teaching practices, rate each of the statements according to your knowledge and understanding of sound researched practices and the ROM curriculum model as reflected in your expertise and experience with CSCOPE TM.

245

Teacher Curricula Perceptions InstrumentWays of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Realms of Meaning(ROM) Curriculum Philosophy

Part B

The Logic of Sequence in the Studies

1. History requires a knowledge of symbols, empirical data, dramatic methods, decision, making, and moral judgments to be welded together into a reenactment of the past.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Philosophy requires a comprehensive world of meanings to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Since there is no limit to what can be learned in any realm, it is impossible to complete one kind of study before starting the next.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. All that logic requires is that enough learning take place in one subject to enable work to precede in other subjects at are logically dependent on it.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. The ideal curriculum is one in which the maximum coherence is achieved and segmentation is minimized.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

246

6. The optimum curriculum for general education consists in all six realms of meaning.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

The Scope of the Curriculum

1. The course of study should maximize meanings.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. The curriculum should provide for learning in all six realms of meaning.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Six realms of meaning are required if a person is to achieve the highest excellence.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Specialized study is requisite for the common good in a complex civilization.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. Effective curricula needs to be designed to take into account each person’s aptitudes and enthusiasms.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. All six fundamental realms of meaning provide a program for the curriculum of general education in schools.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

7. No one curriculum is the best for all people and for every culture and situation.

0 1 2 3 4

247

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

8. Understanding learning theories and the psychology for learning are important attributes to student understanding and knowledge.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

The Use of the Disciplines

1. The educator must select qualitatively the most significant materials from the totality of what is known.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Interdependence of specialists is the basis for the advancement of all knowledge and skill.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. An organized field of inquiry, pursued by a particular group of men in knowledge may be called a scholarly discipline.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. The men of knowledge within the disciplines comprise public communities of scholars.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. All material should come from the disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

248

6. The principle of disciplined understanding is the foundation for general education-the proper content of general education is authentic disciplined knowledge.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

7. The teacher is a humanizer of knowledge.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

8. A discipline is a field of inquiry wherein learning has been achieved in a productive way.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

9. Every discipline is a pattern of investigation for the growth of understanding.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

10. Understanding the disciplines is essential to good teaching.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

11. Many clues to effective teaching and learning are found within the disciplines themselves.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

12. It is positive to use the knowledge from the disciplines in connection with studies that cut across several disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

13. Every discipline is to some degree integrative in nature.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

249

14. No one plan is best for every teacher and for all students in all situations.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

15. What is taught should just be drawn from the scholarly disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Representative Ideals

1. Content should be chosen to exemplify the representative ideas of the disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. The task of the specialist or expert is to work out patterns of representative ideas within the disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Teaching first the representative ideas would be a mistake.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. The aim of teaching is comprehensive understanding.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. A student taught by the use of representative ideas understands meaningfully. 0 1 2 3 4

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

250

Methods of Inquiry

1. Materials should be selected so as to exemplify the methods of inquiry in the disciplines.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Understanding of methods overcomes cynicism because it provides clear means for the acquisition of understanding.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Methods are unifying elements in a discipline, binding them together. 0 1 2 3 4

Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Understanding methods helps solve the problem of surge I knowledge.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. Methods are ways of learning.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. Methods of inquiry by experts in a discipline provide a pattern to be imitated by the teacher and student in general education at all levels.

0 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

All statements are taken directly from the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning curriculum guide.

References

Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. Houston, TX: National Forum Journals

251

Dear Teachers: Your opinion and experience is a valued component of this study. Please answer the following questions regarding your opinion and experiences with the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in your classroom.

1. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

2. What are the benefits of using the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

3. What are the risks of using the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

252

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS

253

Debbie Watkins540 Hickory Creek Rd. - Bellville, TX 77418

Fax: (979) 865-4563(979) 865-4562 (home) – (979)220-8869 (cell)dwat@academicplanet.com

Dear Superintendent:

I am a doctoral student at Prairie View A & M University and will be conducting research on the effect of the curriculum on student academic achievement using the CSCOPE TM model and the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy as the basis for my study. The name of my study is: Educational Leadership Directives: Analyzing the Effect of an Integrated Curriculum Model on Student Academic Achievement Based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. Knowing that student academic achievement is the number one goal of all districts and school campuses in our state and throughout our nation, I have chosen to research the effect of an integrated curriculum model on student learning. I will be utilizing extant data from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website on school exit level Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores of schools that utilize the CSCOPE TM model within their district in that the CSCOPE TM model is parallel and in line with the philosophy of the Realms of Meaning curriculum philosophy. In addition, I will seek input from junior level core subject area teachers who utilize the CSCOPE TM curriculum model in their classroom to complete a confidential survey and a confidential demographic information sheet. To begin this study, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) has requested that I have permission from the school superintendent to contact the junior level teachers on his or her high school campus in regards to participation for this study.

