Curriculum Modification 226g1q

Curriculum Modification Prepared by Nari Koga, Boston College and Tracey Hall, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum

This article is also available in

Word and

PDF formats.

Note: Updated on 11/2/09; Please visit the AIM Center home page.

Introduction Modifying existing general curriculum has been an effective way to create more accessible learning environments to all students and their teachers in various educational contexts. There are many in use regarding changes made to curriculum, such as enhancements, accommodations, overlapping, and adaptations. We differentiate curriculum modification from curriculum enhancement for the purposes of this paper. In this way, we can clarify the definition and nature of curriculum modification, to emphasize its effectiveness in improving education for all children, and to provide vivid examples and useful resources which will enrich actual classroom practices for diverse learners. Although both ideas, enhancementand modification, become pivotal when we consider improving accessibilities of general curriculum in relation to individual students' needs, the approach, design, and methods resulted from each idea may differ significantly. Curriculum enhancement is most likely to be built around existing general curriculum and to involve teachers' alterations of curriculum. Frequently, teachers will enhance curriculum with additions of instructional strategies. Frequently enhancements are created to evaluate and teach adequate background knowledge in preparation for a new task. Additionally, teachers may incorporate a variety of instructional materials and procedures to meet students' needs, including the use of coteaching, and/or instructional collaboration. Curriculum modification differs from curriculum enhancement in that modification is a more extreme alteration to the curriculum than that of an enhancement. Modifications involve combinations of altered content knowledge, conceptual difficulty, educational goals, and instructional method versus building scaffolding and bridges between existing curriculum and people involved in the educational process. Such differentiation between curriculum modification and curriculum enhancement is based on ranging degrees in which our educational approach becomes distinct from or maintains the similarities to existing general curriculum. In other words, educational practices in which students and teachers interactions differ from those designed in existing general curriculum to a greater extent when curriculum ismodified than when enhanced. There are numerous ways curriculum modifications are put into practice for different purposes and outcomes in various levels, such as individual, classroom, and school-wide. Due to the flexible nature and countless applications, curriculum modification often remains an ambiguous concept and is understood as an umbrella term to include multifarious aspects of everyday teaching practices. We have refined our definition of curriculum modification based on understandings of its nature and potentialities. The discussion below introduces a way to understand the concept and some concrete practices of curriculum modification through presenting how we have defined curriculum modification, how components can be categorized, what research says about its effectiveness, and how such empirical evidence can be applied to general education settings. We provide in the end, a list of useful Web resources and related literatures for the reader. top

Definition It is important to note that no single definition of curriculum modification exists. Many researchers offer many definitions from various fields of discipline. In other words, the practice of curriculum modification has been discussed in different language by many researchers from various specialty areas in education. For instance, in addition to the most frequently used , accommodation and adaptation, some use such as alteration, differentiation, change, revision, enhancement,

compacting, integration and scaffolding to discuss teaching events involving curriculum modification. Another issue is that discussions regarding curriculum modification are often interwoven with ideas of strategy use for intended educational purposes.This creates a situation in which we face the difficulty of separating literature focusing on teaching strategies from those focusing on curriculum modification. Our challenge is to clarify these ambiguities and to refine the definition of curriculum modification. In this review, we define curriculum modification as modified contents, instructions, and/or learning outcomes for diverse student needs. In other words, curriculum modification is not limited to instructional modification or content modification but includes a continuum of a wide range of modified educational components. Similarly, Comfort (1990) defines curriculum modification as "the adapting or interpreting of a school's formal curriculum by teachers into learning objectives and units of learning activities judged most reasonable for an individual learner or particular group of learners" (p. 397). Curriculum modification involves change to a range of educational components in a curriculum, such as content knowledge, the method of instruction, and student's learning outcomes, through the alteration of materials and programs (Comfort, 1990; King-Sears, 2001; MacMackin & Elaine, 1997; Reisberg, 1990).Although some may distinguish instruction from curriculum and argue that mere instructional modification should not be considered as curriculum modification, defining curriculum modification requires us to understand curriculum as a broad concept which involves various educational components and people involved in the educational processes. After all, contents, instruction, input and output inseparably construct daily teaching and learning. We also conceive school curriculum as a framework for guiding teachers (Comfort, 1990). In short, the way that we interpret curriculum influences our understanding of curriculum modification.Reisburg (1990) lists examples of the modifications of content, such as teaching learning strategies, simplifying concepts or reading levels, teaching different sets of knowledge and skills needed by students, and setting up specific objectives and examples of modifications to instructional methods, including reducing distractions, altering the pace of lessons, presenting smaller amounts of work, clarifying directions, and changing input and response modes. All of these teaching events should be considered as examples of curriculum modification. For the purpose of this report, we have adopted the categorization of curriculum modification suggested by King-Sears (2001). King-Sears identified four types of curriculum modification:(a) accommodation, (b) adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d) overlapping curricula on a continuum. This categorization represents the relation between modified curriculum and general curriculum in of differences and similarities in educational input including content knowledge and conceptual difficulty, educational output including educational goals, and methods of instruction. The extent to which the modified curriculum differs from the general curriculum becomes greater as educational practice moves from accommodation to overlapping curricula. For instance, in accommodation, the only educational components which may differ from general curriculum are instructional method and educational goals, whereas, in overlapping curricula, all components–input, output, and instructional methods that students receive–can be totally different from those designed in general curriculum. As conceptualized in this continuum, curriculum modification that King-Sears suggests contains a wide range of educational practices and shares the essence of the fore-mentioned definition of curriculum modification; modified contents, instructions, and/or learning outcomes for diverse student needs. Modifications identified by King-Sears, for example, range from an educational practice of simply providing an audio book to some students who have reading difficulties during reading lessons to an educational practice of having some special needs students work on individual (IEP) goals, such as following directions, while they engage in general science lessons. Moreover, these four types of curriculum modification, according to King-Sears, are the extensions of curriculum enhancement within the process for teachers to determine the degree of accessibility of their classroom students with disabilities. In other words, curriculum modification, in King-Sears' view, is a suggested step to take when curriculum enhancement alone is not effective to achieve objectives for inclusion.

King-Sears' clear categorization and analysis of the components of curriculum modification is valuable for educators to capture the essence of curriculum modification. As stated above, her categorization consists of a wide range of educational practices. Since curriculum modification is practiced in numerous ways, it is important to broaden the definition rather than limiting to particular events. top

Components and Features As noted above, the components of curriculum modification are well categorized by King-Sears (2001) into four types: (a) accommodation, (b) adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d) overlapping curricula. Switlick (1997) explains that the purpose of modifying curriculum is "to enable an individual to compensate for intellectual, physical, or behavioral challenges" (p. 236) and to create learning environments which "allow the individual to use existing skill repertoires while promoting the acquisition of new skills and knowledge" (p. 236). We need to understand that these are the purposes which underlie the four types of curriculum modification identified by King-Sears (2001). In the following section, brief explanations of each type of curriculum modification with examples from actual classrooms are prepared. Actual educational practices reflecting modified curriculum vary in many ways, modification occurs in various educational settings across diverse subject areas, students, assignments, assessments, evaluations, and so on.Presenting examples for all educational situations is beyond the scope of this report.Therefore, we selected a range of examples across four types of curriculum modification with a special focus on the examples from integrated general classrooms. For instance, the section regarding accommodation involves an example of using assistive technology in writing class for students with learning disabilities, and an example of using audio books for English Language Learners in a reading lesson. Likewise, various settings (math, language arts, social studies, and science lessons) and learners; students with a moderate to severe disabilities, as well as students identified as gifted and talented appear in the examples presented across the four types of curriculum modification. Following the description and examples of each curriculum modification type is a table illustrating comparisons among four types of curriculum modification in relation to components modified and the extent to which modified curricula differ from the general curriculum. The table helps us visually recognize that, as we move forward from accommodation to overlapping curricula, focused components shift from instruction-oriented to content-oriented, and that educational practices reflecting modified curriculum become more distant from educational practices based on general curriculum.

Accommodation The term accommodation is used to mean a modification to the delivery of instruction or method of student performance and does not change the content or conceptual difficulty of the curriculum (see Table 1). Both teachers and students can play a role in the changes of instructional methods in order to achieve the same intended instructional outcomes suggested in general curriculum. Examples of accommodation are countless. Some include; incorporating different types of teaching devices and techniques, such as use of audio or other formats as an alternative to print, technology, graphic organizers, and pictorial representation; and changing the amount of input, time-frame for learning, and levels of for individual students' needs. Among these examples, using assistive/adaptive technologies typically exemplify an accommodation to general curriculum. Bray, Brown, & Green (2004) define assistive/adaptive technologies as "content-free technologies" (p. 34) which does not address curriculum or promote specific learning, but rather help students overcome inaccessibility due to individual differences. In an actual classroom, a student with physical disabilities may use a computer input devices, such as a trackball mouse which requires less hand movement or an alternate keyboard with extra large keys, to complete his/her writing task. In this case, the content and difficulty level of tasks remain the same as the tasks in which other students in the class engage. An accommodation through the use of

assistive/adaptive technologies allows students to complete their tasks required in general curriculum which would be difficult to complete otherwise. Another example of accommodation is making audio versions of books available for students who are English Language Learners (ELL) and students with print disabilities when they engage in reading sessions focusing on reading comprehension skills. Instead of providing the traditional written or printed form of text, teachers can have these students work individually or in a small group to read an assigned book with auditory . Again, through this type of accommodation, students with diverse needs can acquire same content knowledge as other students and move onto the next stage of learning with them. In the case of ELLs, they can comprehend the text with audio and then participate in the follow-up activities with other classmates based on their understanding of what was read. Frequently, teachers regard ELL students' developing language proficiency as a disadvantage, which causes a necessary lag-behind (Valdes, 2002). As a result, teachers may provide curriculum modification with more content-focused alteration, which simplifies the content, may change the standards and goals, does not provide enough cognitive challenge and academic stimulus, and does not help their acquisition of the English language. Although it is important to understand that acquiring a second language, especially academic language, is not a quick fix and takes many years of instruction (Cummins, 2000), teachers also need to know that ELLs, like other general students, should receive an appropriate cognitive challenge with appropriate conceptual difficulties and a sense of belonging to their class regardless of their developing language proficiencies (Igoa, 1995). When used with the students with appropriate language proficiency levels, an accommodation to general curriculum can be a powerful tool to ELL students' unique linguistic, academic, and social needs. Switlick (1997) has listed other examples of accommodations, such as requiring completion of every other word problem on a math worksheet, and providing for oral performance instead of written. As we see in these examples, accommodation is not a change of educational input designed in general curriculum, such as content knowledge and conceptual difficulty of the subjects. Rather, accommodation is a modification of instructional methods intended to meet individual student's needs of acquiring necessary input from lessons. The information that students receive remains the same. However, an accommodation to curriculum modifies the way that students acquire and/or respond to the information. Another important point to add is that the intended goals of accommodated curriculum may change from those of general curriculum depending on educational contexts. For instance, using an audio book in a reading comprehension lesson creates an opportunity for students to use their listening skills in addition to reading or decoding skills. If the students were English-speaking children with reading difficulty who had already established English listening skills, the intended goals of curriculum would remain the same as those in general curriculum.However, if the students were ELLs who were still in the process of developing their listening skills, teachers could indicate an additional goal for them (which is the development of listening skills). Thus, accommodation has a flexibility of adjusting intended educational goals based on context.

Adaptations Adaptation is a modification to the delivery of instructional methods and intended goals of student performance that does not change the content but does slightly change the conceptual difficulty of the curriculum (see Table 1). Adaptations usually require more teacher effort and time than simply changing instructional methods or access as in an accommodation.An adaptation is a goal-driven process: in order to decide on an adaptation to curriculum, teachers first need to specify intended goals for individual students. Again, examples of adaptation abound, and include providing differentiated activities, homework and evaluations, and using adapted or different instructional materials and activities for individual students. Adaptations in integrated general classrooms often occur when teachers differentiate instruction. For instance, teachers can create writing lessons which meet individual student's unique needs by having students work on adapted assignments. While some students are engaging in a writing

assignment individually, students with learning disabilities may work on their assignment in a small group with teacher . The teachers may also modify the content of the writing activity depending on students' needs. While the teachers require some students to compose using the five new vocabulary words from the lesson, the students with a learning disability may select three of the 5 new words from the lesson and make appropriate use of them in the context of their work. KingSears (2001) suggests that a variation of this type of lesson can be providing students with disabilities fewer practice tasks. She also points out that reducing the amount of tasks seen in an accommodated instruction should be differentiated from that provided in adapted instruction. On the one hand, the accommodatedinstruction may modify the amount of tasks, for instance, teachers provide only 5 math problems to students with math difficulties while others work on 10 problems without changing the conceptual difficulty of the problems. On the other hand, the adapted instruction involves a slight change in conceptual difficulty to meet students' needs. In another example provided by King-Sears (2001), the math teacher may instruct a student with a disability to work on mastering division of mixed fractions with like denominators while other students work toward mastering division of mixed fractions with unlike denominators. In this case, the conceptual difficulty that the students with a disability need to acquire slightly changes although the content knowledge of mathematics, namely the concepts of divisions and fractions, remains same. Switlick (1997) suggests other examples, including providing picture word cards for key words in a story and using a calculator to complete a math assignment. Switlick also provides an adaptation planning worksheet (Figure 9-1, p. 245, 1997) for teachers who are interested in incorporating adaptation into their instruction. Thus, adaptation involves not only the modification of instructional methods but also includes a slight change in conceptual difficulties introduced to students. Like accommodation, adaptation occurs within the same learning contents. In many cases, adaptation should be practiced when teachers determine that a student is able to learn the same content knowledge as other students if a slight change is made to modify conceptual difficulty.