Please check the appropriate box and return this completed form by fax. With your permission I will then contact the high school campus in order to invite the 11th core discipline teachers to be a part of this study by simply completing a confidential survey and confidential demographic survey. If you need further information, please feel free to contact me at anytime. FAX NUMBER: 979-865-4563 Cell: 979-220-8869 Home: 979-865-4562

______ Yes, you may contact the 11th grade core discipline teachers (English language arts, science, history, and social studies) in order to invite their participation in completing a confidential survey and confidential demographic information sheet.

_______ No, I do not give permission for the 11th grade core discipline teachers to be invited to be a part of this study.

Signed:_______________________________________ _______________ Superintendent Name DistrictDate Signed:_______________________________ Contact Number:_______________Thank you for your consideration and participation.Debbie Watkins, M.Ed. Doctoral Student, Educational Leadership, Prairie View A & M UniversityQuestions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588, mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at 936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

254

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER TO CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR

255

Debbie Watkins540 Hickory Creek Rd.

Bellville, TX 77418(979) 865-4562 (home) – (979)220-8869 (cell)

Dear Campus Administrator:

I have received permission from your district superintendent to invite your 11th grade teachers to participate in a study regarding student academic achievement and a combined structure of curriculum philosophy based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning and the application of this philosophy to the CSCOPE TM curriculum model. The qualitative portion of this research study involves the voluntary participation of junior level 11th grade teachers who specifically teach a CSCOPE TM course area which includes mathematics, English Language Arts, science, and social studies. Thank you for your help in distributing the teacher research packets to teachers in your district who are currently using the CSCOPE TM curriculum (to any degree) and teach 11th grade core classes.

The four research envelopes can be distributed at your discretion based on the number of teachers you have in each 11th grade subject area, not exceeding four teacher participants. Teachers can return the completed instruments in the self-addressed-stamped envelope provided. It would be extremely helpful if the participating teachers could return these instruments in the accompanying envelopes by Tuesday, February 24, 2009. If this is not possible, returning by their earliest possible time frame would be greatly appreciated.

I will send a small token of appreciation to each participant once I receive their completed Teacher Demographic Profile and Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument in the mail. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact me regarding this study.

Respectfully submitted,

Debbie Watkins, M.Ed.Educational Leadership Prairie View A & M University

Questions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, PhD, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588, mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at 936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

256

APPENDIX D

COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS

257

Debbie Watkins540 Hickory Creek Rd. - Bellville, TX 77418

Fax: (979) 865-4563 (979) 865-4562 (home) – (979) 220-8869 (cell)dwat@academicplanet.com

Dear High School Exit-Level Professional Educator:

You are being asked to participate in an important research study based on the effect of a curriculum philosophy and curriculum model based on CSCOPE TM and your participation (in any degree) with this model in the classroom. If you agree to participate, simply complete the Teacher Demographic Profile and the Teacher Curricula Perceptions Instrument and return in the self-addressed envelope.

By participating in this study, your opinion will help to provide researched based data that will help to facilitate and strengthen student learning and academic achievement in the classroom. Each participant of this study will receive a certificate of participation for your own academic portfolio and professional career growth and learning. Upon receipt of the completed instrument, you will receive the certificate and a small token of appreciation for your participation in this study. Findings of this study will be available upon request after the study has been completed.

Your participation is completely voluntary and confidential. If you have questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact me at any of the above numbers or e-mail address. Your participation is greatly appreciated!

Respectfully submitted,

Debbie Watkins, M.Ed.Doctoral Student, Educational LeadershipPrairie View A& M University

Questions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588, mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at

258

936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

259

APPENDIX E

DEMOGRAPHIC TEACHER PROFILE AND

TEACHER RESPONSE INSTRUMENT

260

Demographic Teacher ProfileConfidential

Directions: Please answer the following questions regarding your teaching experience, expertise and knowledge regarding the CSCOPETM curriculum model.

All Demographic Teacher Profile instruments are confidential. The informationbelow is for statistical purposes only.

1. How many years have you been in the teaching profession?

2. What CSCOPETM curriculum subject area are you involved in?

3. How many years have you worked with the CSCOPETM curriculum model?

4. What educational degree(s) and teaching certifications do you hold in the state of Texas?

Questions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588, mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at 936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

261

Dear Teachers: Your opinion and experience is a valued component of this study. Please answer the following questions regarding your opinion and experiences with the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum in your classroom.

1. What are the perceptions of classroom teachers of the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

2. What are the benefits of using the CSCOPETM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

3. What are the risks of using the CSCOPE TM (ROM) curriculum in the classroom?

262

APPENDIX F

NOTICE OF SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR TEACHER PARTICIPATION

263

Debbie Watkins540 Hickory Creek Rd.

Bellville, TX 77418(979) 865-4562 (home) – (979)220-8869 (cell)

Notice of Second Opportunity

Dear Principal and Administrator:

Thank you for your help in distributing the research instruments, “Teacher Curriculum Perceptions Instrument” and the “Teacher Demographic Profile.” The instruments I have received have helped to facilitate a deeper and more meaningful study in regards to academic curriculum models and student success.

If any of your teachers would still like to participate in this study but were not able to complete the instruments when they were first received may complete and send to me to be included in this study.

Best wishes in all of your academic endeavors,

Debbie Watkins, M.Ed.Educational Leadership Prairie View A & M University

Questions or comments regarding this instrument may be directed to Marcia Shelton, PhD, Prairie View A & M Research and Development at 936-261-1588, mcshelton@pvamu.edu or William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair at 936-261-3652, wakritsonis@pvamu.edu.

264

APPENDIX G

CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION

265

Academic Research Contributor

Your Contributions to Educational Research through Your Participation in the Qualitative Portion of the

Following Doctoral Study for Academic Research and Learning is Greatly

Appreciated.

Educational Leadership Directives:Analyzing the Effect of an

Integrated Curriculum Model on Student Academic Achievement Based on the

Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning

Thank You for Your Time and Participation in This Study!

Debbie Watkins, Doctoral CandidateEducational Leadership - Prairie View

A & M UniversitySpring 2009

266

VITA

DEBRA DENISE WATKINS540 Hickory Creek Rd Bellville, TX 77418

dwat@academicplanet.com

EDUCATIONAL HISTORY

Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TXPhD in Educational Leadership, 2009

Prairie View A & M University, Prairie View, TX M.Ed. in Educational Administration, 2003

University of Houston - Victoria, Victoria, TXB.A. in Humanities, 1997

CERTIFICATIONS

Administrative Certification: Principal: Grades EC through Grade 12

English as a Second Language: Teaching Certification – Grades PK - 12

English Language Arts and Reading: Grades 8 – 12

Generic Special Education: Grades PK – 12

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

2009 – 2010 - Wharton County Junior College Adjunct Professor Houston Community College Adjunct Professor Lone Star College Cyfair Adjunct Professor

University of Phoenix Adjunct Mentorship

2005 – 2010 – Brazos ISD Special Education Department ChairDual Credit English, ESL Instructional Leader, Resource English Teacher

2005 – 2005 – Waller ISD Special Education/Dyslexia Teacher Resource English – Grades 9-12

1999 – 2002 Brazos ISD Special Education Teacher Resource English - Grades 9-12

267

Content Mastery - Grades 9-12

1998 – 1999 - Columbus ISD VAC Coordinator/Behavior Management

1997 – 1998 - Weimar ISD/Columbus ISD Supervising Life Skills Teacher

Publications

Watkins, D. & Kritsonis, W. (2006) Developing a Curriculum for At Risk and Low Performing High School Students: Teaching Shakespeare to At-Risk Youth Utilizing the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning. National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal

Watkins, D. & Kritsonis, W. (2007) “National Focus: Enhancing Student Achievement and Teacher Efficacy Through Effective Grant Writing and Creative Instructional Programming” Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Volume 6, Fall 2007

Watkins, D. & Kritsonis, W. (2007) “Atlas Shrugged by Ayan Rand: A Comparative Epistemological Philosophical Perspective Based on the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning by William A. Kritsonis, PhD” DOCTORAL FORUM - National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research – ISBN – 1559 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2008

Watkins, D. & Kritsonis, W. (2007) “Postmodern Approach to Affecting Change in Special Education” National Forum of Teacher Education JournalVol. 16, Number 1 & 2, 2007-2008 (pp. 20-35)

Watkins, D. & Kritsonis, W. “Aristotle, philosophy, and the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning: A National Study on Integrating a Postmodernist Approach to Education and Student Achievement” (ERIC Index: ED499545)