Parallel Curriculum Outcomes/Parallel Instruction Parallel curriculum outcomes are modifications to the delivery of instruction and intended goals of student performance. Like adaptation, parallel curriculum outcomes do not change the content knowledge and the underlying principle of the educational goals for individual students. The difference between adaptation and parallel curriculum is the extent of change in conceptual difficulty. While adaptation slightly changes the conceptual difficulty of curriculum, parallel curriculum outcomes involves a significant change of conceptual difficulty (see Table 1). Similar to accommodation and adaptation, the practice of parallel curriculum outcomes depends on the educational contexts and individual student needs. There is a range of application to this type of modification and students with varying learner characteristics and abilities benefit from parallel curriculum outcomes. For example, many students identified as gifted and talented require more advanced or challenging conceptual difficulties in instruction and application. Therefore, the significant change of conceptual difficulty seen in parallel curriculum outcomes often suits the curriculum modification for these students. Many educators synonymously use the term enrichment, with the term parallel curriculum outcomes when addressing such curriculum modifications. Students with varying disabilities also benefit from the parallel curriculum type of modification.For instance, King-Sears (2001) described a classroom situation in which most students develop science projects that include analysis of cause-and-effect problems. In the same classroom, a student with multiple disabilities may engage in a science project with a focus on one experimental process. In this way, teachers are able to include the student with multiple disabilities in the same content lesson as all students and the student with disabilities so that she/he may achieve the appropriate educational goals. Other examples suggested by Switlick (1997) include providing special needs students in English/Language Arts classes a paper with all or part of a story and asking them to locate target words or letters while other students are reading the story; having students with special needs complete worksheets for counting from 1 to 10 while other students are assigned a math

worksheet on fractions; and allowing some students to orally report three things ed from listening to others reading the newspaper in citizenship/current events class, while other students read aloud and answer a series of questions. Thus, parallel curriculum outcomes do not change the broader content knowledge but significantly change the conceptual difficulties for students. The educational practices categorized under parallel curriculum outcomes closely connect to what Switlick (1997) described as a concept of "partial participation" (p. 236)— an underlying concept associated with modification. Switlick explains that we fundamentally believe that it is appropriate for diverse students, especially students with severe disabilities, to participate in the general education classroom even though they may not acquire the same level of conceptual difficulties as other classmates, and that teachers can pursue this practice by applying parallel outcomes/instruction curriculum modifications. As Switlick indicates, the use of parallel curriculum outcomes is a modification which "goes a step beyond what is usually considered when adapting instruction" (p. 244). Modifying the conceptual difficulty of curriculum in a significant way creates a learning environment in which we can broaden the idea of inclusion to a wider range of diversity among students.

Overlapping Curricula/Overlapping Instruction Overlapping curricula is a modification to curriculum such that the modification createsoverlapping or common goals for learning outcomes of diverse students. Overlapping curricula is not a direct modification of general curriculum. Rather, it is an incorporation of specific individual goals and expectations for students with diverse needs. Teachers can practice overlapping curricula when the specific goals are expected to be accomplished in general education. Overlapping curricula enables the diverse students to be involved in general education curriculum activities and promotes the idea of partial participation. There are various ways to practice overlapping curricula. In most cases, the components of curriculum, such as background knowledge, conceptual difficulties, and methods of instruction, for special needs students are designed very differently from those for general education students (see Table 1). Practicing overlapping curricula sometimes requires teachers to creatively design and provide shared educational activities, such as cooperative learning and peer-mediated interventions. In such shared activities, the educational goals and expectations for the students with diverse needs overlap with those for general education students. While the students with diverse needs are learning to achieve their individual educational goals, for instance vocational and social skills development, they also are able to be involved in the same content lesson with their general education classmates. Based on the modified intended educational goals, educational input (content knowledge and conceptual difficulty) and instructional methods become different from those designed in general curriculum. King-Sears described an example in which a student with emotional disturbance may have an IEP goal to develop appropriate interactions with peers in a small group setting. Although this student may never engage in social studies activities at the same conceptual levels as other students or never develop content knowledge in the subject, teachers can provide him/her with an appropriate task to complete in a small group in order to create an opportunity to learn how to interact with others. When the general curriculum also focuses on students' interaction as one of the intended goals for the social studies lesson, there is an overlap evident between the intended goals for students with special needs and those for regular students. In short, this type of modification allows students with specific needs to be involved in general education curriculum activities while accomplishing different curriculum goals. The following example depicted in Switlick (1997) clearly describes a classroom practice using overlapping curricula. The student, Jamie, in this example has objectives to make eye and acknowledge an interpersonal interaction using audible sounds: Jamie has a tray on his wheelchair. He holds on his tray the manipulatives students are using during math class. As students pick up their materials from Jamie's tray, they speak to Jamie. To meet his instructional goal, Jamie should look at each student and acknowledge the greeting with an audible

sound. The same interaction is duplicated as students exchange materials and return materials (p. 246). Thus overlapping curricula provides Jamie the opportunity to practice appropriate social interactions with peers in the general classroom setting. At the same time, his peers also benefit from the social interaction and are able to prepare their manipulatives and engage in a math activity efficiently with Jamie's help. Like other types of curriculum modification, accommodation, adaptation, and parallel curriculum outcomes, examples of overlapping curricula can be innumerable. Additional examples from the work by Switlick (1997) include having a student with a severe physical disability use an adaptive switch to activate an audio recorder and work on holding up his head for increased amounts of time while other students are recording a rough draft of a play they are creating, and having the same student make sure everyone in the class has a test tube and a worksheet while other students are engaging in a chemistry experiment in small groups. As we see in these examples, the educational practices in which the student with special needs engage for their intended goals and those in which general education students engage for their intended goals may create mutual benefit due to the overlap evident in their goals.Through applying overlapping curricula to general curriculum, teachers are able to create a learning environment where students with special needs play meaningful roles in a classroom and where not only students with special needs learn from being included in a general classroom but also the general education peers have an opportunity to learn and receive s from the students with special needs. The following table contains the four types of curriculum modification features described above. The first column contains a list of the modifications and the top row contains curriculum components; content knowledge, conceptual difficulty, intended goals, and method of instruction. If a modification is evident in certain components, the table shows the extent of modification, for example, slightly or significantly. This table serves as a summary for the ideas of curriculum modification and to learn the characteristics of each type in order to select which type would be most beneficial to students. Table 1. Curriculum Components Content Knowledge (input)

Types of Modification

Conceptual Difficulty (input)

Intended Goals (output)

Methods of Instruction

Accommodation

Same as general Same as general education education curriculum curriculum

Same or modified

Modified

Adaptation

Same as general education Slightly modified curriculum

Modified

Modified

Parallel Curriculum Outcomes

Same as general education curriculum

Significantly modified

Modified

Modified

Overlapping

Different

Different

Modified

Different

These explanations of four types of curriculum modification with the visual of the table help to illustrate how the extent of changes to curriculum varies among the four types of curriculum modification categorized by King-Sears (2001) and Switlick (1997). As described, the extent of change shifts from less to more as we move forward from accommodation through overlapping curricula. The demands for teacher time and energy for planning and conducting lessons may also increase as we shift from modifying instructional methods for accommodated curriculum to creating

individual lessons for overlapping curricula with application in general education lessons with overlapping educational goals. Although it seems to be true that accommodation is a less elaborate type of curriculum modification and that overlapping curricula is the most elaborate type contrarily, the degree to which each modification type is different from general curriculum does not correspond to the degree of s needed by individual students. In other words, an accommodation can be an excellent tool to instruct students with severe disabilities who need extensive amounts of , whereas students with minor disabilities may benefit from overlapping curricula depending on each individual student's educational goals and the instructional episode. The educational practices for all types of curriculum modification are as diverse as the educational contexts, including subjects, settings, and students. In fact, classroom teachers may practice different types of curriculum modification in a combined manner. In other words, we can easily imagine that a student who benefits from adapted curriculum may also receive positive s from other types of curriculum modification. Also, in the classroom where differentiated instruction is practiced, various modifications may take place concurrently. Categorizing each type of curriculum modification is extremely useful for teachers to understand the nature and potentialities of curriculum modification and to incorporate their understandings into actual classroom instructions. However, we should keep in mind that the success of modified curriculum requires teacher flexibility in instructional practices and broad views of curriculum itself. The next section will introduce literature providing empirical evidence of curriculum modification for diverse students. top

Evidence of Effectiveness The empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification is available in many studies. The following sections includes the literature review of 13 empirical studies issued between 1989 and May, 2004, which report the impact of curriculum modification on various areas of interest, and 4 conceptual studies relevant to the empirical findings. For the purpose of this report, which is to display empirical evidences of effectiveness, our main focus is on the empirical findings and we use conceptual studies to supplement the background of reviewed empirical studies. A total of 17 studies were identified and then organized into three major categories by the areas of impact for which the modified curriculum was designed: (a) modification designed for students' learning, (b) modification designed for behavioral reasons, and (c) modification designed for inclusion. The majority of the studies are the articles from major peer-reviewed journals, such as Academic Therapy, Bilingual Research Journal, Behavioral Disorders, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Equity & Excellence in Education, Journal for Education of the Gifted, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal of Early Intervention, Teacher Educator, with a few exceptions from books.

Modifications Designed for Students' Learning In 9 of 17 studies reviewed, the authors focused on demonstrated effectiveness of modifications designed for student learning, which include 7 empirical studies and 2 conceptual papers. This section contains three subsections based on the types of diverse students, namely general education students, English Language Learners, and gifted and talented students.

Modification for General Education Students We found 2 empirical studies comparing the effect of modified curriculum to that of regular curriculum on general students' learning performance, including engagement, motivation, and achievement as well as teacher perceptions regarding the use of modified curriculum (Tieso, 2001). The number of studies focusing on the effectiveness of curriculum modification for general education students alone is limited since a majority of studies in this topic target student populations in need of modification to existing general curriculum. Tieso's (2001) qualitative study involved 12 mathematics teachers from different school sites (2 teachers used regular textbook curriculum, 10

teachers used the modified curriculum). From these classrooms, 6 students in grade 5 through 8 were selected for interviews. During the 3 weeks of data collection, Tieso investigated teacher and student perceptions regarding the necessity and effectiveness of modified math units and the academic achievements of the students after receiving the modified units. The curriculum was redesigned so modified units would provide enhanced learning objectives, authentic resources and assessment techniques, engaging lesson introductions, and include an emphasis on the major principles and concepts of the discipline. The existing units of study were carefully aligned with constructivist teaching and learning activities and the teachers received trainings in curriculum modification. Data were collected through individual interviews, focus groups, observations, and examinations of students' artifacts. The authors reported that teachers perceived the modified unit as more effective in motivating and engaging students. The modified unit also seemed to meet the needs of all students by challenging the students and posing high expectations. Based on these results, the author's indicate that students believed the modified units were more fun, complex, engaging, and challenging than a regular textbook unit. Additionally, the students showed pride in completing their final projects. In summary, the author stated that teachers and students preferred the modified unit, which involved hands-on activities, the infusion of writing into the math curriculum, the opportunity of collaboration among students, and the comprehensive and authentic nature of the final project. A second study on curriculum modification by Moon & Callahan (2001) researched the effectiveness of curriculum modification on general education student's learning achievement.In this 2-year longitudinal study, a mixed method, curriculum modification was one of the interventions designed for a project called To Affirm Rising Talent (START). The subjects included 273 elementary students with diverse backgrounds in of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. The students were first or second graders from 16 schools in an urban school district and more than a half of them were from low-socioeconomic environments. Curriculum modification in this study followed a constructivist approach, which emphasized a student-centered approach in modification. Curriculum modification involved various components of learning in daily classroom activities. Some modification practices included organizing lessons relevant to student's lives, considering a pattern of classroom interaction, using materials familiar to students from varied cultural backgrounds. During the implementation of this curriculum modification, student's academic achievement was measured using a standardized norm-referenced measure in basic skills (vocabulary, reading, language arts, and mathematics). The author's summarized their results as follows. In combination with other interventions incorporated in the START project, such as family outreach program and mentorship, curriculum modification positively affected the improvement of students' academic achievement, especially students identified as at-risk for academic failure. Students' identified as at-risk were on grade level by the end of the project and the effectiveness of intervention was evident one year after the project was completed. Thus, these two empirical studies showed some positive effects of curriculum modification for students' attitudes towards learning and their academic achievement. Considering the scarceness of empirical studies emphasizing the potential effectiveness of curriculum modification on all students, the significance of their studies is in their focus on diverse students in general education classrooms. Although Tieso's study did not discuss the diversity among the subjects, the subjects in the study by Moon et al., (2001) involved diverse students with various ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Their findings suggest that, when the design is student-centered and the practice is individually-focused, curriculum modification is effective for all students regardless of their backgrounds. We are encouraged by these promising studies. However such a small sample is inconclusive and we recommend additional research to be conducted with a focus on student groups who require modified curricular units to access general curriculum.

Modification for English Language Learners

We found 2 empirical studies (Buxton, 1999; Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001) and a conceptual study (Sparks, 2000) specific to students identified as English Language Learners (ELLs). The researchers focusing on curriculum modification for ELLs suggested that integrating students' unique linguistic and cultural backgrounds into curriculum is a key to make modified curriculum function successfully. The first study was designed to demonstrate that the effectiveness of a modified science curriculum on the accessibility to inquiry-based science curriculum for ELLs as well as regular English-speaking students (Fradd et al., 2001). Curriculum modification, in this study, was a part of two large scale science projects, the Promise Project and The Science for All Project. Fradd's Promise Project, involved 502 students in grade 4 with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, including bilingual Hispanic, Haitian, and English speaking children, and their teachers who shared students' language and culture. The researchers and teachers modified the curriculum to incorporate more open inquiry; as a result, students' academic achievement reflected in test scores improved. Teachers' insights contributed to identify the transitions and instructional materials required to move to the modified open inquiry. Teacher's knowledge of their students' language and culture also helped to identify students' specific needs. The Science for All Project, was a 3-year longitudinal project involving 900 students in grade 4 and their teachers. In this project, the science curriculum was modified such that inquiries would develop through a continuum of experiences ranging from scaffolded explicit instructions to student-initiated inquiries. The process of curriculum adaptation involved the integrating specific linguistic components for the language and literacy development of ELL students. For instance, the modified curriculum incorporated the learning of specific language functions, such as describing, reporting, or explaining, and the promotion of vocabulary development in both English and the students' native languages. The modified curriculum also involved providing instructions in multiple representational formats, such as drawings, charts, tables, graphs, and computer-developed simulations. Such modified curriculum contributed to develop inquiry-based science curricula for the ELLs and to increase academic achievement. The authors stated that "despite contextualized learning through hands-on activities, the benefits of science inquiry for ELLs may be limited without a concomitant focus on literacy development" (p. 493). Although the major focus of this study was on the modification of materials, the results suggested that teachers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification shifted from uncertain to preferable, and that such a positive shift of teacher perceptions would affect the successful practice of modified inquiries. This author also suggests that teachers can modify curriculum in a particular subject area with the input obtained from different subject areas. A crucial point is for teachers to consider fulfilling students' needs using whatever available input from the learning contexts. The results of this study indicate that the ELL students' academic success in science was closely connected to their language and literacy learning, and that those students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds benefit from the modified curriculum when their unique linguistic needs are integrated in curriculum. Existing modification strategies or instructional strategies identified as effective for a wide range of students may not ELL students when their language proficiencies are not taken into . In another study, Buxton, reported that integrating ELLs' cultural backgrounds is a key point for teachers to consider when modifying science curriculum (Buxton, 1999). In this 3 year longitudinal study, the researcher examined the effectiveness of modified science curriculum designed within a project called the Science Theatre Project. The modified science curriculum involved a computerbased instructional methodology with an inquiry-based and student-generated computer models. The purpose of this study was to examine how modified curriculum affected the students' learning and understanding of science inquiries and interactions. The subjects involved 26 students in grades 2 and 3, including Spanish-English bilingual children and English monolingual children in a two-way bilingual program. The underlying assumption of this study was that personal understandings of how science is practiced play an important role in students' academic success in science, and this assumption is evident in Buxton's statement, "the cultural and linguistic

backgrounds that many of these students bring with them to school stress methods of argument, proof, and understanding of the natural world that are significantly different from the logico-deductive western epistemology that has given rise to modern science" (p. 148). Qualitative data were collected through ethnographic field notes, classroom artifacts, and individual interviews with students and teachers. The results showed that the use of computer models was beneficial for the students' developing conceptual abilities, and that the change of students' conceptual abilities was essential for the creation of successful models. The significance of this study is the emphasis on student's and teacher's roles. Buxton emphasized that curriculum modification needs to be student-centered in a way that the content of modification is connected to students' own lives, and that students need to understand the value of their prior experiences and to help teachers tailor the instruction. Only when cultural backgrounds of ELL students are acknowledged and integrated in curriculum modification, they will have a learning opportunity to comfortably use the language of science as a discourse of engagement in activities and to engage in content-based interactions with others. The ideas from a conceptual study done by Sparks (2000) reinforces the importance of integrating students' cultural backgrounds into curriculum modification. In his study, Sparks specifically focused on Native American students. He suggests that curriculum can be enhanced through a process of incorporating Native American students' culture in the classroom curriculum, what he calls "cultural infusion" (p.263). Cultural infusion is a way that students do not change their cultural beliefs but adapt to specific situations and acquire necessary coping skills. Based on his teaching and research experiences, Sparks asserts that school failure is less likely to occur and student's self-esteem increases when their culture is successfully incorporated into the modified curriculum. He suggests that, for the culture-specific approach for curriculum modification, educators need to consider the following principles: (a) learning about student's lives, including specific tribe culture and individual family lives, (b) building the curriculum on positive images of student's culture not on negative stereotypes, (c) developing cultural sensitivity, and (d) learning about the characteristics of Native American learners, such as their visual presentations of knowledge, their lives in a highly oral culture, their preference of simultaneous processing rather than sequential processing, their preference of hands-on technique, their cooperative rather than competitive learning environments, their concepts of time and space, and so on. Thus, the focus among the studies regarding effectiveness of curriculum modification for ELL students are on the importance of integrating student's linguistic and cultural backgrounds into a modification process. A common suggestion evident among these studies is that teachers need to understand the characteristics and specific needs of particular groups when determining how curriculum should be modified. In addition, to adopt the modification practices benefiting all students, such as student-centered and individual-focused, teachers need to apply their knowledge of specific linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs. It is important for teachers not to stereotype the needs of a specific group; however, it is also crucial for teachers to learn that curriculum modification does not meet its success without special attention paid to unique needs of students: language proficiency and cultural backgrounds in the case for ELL students.

Modification for Gifted and Talented Students We found 3 empirical studies (Olenchak, 1990; Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989; Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich & Purcell, 1998) and a conceptual study (Johnson, 2000), which focused on the effectiveness of curriculum modification designed as a part of a school-wide program for students identified as gifted and talented, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM). Johnson (2000) described the concept of SEM in his conceptual study. According to Johnson, the SEM has three components: (a) organizational components which include schoolwide enrichment team of teachers and parents, (b) structural components which include the regular curriculum, enrichment clusters, and a continuum of special services, and (c) instructional components which include the delivery of enriched instruction and teacher trainings. Curriculum modification with respect to these components focuses on student's strengths and interests and includes teacher-directed modification of specific

knowledge, methodology, and application in the prescribed curriculum. The components to be modified include instructional objectives and strategies, content, processes, product, and affect. Johnson introduced two techniques of curriculum modification: (a) curriculum compacting, which is "the elimination of content that a student has previously mastered or to streamlining content so that it commensurates with a student's level of motivation and ability" (p. 52) and (b) integrated instructional themes which is a cross-subject thematic integration of curriculum based on student's interests in their total talent portfolios. The underlying ideas of curriculum modification in the SEM is that the effective curriculum emphasizes both content and process, develops inquiry, and establishes the interconnectedness of knowledge and skills. We found three studies which examined the empirical validity of the SEM. (Olenchak, 1990; Olenchak et al., 1989; Reis et al., 1998). First, Olenchak et al., (1989) found that a year-long application of SEM to 1,698 elementary school students (K–6) was effective on positive changes in student and teacher attitudes toward overall learning and the concept of gifted education. In this study, the researchers used a series of qualitative research methods to investigate the change in: students' creativity; the students', principal's teachers', and parents' attitudes toward learning; the evidence of school-wide change resulted from the SEM. The qualitative methods included interviews, observations, logs, and analyses of students' products. Curriculum compacting following the basic principles described by Johnson (2000) was employed in the SEM process. The authors report that students' creative productivity increased and that there were significantly positive changes in attitudes towards overall learning and gifted education among the participants. Thus, the authors demonstrated the effectiveness of the SEM for not only gifted and talented students but for other students in a school-wide level. This study also contributed to the notion that the concept of curriculum compacting in gifted education needs to be widely acknowledged as a benefit to diverse students as well. After experiencing the SEM, one of the principals in this study commented, "having much more impact on the school than ever before because kids, regardless of scores and grades, can possibly achieve high quality work in an area they love" (p. 43). Similarly, Olenchak (1990) reported that curriculum modification provided in the SEM positively affected attitudes toward learning in a study with 1,935 middle school students. In this two-year longitudinal study, Olenchak implemented a mixed research method to investigate the extent students' attitudes towards learning process varied when he compared different affective variables, such as grade level, classroom teachers, learning climate, instructional styles, and enrollment in SEM program, and what aspects of SEM students perceive most positively, and what are the differences between SEM and other school programs. A qualitative regression analysis was used to investigate students' attitudes and the relations between their attitudes and other variables, while a qualitative analysis revealed student's perceptions of SEM. Over all, the authors reported results in which all students developed more positive attitudes towards learning through being enrolled in the SEM, and that the students found clear differences between SEM and regular school programs in a way that they were able to engage in more teacher-ed school activities and to pursue self-selected interest-based studies. Thus, the author raised questions regarding the limited views on gifted education, such as the idea that gifted education is only for the specific group of talented students, and also revealed that SEM would benefit all students in schools while the gifted and talented students continue to achieve their goals in general education classrooms. Another empirical study showed the effectiveness of curriculum compacting on the achievement test scores of gifted and talented students (Reis et al., 1998). The difference between this study and other two empirical studies described above is in its specific focus on curriculum compacting. While the other two studies described the effectiveness of curriculum modification implemented as a part of a large program, the SEM, the researchers in this study investigated the issues regarding curriculum compacting itself, such as the differences in academic achievement of students who received curriculum compacting and that of students who did not. The subjects of this study involved 336 gifted and talented students in grades 2 to 6 from various school settings, including rural, suburban and urban settings. Curriculum compacting in this study

involved eliminating 40 to 50% of already learned curricula for these gifted and talented students. The ITBS in students' grades and the same assessment in one grade higher were used to assess student's academic achievement in language arts and mathematics. Reis et al., (1998) found that compacting curriculum did not have negative effect on student's academic achievement as the results showed that there was no significant differences in academic achievement between the students who received curriculum compacting and those who did not. In other words, the students who received curriculum compacting performed as well as the other students who received standard curriculum in achievement tests. Although the findings of this study did not assure the long-term effects of curriculum compacting on student's learning achievement, they did contribute to reducing teachers' fears about negative impact of eliminating contents from existing curriculum. All of these studies found the effectiveness of curriculum modification represented as curriculum compacting. Two of 3 studies (Olenchak, 1990; Olenchak et al., 1989) were large-scaled longitudinal investigations and all studies focused on the investigations in a school-wide level. There are some significant contributions that these studies can offer to our understandings of effective curriculum modifications. First, considering the fact that more studies regarding curriculum modification have been conducted in smaller scale studies, such as case studies and class-wide investigations, this area of study focusing on gifted and talented students and the SEM contribute significantly to the field by presenting the empirical evidence collected from large samples and school-wide settings. Second, when we understand the SEM as an application of gifted education to the general education classrooms, these studies provide the rationales to go beyond the limited perception of gifted education and implement the SEM for all students. The findings of these studies expand the potentialities of an educational practice which was originally designed for a specific group of students. The limitation found in these studies includes their categorization of students. Besides gifted and talented students, the researchers tend to categorize other students as simply others in a control group. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of SEM and curriculum compacting through focusing on specific groups or individual students with unique needs. The empirical studies reviewed in this section, Modification for Student's Learning, demonstrated the effectiveness of curriculum modification on learning achievement and perceptions of students with diverse linguistic, cultural, ethnic, academic skills, and socio-economic backgrounds. In contrast to the fact that many teachers are practicing curriculum modification formally and informally in their everyday classroom teachings, a small number of empirical studies provide evidence for the effectiveness. We need more empirical studies, which examine the effectiveness of curriculum modification in a wider variety of educational settings with a wide range of students (e.g., grade, ability, culture, and ethnicity).

Modifications Designed for Behavioral Reasons Five of 15 studies demonstrated effectiveness in students' behavior management (Clarke, Dunlap, Foster-Johnson, Childs, Wilson, White & Vera, 1995; Dunlap, Foster-Johnson, Clarke, Kern & Childs, 1995; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke & Robbins, 1991; Kern, Bambara & Fogt, 2002; Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke & Falk, 1994). In this area of study, a group of researchers have conducted a series of studies to replicate and extend research methods and findings.The common focus of curriculum modification in these studies is incorporating student's interests and choice into curriculum. Researchers conducting four empirical studies (Clarke et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1991; Kern et al., 1994) reported that modified curriculum with incorporated students' personal interests was effective on managing student behavior. In addition to employing effective curriculum modification in these studies, they also used pre-intervention assessments of functional analysis and functional assessment to determine what the student's special needs and interests were to most effectively modify learning outcomes for the students.Based on the analyses, the researchers set up situations in which the students were expected to demonstrate more appropriate behaviors. Classroom teachers, then, implemented modified activities, assignments, instructions, and contents in their classrooms. For example, in the study conducted by Clarke et al., (1995), the

focus was on the disruptive behaviors of a participant during handwriting assignment, which required the student to copy pages from a traditional handwriting book. A comprehensive process of functional assessment was conducted to investigate problem behaviors and the student's interests through observations, interviews with teachers and the student, and direct discussions with the student. As a result, the authors identified Nintendo as the student's preferred leisure activity and substituted a handwriting activity requiring him to copy rules from a Nintendo game booklet for the conventional handwriting assignment. As we can see in this process, a functional analysis and a functional assessment have their advantages in that all information is from actual individual students and lives inside and outside classrooms. In the four studies reviewed in the following section, functional analysis and functional assessment were used repeatedly. Outcomes from the functional analysis and functional assessment became the foundations of teachers' decisions on deg curriculum modification. In each of these studies, the authors reported that considering student's personal interests played a pivotal role when deg curriculum modification, and simultaneously emphasized that practicing a functional analysis and a functional assessment were effective tools for identifying student interests and deg curriculum modifications. The following paragraphs describe research findings from each of these four studies which used a functional analysis and a functional assessment. First, Dunlap et al., (1991) found that the behaviors of a student with severe emotional disturbance and multiple disabilities improved when teachers implemented the modified curriculum based on the results from a functional assessment of the participant's behaviors, preferred physical movement, and choices. This case study involved a twelve-year-old female student, Jill, with severe emotional disturbance and a range of disabilities including mental retardation and ADD. Based on five weeks of a detailed and comprehensive functional assessment, the researchers and teachers hypothesized some of the optimal conditions in which Jill may demonstrate more appropriate behaviors. These conditions were: learning through more large motor activities and less fine motor and academic requirements, engaging in the activities resulting in concrete and preferred outcomes, and having some choice regarding those activities. In short, the researchers hypothesized that, if the curriculum was based on Jill's interests and if it created concrete outcomes she valued, her behavior would improve. Curriculum was revised and modified based on the guideline reflecting the hypotheses and was implemented during both academic and non-academic activities for a six-month period. The authors reported that during the intervention period with the modified curriculum, Jill's disruptive behavior and inappropriate vocalizations decreased, and on-task behavior and appropriate social interactions increased. The researchers concluded that functional assessment process and curriculum modification were found to be efficient to reduce Jill's severe behavior problems. Second, Dunlap et al., (1995) also found that modified curriculum based on the results from individual functional assessment helped students with severe emotional behavioral challenges improve their behaviors, productivity, and task-completion. This short-term case study involved three students aged between 9 and 13 who had severe emotional and behavioral challenges.The researchers and teachers identified the students' interests and determined functional/concrete outcomes through individual functional assessment, including interview, observation, and brief probe. They then designed modified tasks and instructions based on the functional/concrete outcomes reflecting students' interests. For instance, the functional assessment revealed that one of the participants, Jerry, enjoyed sharing snacks with others, and the researchers determined that the functional outcome was an assembly task reflecting his interests. The modified task derived from this functional outcome was for him to engage in a multi-step assembling process of preparing cracker sandwiches with peanut butter and jelly for himself and his classmates. This modified task substituted for Jerry's previous task of assembling pens. Overall, the researchers reported results that each student engaged in less problem behavior when they received modified curriculum. Productivity and the rate of task completion increased as well as the students' affect showed a positive change after the intervention. Dunlap et al., (1995) concluded that tasks and activities can be modified through providing different variables, such as materials, response requirements, outcomes, and familiarity. They also emphasized that these variables in

students' social contexts and the combinations of such variables play a key role in the process of an effective curriculum modification. In the third study found, the authors reported similar results as Dunlap et al., (1991) and Dunlap et al., (1995). Clarke et al., (1995) found that curriculum modified to incorporate students' interests were associated with reductions in inappropriate behaviors and an increase in task productivity. Importantly, the researchers used a functional assessment to determine the students' interests and modified tasks. Their study involved four boys with severe emotional and behavioral disturbance and other disabilities, such as autism and ADHD. The data were collected over a fiveweek period in the student's specialized classrooms. Based on the results from functional assessment, the researchers provided the students with both standard assignments and interesting assignments incorporating student's personal interests. There were three dependent variables identified when measuring the effects of modified curriculum: (a) disruptive and desirable behavior, (b) student productivity, and (c) social validity. The researchers collected student behaviors data through classroom observation, audio and video recording using a 15-second partial interval system. For students' productivity, the researchers investigated the rate of performance and an amount of task completion within the scheduled session. Questionnaires were used to examine the social validity of modified curriculum and were completed by teachers and students. Clark and colleagues report that modifying curriculum through using functional assessment and incorporating student's interests was effective in reducing student's disruptive behaviors and in promoting task productivity. The questionnaire results also indicated that there was a consistent positive difference among the subjects for the assignment created based on student interests in comparison to the conventional assignment. The fourth study which used functional assessment was a case study conducted by Kern and his colleagues (1994). The researchers found that functional assessment of a student's behavior, the hypotheses developed through the assessment, and the guideline for curriculum modification reflecting the hypotheses contributed to the effective practice of modified instructions and assignments in English, math, and spelling classes for a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. The student's on-task behavior increased when modified curriculum took place. In this case study, the participant was an 11-year-old boy, Eddie, with emotional and behavioral challenges and unique to this study, above average cognitive and communication skills. After a comprehensive functional assessment, five curricular variables were identified and hypotheses were developed according to the functional assessments. The researchers hypothesized that Eddie's on-task behavior increases when engaged in activities that do not require excessive amounts of handwriting, problem-solving skills, multiple brief tasks, when reminded to attend to his work, and when provided with the option of working in a study carrel.Based on these hypotheses, the researchers modified curriculum used in Eddie's English, math, and spelling classes. Curriculum modification included the manipulation of "several curricular variables related to the content, length, and mode used to perform tasks" (p. 17, Kern et al., 1994). During the 8 weeks of intervention period, Eddie's on-task behavior was recorded and a selfreported activity rating form was used. As a result, Eddie's on-task behavior increased when he received modified curriculum in all academic subjects. In addition, his teacher reported substantial improvements in work completion. Also, Eddie preferred the revised curriculum to standard curriculum. Kern et al., (1994) emphasized that increased individualization, such as incorporating students' interests in curriculum, contributes to not only the intended goals for an individual student but potentially to other educational goals as well. In Eddie's case, teachers can expect that the reduction of undesirable behaviors resulted from curriculum modification would positively influence his academic progress. Similar results to the four studies described above were reported by Kern et al., (2002) without a formal use of functional analysis/assessment. Their study reported that modifying curriculum through incorporating student's interests into an instruction increased the engagement of students with severe emotional disturbance and decreased their destructive behavior. The subjects of this study

were 6, 13 and 14 year old boys. All participants attended a university-d private school for students with severe behavioral challenges. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of modified curriculum which provided choice-making opportunities and high-interest activities simultaneously across all students in the class. The modified science curriculum included choice-making, both individual and group choices, and high interest activities. For instance, students were allowed to choose one of two different activities, such as an experiment checking air pollution experiment or one about the beginnings of land pollution. High-interest activities were determined by teachers' previous teaching experiences with the students and informal assessments. The researchers recorded the change in student's behaviors in two phases, a baseline phase with traditional science curriculum and an intervention phase with the modified science curriculum. Students' engagement and classroom behaviors were measured. In addition, the researchers examined students' opinions about curriculum modification by having students complete class evaluation sheets. Kern et al., (2002) report that student engagement increased and destructive behavior decreased when they received the modified science curriculum. Also, the ratings of student preference for the lessons employing curricular modifications were slightly higher than baseline condition. The classroom teachers reported overall satisfaction with all aspects of the intervention. The significance of this study are results suggesting curriculum modification at the classroom level resulted in equally positive outcomes as the previous studies at the individual level. Thus, results of these studies indicate that, with formal or informal assessment of student's interests and behavioral issues, curriculum modification created flexibility through which teachers may create more appropriate learning contexts for their students with emotional and behavioral challenges. The flexibilities in the modified curriculum evident in these studies incorporated student interests and providing choices. These modifications were found to be effective to improve behavioral issues for students' with various types of disabilities and cognitive challenges. One of the limitations of these studies was research design. These studies took place in the special programs designed specifically for the students with emotional and behavioral challenges, and there were no control groups with which to compare results. Therefore, the generalizability of the results to other educational settings, such as integrated classrooms, is less clear. However, there is also strength in their research design. Significantly, the researchers in these studies obtained data not in controlled laboratory settings but in actual classrooms with the participants' teachers. In all studies, teachers implemented modified activities, assignments, instructions, and contents. Of significance as well is that the student interests did not necessarily have to come from schooloriented topics but could come from outside school. Overall, these studies contributed to our understanding of the effectiveness of curriculum modification to student's behavior management. There seems to be a strong research trend to replicate and expand currently available research results to further research efforts with different groups of students and different scales of study. Future research in this field is expected to continue following this trend.

Modifications Designed for Inclusion In this section we present one descriptive report by Salisbury, Mangino, Petrigala, Rainforth, Syryca & Palombaro, (1994) with empirical evidence, regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification for inclusion (Salisbury et al., 1994). Salisbury and her colleagues found that modifying curriculum based on student's IEP resulted in successful physical, social, and instructional inclusion of students with mild to profound disabilities. This study reported a curriculum adaptation process used for 26 students across kindergarten through grade 4 in a suburban rural, blue collar community in south central New York, but contained the results from only 3 students. These students had various types of disabilities, including learning challenges, Hydrocephaly, a V-P shunt, severe mental retardation and problem behaviors. The researchers investigated how the curriculum modification process could be applied in mathematics, science, and language arts lessons in order to optimize the instructional inclusion of students. Students' physical, social, and instructional inclusion was recorded through staff observation, video, and teacher logs.

In order to design the modified curriculum, combinations of varying levels of content and objective modifications were selected based on the individual student's needs. The researchers suggested that, in the development of adaptation process, teachers need to be aware of the following 4 ideas: (a) the students' unique differences should be valued, (b) not all students need to be doing the same thing at the same time, (c) team or teachers contribute uniquely to the planning and implementation of the process, and (d) all students should belong in the age-appropriate general education class. They also assert that for successful curriculum modification, team need to understand students' IEPs, to plan in advance, expand their knowledge of curriculum, and collaborate with one other.

Summary There are a small number of empirical articles available investigating the effectiveness of curriculum modification to students' inclusion. One of the possible reasons is that many researchers discuss curriculum modification as a part of inclusion strategies. Also, many studies do not identify the strategy use for inclusion clearly as a curriculum modification and were not reviewed for this paper. The research studies reviewed in this section, Evidence of Effectiveness, showed the potentialities of curriculum modification for various groups of students and teachers. With its flexibilities, curriculum modification seems to be effective in countless ways. Therefore, stating all possible effective areas is beyond the scope of this report. The similarity found among these studies was their emphases on the constructive view of curriculum design with a student-centered approach. All studies suggested that the process of an effective modification requires the deep analysis and assessment of students' needs and their learning contexts. Students' needs play essential roles in the process of modification. Clear evidence was seen in the approach of functional analysis/assessment. These studies also suggested that important elements for curriculum modification, such as personal interests, may be commonly considered for all students, whereas, others may be specific to certain groups, such as the linguistic and cultural integration for ELLs. Most importantly, the findings of these studies reported the effectiveness of curriculum modification for various groups of students, including general education students, ELLs, gifted and talented students, and students with a variety of disabilities. These findings suggested the potentialities of curriculum modification for all students. In order for teachers to learn more about the empirical evidence of curriculum modification in the educational settings similar to their own, further research is needed with a wider range of educational contexts. top

Factors Influencing Effectiveness This section describes 4 factors influencing the effectiveness of curriculum modification. These factors are: (a) individual needs, (b) subject specific needs, (c) teacher's roles and school , and (d) use of technology.

Individual Needs When teachers modify curriculum, they first need to analyze and assess educational contexts and to determine the method of modification based on individual student needs. In other words, the impetus of curriculum modification derives from individual needs identified in actual educational settings. Although the extent of curriculum modification widens from accommodation to overlapping curricula, the extent does not represent the degree of effectiveness. Some students may benefit from a minor modification rather than from the major changes regardless of student levels of disability or needs. Also, applying curriculum modification for all students may actually have a negative impact on the students who do not need it. King-Sears (2001) suggested, for example, that teachers can practice curriculum modification when curriculum enhancement alone is not effective. This, however, does not mean that curriculum modification is more ideal for those who need greater s to access general curriculum. Curriculum enhancement may work better in some situations than curriculum modification and vice versa. It is crucial to determine the way of approaching general curriculum

based on our understandings of students' unique needs and educational contexts.King-Sears stated that, for those students who need further modifications, "the design and delivery of [modifications] should be done in a manner that is thoughtful and considerate of individual student needs" (p. 11). Both formal and informal analysis and assessment of individual needs are useful for teachers to design effective curriculum modification. Learning about specific needs of particular groups of children, in addition to identifying individual needs in actual classroom settings, may also be a good starting point for teachers to plan curriculum modification.

Subject Specific Needs Other contextual variables, such as the subject of learning, play important roles when determining the modified goals for students. For instance, Cawley & Parmar (1990) suggest that, in the field of mathematics, curriculum modification which benefits students with disabilities cannot "simply consist of reduction in the quantity of information or the rate of presentation" (p.518). Instead, they assert that curriculum modification should include curriculum reorganization, which focuses on the conceptual contents and individual relevance of the curriculum including "mathematical reasoning, understanding, and the ability to apply computation in real-life situations" (p. 518-19, Cawley et al., 1990). Thus, the goals of modified curriculum are influenced not only by the particular student's unique needs but also by the particular way of knowledge-building associated with content area.

Teachers' Roles and School Teacher involvement may play a key role for successful curriculum modification. Comfort (1990) acknowledged that practicing curriculum modification is a professional task and asserts that teachers should be encouraged to take part in curriculum and instructional decision-making regardless of the pressures of standardized testing movement built around the curriculum standards. Comfort suggests 4 factors fostering curriculum modification: (a) a school system curriculum of appropriate breadth and specificity, (b) the curriculum development and implementation processes that include an integral role for teachers, (c) the expectations for greater collaborative relationship, and (d) the provision of orientations to and encouragement of the practice of curriculum modification. In order to meet these factors, teachers need an extensive amount of at the school level, including teacher training and professional development opportunities. MacMackin et al., (1997) point out that many general and special education teachers are interested in meeting the diverse needs of students, but do not know how to make appropriate modifications. In reality, many teachers tend to make inconsistent and unsystematic use of curriculum modification due to the lack of training and their doubts of ineffectiveness. Some teachers first tend to express doubts about students' reactions to the modified units but are usually surprised at the positive outcomes (Tieso, 2001). Further efforts are necessary to promote more school-wide and demonstrate empirical evidence of effective curriculum modification.

Use of technology Technology contributes to the effectiveness of curriculum modification when used appropriately (Birnbaum, 2001). Birnbaum suggests that the selection and the practice of technology, such as software, computer games, the Internet, multimedia, and hypermedia need to follow the student's IEP in relation to the general curriculum. Based on the individual students' needs, teachers can select technologies with the features promoting active learning, experimentation, controlled interactions, and independence. For instance, use of a computer game, Jumble, by the Tribune Company, may be appropriate for ELLs or students with reading difficulties since the game provides an opportunity to learn and enforce vocabulary. Thus, when modifying curriculum with technologies, teachers need to that the features of technologies have to match individual students' needs. Teachers also need to recognize that computer experience may vary greatly among students.Teachers need to consider what Bray et al., (2004) called digital divide"the gap between those in society who have access to computer technology and those who do not" (p. 3). Again, obtaining the information of individual students is a key to successfully incorporate technology use into curriculum modification.

Overall, the 4 factors discussed above reflect how successfully teachers utilize their knowledge of individual students, educational contexts and how effectively teachers and students select and use available resources to meet the students' unique needs. As we see in Comfort's statement, "curriculum modification is firmly grounded in the practical realities of the classroom" (1990, p. 398), the effectiveness of curriculum modification is deeply influenced by many factors existing in actual classrooms. top

Applications to General Education Classroom Settings Curriculum modification consists of potential benefits for not only the students who need special but also other students who learn in the same learning environment at any age levels. For instance, general education students may benefit from modified curriculum designed for the students with behavioral problems in general classroom settings. Through the increased positive behavior and learning productivity of those students, other students in the same classroom may receive more optimal learning environment and opportunities for mutual understandings and more interactions. In another situation, integrating student's linguistic and cultural needs may provide other students with the opportunity to learn new language and culture and may increase their multicultural awareness and mutual respect. In short, when a particular group of or individual students in a classroom benefit from curriculum modification, there is a great possibility that other students receive benefits as well. The mutual benefit can be planned as a shared goal like in the process of overlapping curricula. Or, such shared learning can naturally occur in our everyday teaching. It is important for teachers to know that various factors affect the effectiveness of curriculum modification. Teacher's understandings of students' backgrounds, resources and materials, and school are some of the important factors to consider. Professional development opportunities are especially necessary in order for teachers to improve their skills and knowledge in curriculum modification. In actual classrooms, modifying curriculum may require teachers to use their creativity and flexibility. For instance, they may need to form small groups for some students during lesson or practice differentiated instruction (For more information, see the literature review of Differentiated Instruction on the CAST websitehttp://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruct.html) as needed. Teachers may also need realistic numbers of adults working in their classrooms and vitality to make extra efforts to modify existing curriculum. Switlick (1997) suggested that curriculum modifications become successful when including FLOW: Fit into the classroom environment, Lend themselves to meeting individual student needs, Optimizes understanding for each student, and Works well with the activity planned for the lesson. Curriculum modification can be applied to general classrooms in multiple ways in order to enhance learning potentialities for all students. Only when contextual factors and principles of successful modification are taken into consideration, and the modification is well designed to fulfill individual students' needs determined through extensive analyses and assessment, does curriculum modification play a vital role to move students forward in their learning. top

Links to Learn More About Curriculum Modification A Process for Making Changes in the General Education Curriculum http://intranet.s.k12.il.us/Lessons/Accommodations/ CurrModIntroduction/currmodintroduction.html This article is made available by the Chicago Public Schools website and it contains suggestions for potential accommodations and modifications to instruct students with disabilities for general education classroom teachers. Examples are included to help introduce a process that teachers may follow to teach students with disabilities using general education academic standards. The article begins with a brief overview of standards-based instruction and then includes a list of considerations for teachers.

Curriculum for Learning Disabled Students: More Than Just Textbooks and Workbooks http://www.nathhan.com/artmore.htm The National Challenged Homeschoolers Association Network (NATHAN) s this web site and this article was written by Dr. John Sutton. The article includes a traditional and modern definition of curriculum and argues that commercially produced educational products may not be appropriate for students with learning disabilities. Dr. Sutton provides many suggestions for how to approach selecting educational materials for home schooled children and how to go about employing these materials to teach students with learning disabilities in a home school curriculum. Curriculum Modifications http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/curriculum.htm This link provides access to a wealth of information on working with students who are considered "special needs" because they are gifted. The links within this site provide information on the needs of gifted students and how they differ from other children in the classroom as well as suggestions for accommodating these students. Some links provide specific information, others provide the with source information on a particular topic, and other links provide access to research on the topic. The home site is copyrighted by "Carolyn K," and the site is called Hoagies' Gifted Education Page. Key Attributes of Curriculum Modification http://pages.framingham.k12.ma.us/sage/about.htm This site provides an “at a glance” reference guide of information on the SAGE program of the Framingham, MA public schools. It is a resource for educators working with students with special needs of giftedness. Margaret Wilson http://www.ualberta.ca/~jpdasddc/incl/wilson.htm Margaret Wilson, a special education teacher from Longmont, Colorado authored the article found on this web site. The article contains ideas for teachers about curriculum modifications for students with special needs in a multitude of subject areas. In this article, Ms. Wilson answers many questions about ing students with special needs and behavior management strategies that can be used for students with special needs in the general education classroom. Modifying the Elementary Curriculum for Students of Special Needs: A List of Ideas http://www.geocities.com/denisev2/spd_curriculum_modification.html This web page was written by Jan Demontigny from Farm Hill Elementary School in Middletown, CT. The article is a bullet point list of various curriculum modifications that Mrs. Demontigny has employed in her general education classroom to help students with disabilities. The list includes nine suggestions and an explanation for why they each assist students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Philosophy of Curriculum Modification http://barrier-free.arch.gatech.edu/Articles/philos_curric.html This brief is located on the Barrier Free Education web site created by the produced theCenter for Rehabilitation Technology and the IMAGINE Group at the College of Architecture at Georgia Tech. Barrier Free Education is a resource site devoted to facilitating the access to math and science education for students with disabilities. This particular article provides a philosophy of curriculum modification. Special Needs Students http://connectedmath.msu.edu/ The information found through this link provides teachers with practical and do-able strategies for curriculum modifications. Suggestions are provided for modifications of both assignments and assessments, for students with special needs in a regular education classroom. Although these suggestions are mainly geared toward a mathematics curriculum, they can be carried over into many other subject areas as well. The home site is operated by "Connected Mathematics Project" and provides a wide array of information from curriculum and assessment to research and professional development.

Several factors affect all curriculum development in meeting the needs of 21st century learners in both organized academic settings and corporation learning centers. Blueprinting curriculum development requires selecting learning goals, deg knowledge delivery models while creating assessment methods for individual and group progress. Factors affecting curriculum development include government norms, which in turn brings other factors into the process. Valid curriculum development requires awareness of the diversity of the target community socially, financially ans psychologically.

Methods of outcome-based education (OBE) are student-centered learning methods that focus on empirically measuring student performance (the "outcome"). OBE contrasts with traditional education, which primarily focuses on the resources that are available to the student, which are called inputs. While OBE implementations often incorporate a host of many progressive pedagogical models and ideas, such as reform mathematics, block scheduling, project-based learning and whole language reading, OBE in itself does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires the students to demonstrate the skills and course content that they are required to learn. However in practice, OBE generally promotes curricula and assessment based on constructivistmethods and discourages traditional education approaches based on direct instruction of facts and standard methods. Each independent education agency specifies its own outcomes and its own methods of measuring student achievement according to those outcomes. The results of these measurements can be used for different purposes. For example, one agency may use the information to determine how well the overall education system is performing, and another may use its assessments to determine whether an individual student has learned required material. Outcome-based methods have been adopted for large numbers of students in several countries. In the United States, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills started in 1991. In Australia, implementation of OBE in Western Australia was widely criticised by parents and teachers[1] and was mostly dropped in January 2007.[2] In South Africa, OBE was dropped in mid-2010.[3] On a smaller scale, some OBE practices, such as not ing a student who does not know the required material, have been used by individual teachers around the world for centuries. OBE was a popular term in the United States during the 1980s and early 1990s. It is also called mastery education, performance-based education, and other names. Contents [hide]



1 What is OBE?

o

1.1 Outcomes

o

1.2 Approaches to grading, reporting, and promoting

1.3 Differences with traditional education methods

o 

2 Claims in favor of OBE 2.1 Deductive Evidence that OBE actually works

o 

3 Criticism

o

3.1 Opposition to testing

o

3.2 Inappropriate outcomes

o

3.3 Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions

o

3.4 Criticism of educational reforms associated with OBE



4 OBE programs 4.1 Australia

o

4.1.1 Western Australia



o

4.2 South Africa

o

4.3 United States



4.3.1 OBE diplomas



4.3.2 OBE's relationship to college

o

4.4 European Union

o

4.5 Treaties 4.5.1 Washington Accord

 

5 Performance-based economy



6 See also



7 References



8 Further reading



9 External links

What is OBE?[edit] This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(May 2011) The effort, often by a state or local education agency, to organize all the features of schooling (including aims, curriculum, instruction, and assessment) so as to produce specifically delineated results (often including noncognitive as well as cognitive results) and generally with the expectation that all students will demonstrate such results. Outcome-based education is an effort of education that converges the traditional focus on what the school provides (Means + Ends) to students (see Aristotle Four_causes: Efficient cause), in favor of making students demonstrate that they "know and are able to do" whatever the required outcomes (Final_cause) are. OBE reforms emphasize setting clear standards for observable, measurable outcomes. A significant body of deductive sources at ERIC Database provide peer-reviewed research material about OBE requirements that enhance the adoption of specific outcomes. For example, many countries write their OBE standards so that they focus on mathematics, language, science, and history, without referring to attitudes, social skills, or moral values. Yet, a body of exceptions is gaining here: social skills for labor & job market, the reduction of youth unemployment is a moral value (International Labour Office ILO on Youth Employment Crisis). The key features which may be used to judge if a system has implemented an outcomes-based education systems are: 

Creation of a curriculum framework that outlines specific, measurable outcomes. The standards included in the frameworks are usually chosen through the area's normal political process.



A commitment not only to provide an opportunity of education, but to require learning outcomes for advancement. Promotion to the next grade, a diploma, or other reward is granted upon achievement of the standards, while extra classes, repeating the year, or other consequences entail upon those who do not meet the standards.



Standards-based assessments that determines whether students have achieved the stated standard. Assessments may take anyform, so long as the assessments actually measure whether the student knows the required information or can perform the required task.



A commitment that all students of all groups will ultimately reach the same minimum standards. Schools may not "give up" on unsuccessful students.

Outcomes[edit] The emphasis in an OBE education system is on measured outcomes rather than "inputs," such as how many hours students spend in class, or what textbooks are provided. Outcomes may include a range of skills and knowledge, reduction of youth unemployment, return-on-investment. Generally, outcomes are expected to be concretely measurable, that is, "Student can run 50 meters in less than one minute" instead of "Student enjoys physical education class." A complete system of outcomes for a subject area normally includes everything from mere recitation of fact ("Students will name three tragedies written by Shakespeare") to complex analysis and interpretation ("Student will analyze the social context of a Shakespearean tragedy in an essay"). Writing appropriate and measurable outcomes can be very difficult, and the choice of specific outcomes is often a source of local controversies. Each educational agency is responsible for setting its own outcomes. Under the OBE model, education agencies may specify any outcome (skills and knowledge), but not inputs (field trips, arrangement of the school day, teaching styles). Some popular models of outcomes include the National Science Education Standards and the NCTM's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics[dubious – discuss], as well as European Union's Rethinking Education.

Approaches to grading, reporting, and promoting[edit] An important by-product of this approach is that students are assessed against external, absolute objectives, instead of reporting the students' relative achievements. The traditional model of grading on a curve (top student gets the best grade, worst student always fails (even if they know all the material), everyone else is evenly distributed in the middle) is never accepted in OBE or standards-based education. Instead, a student's performance is related in absolute : "Jane knows how to write the letters of the alphabet" or "Jane answered 80% of questions correctly" instead of "Jane answered more questions correctly than Mary." Under OBE, teachers can use any objective grading system they choose, including letter grades. In fact, many schools adopt OBE methods and use the same grading systems that they have always used. However, for the purposes of graduation, advancement, and retention, a fully developed OBE system generally tracks and reports not just a single overall grade for a subject, but also give information about several specific outcomes within that subject. For example, rather than just getting a ing grade for mathematics, a student might be assessed as level 4 for number sense, level 5 for algebraic concepts, level 3 for measurement skills, etc. This approach is valuable to schools and parents by specifically identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses. In one alternate grading approach, a student is awarded "levels" instead of letter grades. From Kindergarten to year 12, the student will receive either a Foundational level (which is pre-institutional) or be evidenced at levels 1 through to 8. In the simplest implementation, earning a "level" indicates that the teacher believes that a student has learned enough of the current material to be able to succeed in the next level of work. A student technically cannot flunk in this system: a student who needs to review the current material will simply not achieve the next level at the same time as most of his same-age peers. This acknowledges differential growth at different stages, and focuses the teacher on the individual needs of the students. In this approach, students and their parents are better able to track progress from year to year, since the levels are based on criteria that remain constant for a student's whole time at school. However, this experience is perceived by some as a flaw in the system: While it is entirely normal for some students to

work on the same level of outcomes for more than one year parents and students have been socialized into the expectation of a constant, steady progress through schoolwork. Parents and students therefore interpret the normal experience as failure. This emphasis on recognizing positive achievements, and comparing the student to his own prior performance, has been accused by some of "dumbing down" education (and by others as making school much too hard), since it recognises achievement at different levels. Even those who would not achieve a ing grade in a traditional age-based approach can be recognized for their concrete, positive, individual improvements. OBE-oriented teachers think about the individual needs of each student and give opportunities for each student to achieve at a variety of levels. Thus, in theory, weaker students are given work within their grasp and exceptionally strong students are extended. In practice, managing independent study programs for thirty or more individuals is difficult. Adjusting to students' abilities is something that good teachers have always done: OBE simply makes the approach explicit and reflects the approach in marking and reporting.

Differences with traditional education methods[edit] In a traditional education system and economy, students are given grades and rankings compared to each other. Content and performance expectations are based primarily on what was taught in the past to students of a given age. The basic goal of traditional education was to present the knowledge and skills of the old generation to the new generation of students, and to provide students with an environment in which to learn, with little attention (beyond the classroom teacher) to whether or not any student ever learns any of the material.[4] It was enough that the school presented an opportunity to learn. Actual achievement was neither measured nor required by the school system. In fact, under the traditional model, student performance is expected to show a wide range of abilities. The failure of some students is accepted as a natural and unavoidable circumstance. The highestperforming students are given the highest grades and test scores, and the lowest performing students are given low grades. (Local laws and traditions determine whether the lowest performing students were socially promoted or made to repeat the year.) Schools used norm-referenced tests, such as inexpensive, multiple-choice computer-scored questions with single correct answers, to quickly rank students on ability. These tests do not give criterion-based judgments as to whether students have met a single standard of what every student is expected to know and do: they merely rank the students in comparison with each other. In this system, grade-level expectations are defined as the performance of the median student, a level at which half the students score better and half the students score worse. By this definition, in a normal population, half of students are expected to perform above grade level and half the students below grade level, no matter how much or how little the students have learned.

Claims in favor of OBE[edit] Proponents view OBE as a valuable replacement of the traditional model of relative ranking by ability and getting credit for merely sitting through class. OBE proponents OBE because of its vision of high standards for all groups. OBE proponents endorse measuring outputs rather than inputs (such as money spent, number of hours of lecture given, new EU outcome requirements focus on reducing the youth unemployment rate) and requiring that student demonstrate learning rather than just showing up.

OBE proponents believe that all students can learn, regardless of ability, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender.[8]Furthermore, OBE recognizes that a complex organization is more likely to produce what it measures, and to downplay anything it considers unimportant. The adoption of measurable standards is seen as a means of ensuring that the content and skills covered by the standards will be a high priority in the education of students. The standards-based education approach rejects social promotion and the inevitability of inferior performance by disadvantaged groups. While recognizing that some students will learn certain material faster than others, the standards movement rejects the idea that only a few can succeed. All students are capable of continuous improvement. The opportunities that were previously afforded to those at the top of a bell curve are opened up to the diversity of all students, in a democratic vision, sometimes connected to social justice. [5] The approach presents the following positions and viewpoints on OBE: 

All students will complete rigorous academic coursework so that they leave high school prepared for college or technical training, without remedial courses. [6][7]



All students, including those who live in poverty, will meet district, state, and national standards. [8]



Staff will maintain high expectations and standards, believing all students will succeed if kept to high expectations[9][10][11][12]



Students should be measured against a fixed yardstick, a finish line, or "against the mountain" rather than against other students.



Higher world class standards are required for 21st Century Skills.



Students should demonstrate that they have met standards, not just put in seat time to advance to the next level.[13]

We haven't taught many of them even up to middle school standards. It only punishes them more to give them an empty piece of paper we call a diploma when their high school experience hasn't prepared for any of the skills they'll need after high school. We give them a diploma that is a doorway to a street corner or unemployment line. —(Russlynn Ali of Education Trust-West) [14] In essence, OBE seeks to reject a rank-ordered definition of success by essentially requiring that all students shall be required to cross the finish line, at least as well as the specified standards. In practice, OBE results in able spending, thus also enabling jobless-rate risk-prevention of students who were previously allowed to graduate while being functionally illiterate and innumerate. OBE's objective standards finally put a brake on useless & popgun grade inflation, clearly to the distress of students who prefer high, but meaningless, grades.

Deductive Evidence that OBE actually works[edit]

The ERIC Database provides a Thesaurus Descriptor "Outcome-based Education" with presently over 369 peer-reviewed hits. Meanwhile, OBE is a coherent bound collection of ideas, with uniformity in the way it is implemented from case to case. This enhances testability for OBE's effectiveness in a way that applies universally. The concreteness of OBE's conception of a "measurable outcome" is welcoming, both in implementing an OBE regime and in testing its effectiveness.

Criticism[edit] Criticism of OBE falls into a few major groups: 

Opposition to standardized testing



Criticism of inappropriate outcomes



Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions



Dislike of something that is not OBE

Though it is claimed the focus is not on "inputs", OBE is criticised for being used to justify increased funding requirements, increased graduation and testing requirements, and additional preparation, homework, and continuing education time spent by students, parents and teachers in ing learning. It is also criticized for not being able to measure certain skills, much like IQ tests.

Opposition to testing[edit] Critics claim that existing tests do not adequately measure student mastery of the stated objectives. [citation needed]

Some parents also object to the use of standardized tests (all students take the same test under the same conditions) because they think it unfair for schools to require the same level of work or to use the achievement tests for impoverished or disadvantaged students as they do for more advantaged students. [citation needed]

The OBE philosophy insists that assessment models be carefully matched to the stated objectives. Highstakes tests are not required in an OBE system; norm-referenced tests are prohibited. Portfolios, daily assessments, teacher opinions, and other methods of assessment are perfectly compatible with OBE models. Furthermore, the OBE approach does not permit special, lower standards for students who have been badly served by public education in the past.

Inappropriate outcomes[edit] Many people oppose OBE reforms because they dislike the proposed outcomes. They may think that the standards are too easy, too hard, or wrongly conceived. Finally, some so-called OBE critics oppose nonOBE reforms that were presented as a part of a wide-ranging reform "package", rather than opposing OBE itself. Standards can be set too low: Most fear that the focus on achievement by all students will result in "dumbing down" the definition of academic competence to a level that is achievable by even the weakest students. Critics are unhappy with having all students meet a minimum standard, instead of most students meeting a somewhat higher standard.

Some critics also question whether even such low goals are realistic or attainable, and whether success can only be framed in of high test scores and high incomes. The emphasis on higher reading standards and algebra for all appears to devalue vocational trainingand the achievement of those who do not get high test scores, but who are likely to become competent blue-collar workers. Standards can be set too high: Others object that the standards are too high. OBE models do not approve of social promotion, so non-disabled students who perform significantly below the stated standard may be held back or required to take additional instruction. Especially when the standards are relatively new, and the schools are just beginning to adjust to the new standards, a majority of students struggle with at least some of the requirements. Parents are understandably unhappy to learn that their children have not acquired the necessary skills, and occasionally respond by demanding that the standards be lowered until their children are declared to be ing. Sometimes this demand that the standards be lowered is justified, because standards can be found developmentally inappropriate for all but the brightest students. The State of Washington found that some fourth grade WASL math problems were much more difficult than what is typically expected of nine-yearold students. A 2008 draft mathematics standard proposed that Kindergartners multiply to 30 byskip counting (also known as counting by twos: 2, 4, 6, 8...),[15] and that second graders solve simple algebra story problems.[16] Committees often set standards without considering how many students are currently achieving at that level. For example, in the 1998 North Carolina Writing Assessment, less than 1 percent of fourth graders received the highest possible score for writing content. [17]While a majority of students ed easily, parents were upset that so few were rated as being best. Dislike of specific outcomes: Finally, many complaints are directed against the nature of certain standards. For example, a politician might propose that standards be included for education about sex or creationism. Opponents say that many educational agencies have adopted outcomes which focus too much on attitudes (e.g., "Students will enjoy physical education class") rather than academic content. [18] Similarly, the "Who Controls Our Children" campaign in Pennsylvania claimed that an OBE reform effort was part of a federal program that was "stressing values over academic content, and holding students able for goals that are so vague and fuzzy they can't be assessed at all." [19] The Western Australian outcomes were criticised for being too vague. [20] Controversial standards are opposed because of their content, not simply because they are standards. OBE models always leave the choice of the exact standards to the educational authority, so that families can influence the choice of standards according to their community's preferences.

Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions[edit] Critics sometimes oppose OBE because of the burden it imposes on instructors and educational institutions more broadly, a burden that they regard as unjustified by any evidence showing that OBE actually improves learning outcomes. Rather than issuing a single letter or number to summarize an entire term's achievements, an OBE system may require that the teacher track and report dozens of separate outcomes. It takes longer to report that a student can add, subtract, multiply, divide, solve story problems, and draw graphs than to report "ed mathematics class," but the burden imposed by OBE does not owe primarily to the reporting of more data. The burden is spread across the entire educational institution, in the form of (1) a new layer of assessment placed atop the old familiar one, (2) a new bureaucracy responsible for the institution-wide collection and presentation of data, and (3) the altering

and curtailing of classroom instruction to make room for more intrusive testing. In view of the paucity of evidence showing that OBE actually works, many regard this extra burden as an unjustified drain on pedagogical resources.[21]

Criticism of educational reforms associated with OBE[edit] This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(May 2011) Many criticisms of OBE are actually criticisms of other things that are introduced with an OBE system. Many people oppose OBE reforms because the OBE reforms are packaged with other reforms. OBE reform is often packaged as part of a comprehensive school reform model which promotes constructivism, inquiry-based science,tax reform, teacher training, and more. Other educational reforms, including changes to the school calendar, the age of students that attend school in a certain building, or the way tax revenues are divided, may all be inappropriately labeled "OBE" reforms simply because they were proposed on the same day as an OBE program. School to work may also be a component of these multi-faceted reform programs. School-to-work programs require students to spend time in an internship or other form of career training or experience.

OBE programs[edit] Australia[edit] One of the problems of OBE for students wishing to attend university is that it does not lend itself well to forming a competitive Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER).[citation needed] The suggested model for mapping levels to a TER has been attacked because it results in a score with more significant digits than the measures from which it is derived and so is charged with being mathematically unsound. [citation needed] William Spady promoted the OBE method as a way of getting beyond 'meaningless' percentages and marks, aiming for education for life beyond school, giving children and young adults a broader and more transformative education. Arguably inelegant implementation makes the future of OBE unclear, and at odds with the Australian Government in Canberra.

Western Australia[edit] The current[when?] OBE controversy in Western Australia relates specifically to the introduction of OBE in upper school (year 11 and 12) classes. Many Western Australian schools have been using some form of OBE for K-10 students for several years. (OBE is only one part of the current changes to upper school education currently being implemented. Other aspects of the new courses of study that form the upper school review have received little public attention.) As part of the debate over further introduction of OBE into the teaching practice of Western Australia, various groups of concerned citizens and those in the teaching profession formed various single-issue lobby and action groups to progress their viewpoints. One such group was People Lobbying Against Teaching Outcomes formed by Greg Williams. The core view of this group was their disagreement with the former Western Australian Minister for Education (Ljiljanna Ravlich) in respect to her commitment to implement OBE. Another such group was Parents Against Outcomes Based Education, [1] who took the position that the implementation of OBE would pose significant problems and potentially lead to the

decreased knowledge and performance of school students. Their objection was not to OBE itself, but to the bundle of reforms, of which OBE was the most mentioned. The "Fuzzy Outcomes" criticism above applies. In January 2007, the Western Australian Government responded to the massive opposition by teachers and parents to its implementation of an OBE system by stating that it would allow year 11 and 12 students to be graded traditionally.[2]

South Africa[edit] This section requires expansion. (July 2010)

OBE was introduced to South Africa in the late 1990s by the post-apartheid government as part of its Curriculum 2005 programme [9], but it was widely viewed as a failure, and was eventually scrapped in 2010.[3][22]

United States[edit] In the early 1990s, several standards-based reform measures were ed in various states, creating the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (1991), Washington Assessment of Student Learning (1993), the CLAS in California (1993), and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (1993). At the national level, Congress ed the Goals 2000 act in 1994. The best-known and most farreaching standards-based education law in the U.S. is the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated certain measurements as a condition of receiving federal education funds. States are free to set their own standards, but the federal law mandates public reporting of math and reading test scores for disadvantaged demographic subgroups, including racial minorities, low-income students, and special education students. Various consequences for schools that do not make "adequate yearly progress" are included in the law. At the state level, exit examinations have proliferated, and now more than half of US high school students will be required to ahigh-stakes test to get a normal high school diploma. In some states, fewer than half of students and one-quarter of ethnic minorities have met these standards. [23] In some communities, such as Littleton, Colorado, organized opposition groups have forced educational agencies to rescind reforms[when?].[24] In Littleton, community felt that vague, nonacademic outcomes were replacing content, and that technically unsound assessments would be used to determine something as important as high school graduation. They also objected to students being refused a high school diploma if they could not perform 36 separate mathematics skills, despite being given good grades in class.

OBE diplomas[edit] Main article: Certificate of Initial Mastery A certificate of initial mastery was a program to provide students with an interim certification around the age of 16. The certificate was earned by taking and ing a written test, which had been designed to determine whether a student was performing at about the tenth grade level. A student who ed the 10th grade test would receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery.

The CIM concept was patterned after nations like 's hauptschule system, in which the students who are not going to elite universities end their school-based education around age 16 and start careeroriented training in fields like construction technology,allied health professions, and business. In a typical US proposal, a student who received a CIM would then take two more years of career-based training. A national standards board was proposed to create similar tests for eight career fields, with the hope that employers would prefer certificated employees. The CIM has been essentially abandoned; however, in its place, states frequently require ing the same exam as a condition of receiving a high school diploma. Oregon had proposed a CAM for "advanced mastery" at the 12th grade.

OBE's relationship to college[edit] One effect of high school exit examinations is that it may become more difficult to graduate from high school than enter college. There is no set ing level for college entry tests like the SAT, and such tests are often not required by the lowest-rated colleges. In the future, some states may require criterion-based standards either for ission to or graduation from public universities.[25] States are attempting to align high school curricula with the minimum standards for beginning college in an effort to reduce college dropouts and the number of remedial classes being taught at universities.

European Union[edit] In December 2012, the European Commission stated that it "present[ed a] new strategy in 22 languages: The youth unemployment rate is close to 23% across the European Union – yet at the same time there are more than 2 million vacancies that cannot be filled. Europe needs a radical rethink on how education and training systems can deliver the skills needed by the labour market. ... Rethinking Education calls for a fundamental shift in education, with more focus on 'learning outcomes' - the knowledge, skills and competences that students acquire. Merely having spent time in education is no longer sufficient." [26]

Treaties[edit] Washington Accord[edit] The Washington Accord is an international accreditation agreement for professional engineering academic degrees, between the bodies responsible for accreditation in its signatory countries. The Washington Accord covers undergraduate engineering degrees under Outcome-based education approach.

Performance-based economy[edit] Main article: Performance-related pay Outcome-based methods are used in some businesses. For whole companies, outcome-based evaluations are the basis of stock exchange prices: Companies which produce higher profit growth are more valuable than companies which perform poorly. Employees who are paid for piecework or by commission are examples of traditional employment use of outcome-based pay. Alternatives includeseniority systems (oldest worker gets highest pay). Many private employers give standards-based tests to determine whether job applicants have necessary job skills (such as typing speed), and nearly all government employees have to take and a civil

service examination. Furthermore, nearly all licensed professionals, from nurses to truck drivers to beauticians, already take such tests as a condition of entering their professions. Often these tests have disproportionate failure rates for disadvantaged subgroups, such as school dropouts and impoverished people.

What is Outcome-Based Education Outcome-based or performance-based education [1] is a shift in teaching/learning methodology and in purpose. The education system on which America has run, from its inception up through the early 1960's, is known as a traditional education system. It focused on content — was content rich — the acquisition of knowledge with the child being challenged to use the scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion or judgment. In this context content means core knowledge — what most parents refer to as the three r's – reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. When education reformers use the word content, they do not mean core knowledge. [2] Outcome-based education calls for a shift in that paradigm (model, pattern), from content to process in which a child is called upon to demonstrate what he knows and can do against standards established at the state and national [3] level. Instead of core knowledge being the focal point of education, problems, issues, and challenges based as on future trends presented in the context of unit themes (also known as thematic units) becomes the focal point. Under outcome-based education, the district undergoes a process of restructuring, the framework of which is the establishment of – a mission statement a beliefs statement student learning goals curriculum [4] and instruction aligned to the exit outcomes assessment tools to measure whether the child is being moved to mastery of the exit outcomes The mission statement is a statement of the purpose of the organization; the beliefs statement is a statement of belief about children and learning. The student learning goals are five or six broad generalizations of what the child should know and be able to do as the result or end product of his/her schooling experience. The student learning goals are called by various names in various districts. Some of the more generic for them are exit outcomes, process outcomes, student learning goals, goals, learner outcomes and outcomes. For the purposes of clarity here, they will be known as the exit outcomes. Exit outcomes, stated in various ways, are pivotal to the entire restructuring process, are based on future trends, are complex demonstrations of personal development, and are intended to produce children who… are self directed learners; are critical thinkers/problem solvers/decision makers; are communicators and collaborators (team players); can express themselves creatively, proactively, and responsibly;

easily adapt to change; exhibit self-esteem; and demonstrate concern, tolerance and respect for others as citizens in a global society [5] Further defining the exit outcomes can be performance indicators – broad statements of critical content that further define expected performance of the exit outcomes. By law, the exit outcomes at the district level must align with the exit outcomes established at the state level in order for the district to receive state and federal grant money and federal Title I funds. This is clearly stated in HR6 — the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 which, in 1994, was renamed the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). [6] As the re-authorization of the ESEA, the IASA was written to become the funding mechanism for Goals 2000. At the state level, the district must show compliance with the state goals in order to receive state grant money, federal grant money filtered through the state coffers (sometimes noted as a ' through'), and Title I funds. How the district is complying with the state and federal goals must be set down in writing on the grant applications submitted by the school district to the state. After the exit outcomes are established, attention then shifts to deg and aligning the curriculum, instruction, and teaching methodologies to move the child to the exit outcomes – what the child should know and be able to do as the end product of his/her schooling experience. This requires that the district design down from the exit outcomes then align back to the exit outcomes to ensure that the curriculum, instruction, and teaching methodologies are doing what they are supposed to do — move the child to the exit outcomes. Books – thick books – have been and are being written on the shift in the teaching/learning process that occurs in the classroom. [7] For the sake of brevity, it is important to understand that with outcome-based education the focus of education has shifted from the acquisition of knowledge with the child being challenged to use the scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion — to cultivate and discipline the mind, to the learning experience centering around social or life-related issues [8] — problems, issues, and challenges based on current events and future trends — to socialize the child. Unit themes or thematic units, generalizing social or life-related issues, are centered primarily in two content areas – social studies and science as these contain a greater range of concepts and themes [9] relative to social or life-related issues. Knowledge is integrated (thus the term integrated curriculum) and is incorporated in the context in which the child will use and apply that knowledge in addressing unit themes or thematic units. This is the basis of the less is more theory – teaching less but teaching it more in-depth (as it is used and applied) to social or life-related issues. The process of developing and aligning curriculum and instruction to the exit outcomes is an in-depth process incorporating many steps, processes, etc. Once the curriculum and instructional processes are developed and aligned, the measure of their effectiveness in moving the child to the exit outcomes is the assessment. The primary purpose of the assessment is to measure whether the child is demonstrating the wanted process [10], the wanted behavior/procedure [11], as delineated by the exit outcomes. The assessment is also a teaching tool, structured to instruct students as well as assess. They also teach to the test, providing information then directly assessing students on the information provided. There are several types of assessment –

alternative assessments is a catch all term for assessments that depart from the traditional multiple choice, norm-referenced tests; performance assessments measure content and process – what the child knows and can do; portfolio assessment is a picture of the students classroom work over time, much as the artist's portfolio of best pictures drawn; authentic assessments are assessments based in the context of social issues – simulations of problems, issues, or challenges that a person might encounter in real life. If the curriculum and instruction are not moving the children to mastery of the exit outcomes as measured by assessment, then the curriculum and instruction are changed. This process is repeated until the curriculum and instruction align with the exit outcomes and produce in the child the desired process. This is an overview of outcome-based education.

What Is OBE? Outcome-Based Education has become a focal point for critics of educational reform all across the country. But why? In order to understand and evaluate their criticisms, it is necessary to understand what Outcome-Based Education is and the difference between the principle and the practice of OBE. At its most basic, OBE is simply the establishment of expected goals or outcomes for different levels of elementary-secondary education, and a commitment to ensuring that every student achieves at least those minimum proficiencies before being allowed to graduate. This is eminently sensible, and some of you might believe schools already do this. For the most part, they do not. Outcome-Based Education is fast becoming reality in nearly every state. It succeeds in doing so for three primary reasons: 1) Reform is Necessary.For more than a decade poll after poll has shown the American public's dissatisfaction with the public education system. This was especially brought to the forefront by the famous A Nation at Risk report during the Reagan istration. National and international test scores are down, yet average grades assigned to students are up. Violence, substance abuse, and parenthood among teens are all up, but literacy is down. Even if we accept that there are more students taking college entrance exams like the SAT than would have considered college decades ago skewing averages down the most able students aren't scoring as high as in the past. Yet expenditures for education have risen far faster than inflation for more than 30 years. Outcome-Based Education offers a means of reform. 2) Parents & Taxpayers feel out of control — out of the loop in decision-making for reform. It is clear that our public schools are not performing as well as most of us expect. Yet it is primarily the

behavioral scientist architects and managers of this dysfunctional system, along with politicians and influential teachers' unions, who are in charge of creating a new and better system. Reform is imperative, but we have been reforming education — this time — for more than ten years. When the suggested reforms involve spending even less time on the foundation skills — that too many students already are not receiving — somebody isn't proposing the right reforms. OBE offers the opportunity to set standards outside of the educational system. 3) There is no standard for measuring the success of students, teachers, or schools. There is a genuine need for setting standards that students must reach before they may receive a diploma. Although there is often a state or district mandate that students take so many years of a subject and earn this many hours or credits in order to graduate, there are few requirements regarding what specific skills make up each course. For example, what degree of skill should be expected of students who study a year of algebra? How much knowledge comprises a year of English? Presently, students from different schools, districts, and states can have very different answers to those questions. Furthermore, the failure of a student, classroom, school, or the entire school system, is the responsibility of the parents, taxpayers, society, drugs, poverty, or the entertainment industry . . . anything but the educational system itself. At least, this is the myth that the educational system perpetuates. Outcome-Based Education offers a standard of measurement. This sounds so simple and fundamental that it is not surprising that OBE quickly became popular . . . how could anyone be opposed to it? But . . . what OBE seems to be in theory is not necessarily what it has become in reality. Unfortunately, OBE still sounds so sensible . . . that only some kind of nut would oppose it. Critics, therefore, must be very clear that their opposition is not to the principle of OBE — in fact that the principle of establishing expected outcomes is not only acceptable, but is absolutely necessary. The objection to OBE lies in what it has become in practice. We wholeheartedly endorse the principle of OBE, and the practice of adopting Outcomes that set quantifiable standards in academic skills and subjects whose accomplishment by students can be verified through objective testing. We roundly condemn what OBE has become in practice — setting standards that are not academic in nature and cannot be verified through objective testing. Outcomes which are so soft and fuzzy that student understanding and proficiency cannot be verified are intolerable. How do you test a student's values and beliefs, and what, or whose values, set the standard? At best, these Outcomes distract from more important knowledge and skills. At worst, some of them intrude on the sanctity of vulnerable adolescent minds. We do not have and desperately need schools based upon the first kind of Outcome; we cannot risk the future of our children, our nation, and our world on the second kind.

Critics must make clear their for the principle of having expected learning outcomes, but their reservations or objections regarding the specific Outcomes that have so far been adopted. What reforms are going to help our schools? No single reform will suffice. Our educational system needs extensive revision. Here are some suggestions, however, for how to begin: 

Separate behavioral science experimentation from education.



Laws such as the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) must be enforced and should even be broadened and strengthened. PPRA already prohibits psychological testing without express written consent of parents, but that did not prevent the widespread use of tests like the Educational Quality Assessment (EQA) that do just that. Protection must be extended to prohibit explicitly affective curricula as well.



Uniform minimum standards for performance of objectively measurable skills which must be achieved early in students' school careers. Advanced standards for graduation should not be uniform, but broader and more flexible — yet they must still be objective standards. This is what OBE should be. Affective instruction has little or no place in schools.



Renew schools' focus on their primary job. Public schools cannot be everything for everyone. Public schools' purpose is to provide students with a common core of fundamental knowledge and skills. During the past three decades too many additional responsibilities have been placed on schools from school lunches (now breakfasts, even during the summer) to sex education, coping with death, environmental awareness, AIDS awareness, global relationships, cultural sensitivity, and family violence sensitivity. Each of those, individually, may have merit, but collectively they take time and distort the focus of schools away from teaching skills that students will need to succeed in later their studies, employment, and personal lives after school.



A decrease in nonteaching — particularly istrative — personnel. The massive growth of this portion of school employees has led to a decline in focus on classroom teachers. The proportion of elementary/secondary school resources that directly classroom instruction is often distressingly small, especially in larger districts (Portland, Oregon - 36%; New York, New York 22%). Indeed, when staffing reductions were announced here in Portland schools, 75% of the cuts were teaching positions. This is the sign of a system with severely misplaced priorities.



Increased parental involvement in student performance in school. Too many parents treat schools as glorified daycare for children, and take little interest in a child's progress, much less serve as role models for standards of achievement and behavior. Schools, however, bear much responsibility for this state of affairs. Too often parents who do wish to be involved are discouraged by the inflexibility of bureaucratic public institutions and the arrogance and intransigence of school authorities.



Downsize! Downsize! DOWNSIZE! This rallying cry of modern business should become part of the modern school. The number of elementary and secondary schools fell 69% between 1940 and 1990, from approximately 200,000 to just over 62,000. The number of school districts fell more than 87%, from 117,000 to fewer than 16,000. Coupled with the population increase during that period, average district enrollment increased by more than 1,100%, from 217 to 2,637. There is some evidence that increased district size, school size, and proportion of nonlocal funding are all significantly and negatively related to student achievement i.e. as school systems become more centralized, student achievement falls. Some New York City schools are finding renewed success by creating independent mini-schools within huge urban school buildings.



Reverse the trend toward intolerance of independent thought. Teachers and principals cannot do their jobs effectively — will not want to do their jobs to the best of their abilities — if they are treated as second-class of the education team. If schools have any faith at all in their ability to hire qualified personnel . . . for Goodness Sake stay out of their way and let them do their jobs! Teachers and principals are closer to students and can understand and deal with their needs much more effectively than people isolated in an istrative office somewhere. Just as businesses are learning, schools should not to have too many layers of management between their top management and their customers. Of course staff must be supervised, and there should be procedures for improving performance which does not measure up, including (as necessary) for terminating the employment of those who cannot improve. But until that time, and for all the other teachers and principals who are already capable and not in need of such measures . . . bureaucrats and s should not try to do their jobs for them!



Regain the loss (perhaps abandonment is more accurate) of vision and purpose among educators. In expecting superintendents to have specific training and experience in management, finance, public relations, fundraising, etc., school systems have lost the sense of importance in hiring leaders of vision, with a willingness to take risks in order to find innovative solutions to complex problems for our schools and school systems. This is the most important common factor that studies identify among successful schools. Without genuine leaders, any organization has difficulty maintaining a sense of purpose. Our nation needs bold thinkers and innovators to lead our schools back to positions of success and iration. The best leaders are not afraid to be wrong. There will, sometimes, be failures. Leaders should not be penalized for such failures. Better to learn from small failures than suffer catastrophic failures by experimenting with an entire nation of children at once.



Apply knowledge of effective schools in every school. The knowledge we already have of what makes schools effective is rarely ever applied. When effective innovations are identified — whether originated locally or through some special project or grant — the knowledge too often stops there. Although programs such as the National Diffusion Network (NDN) were established to perform this function, useful information is not finding its way into enough schools. This might involve replicating successful programs from elsewhere. Sometimes it could mean returning to older methods which were discarded during some previous round of reform. This does not mean, however, irresponsible experimentation, such as employing unproven psychotherapeutic techniques in the hands of nonprofessionals. Parents must always be informed about experiments which depart significantly from the norm, and allow them to exempt their children from such

experiments, if they wish. Indeed, some of the experimentation taking place could be quite appropriate if it were taking place on a limited basis with parental consent. But statewide or nationwide experimentation is clearly unacceptable. 

Embrace diversity. Children are not all alike. Teachers are not all alike. Schools need not should not be all alike. If the first concern of our public school systems is what is best for the children . . . then public schools should work with private schools and home schoolers to help ensure their success, not try to constrain and regulate them to be clones of the public schools. Family backgrounds and learning styles are can be very different even unique perhaps educational solutions should reflect some of that diversity.



Regain the trust of parents. The of parents is essential to the successful educational process. Schools must learn to fully inform parents, take their suggestions — and even criticisms — seriously and deal openly and honestly with them. Educators might know more about the way schools work, but they must also understand that most parents know more about their own children than teachers and s will ever have time to learn.

Note that funding is not among these suggestions. Money is not the answer, for spending on education (federal, state, local, public and private, elementary, secondary, and university) has grown faster than enrollment and inflation for more than three decades. Indeed, study after study concludes that leadership and high expectations are more important to successful education than mere dollars spent. It could even be that the very availability of so much money has caused some of the other problems. As teachers' satisfaction with their jobs declines, for example, they are more inclined to demand that their unions negotiate increased wages and benefits. As s spend more time on various union negotiations — necessitating greater focus on budgetary concerns — and on fulfilling state and federal paperwork requirements, they have less time to know and supervise their staff or to meet with students and parents and to understand and deal with their needs.

What OBE Is Not Outcome-Based Education is not dangerous. It is not hateful, or immoral. OBE is not even unethical . . . in theory. But like unnumerable previous ideas to reform or revolutionize education, OBE the theory has been twisted — by educationists and legislators — into something unrecognizable. A parallel example lies with another much-criticized concept, Mastery Learning. (This should not be confused with Learning for Mastery, which is something else entirely.) Some of Benjamin Bloom's work might be open to criticism, but this is one concept that should be free of controversy. Mastery Learning is basically a logical extension of OBE, but where OBE proposes to set standards that students must meet near the end of their secondary school careers, Mastery Learning simply requires that students demonstrate proficiency over individual topics on a weekly or even daily basis, before advancing.

But there are many people who will vigorously denounce Mastery Learning as immoral . . . because Mastery Learning the innovative tool was often used to teach equally novel subjects such as sex education and values clarification. But Mastery Learning methods may be used to teach concepts as faddish and suspect as values clarification or as crucial as history or mathematics. In fact, reduced to its essentials, Mastery Learning methods bear much resemblance to John Saxon's popular (with everyone but mainstream educationists) and enormously effective mathematics texts: focus on a specific topic and don't proceed to the next one until students master it. Plenty of practice and review help to cement knowledge and proficiency. There have been many worthwhile ideas that changed into something they were not intended to be once the educational bureaucracy redefined them. "ability," for example, became "blame the teachers for everything." And Individualized Instruction (which we developed, by the way), did not originally mean individual one-on-one tutoring for every child — or a decline of any kind in the student/teacher ratio or class size — and had none of the bureaucratic formality that devolved into Individual Education Plans (IEP). Critics must separate their criticism of the content of instruction from the instructional methodology itself. Such teaching methods and tools — whether OBE or Mastery Learning or Individualized Instruction — are free of content. Many educators, legislators, media representatives, or simply other parents would be sympathetic to objections when they learn the specifics, but will dismiss critics of a sensible concept like OBE out of hand as being of some lunatic fringe. However, if criticisms of content are presented carefully, many listeners — including experts and policymakers — would become immediately sympathetic . . . after all, only of some lunatic fringe would invade the privacy of children and families in such a fashion as we see taking place in the name of reform today!

Outcome Based Education Don Closson

Outcome Based Education

Times are changing. The pressure on our public schools to improve, and change, has become intense. Since 1960 our population has increased by 41%, spending on education has increased by 225% (in constant 1990 dollars), but SAT scores have fallen by 8% (or 80 points). Although few would argue that the schools are solely to blame for our children's declining academic performance, many are hoping that schools can turn this trend around.

The decade of the 80s brought numerous education reforms, but few of them were a dramatic shift from what has gone on before. Outcome-based education (OBE) is one of those that is new, even revolutionary, and is now being promoted as the panacea for America's educational woes. This reform has been driven by educators in response to demands for greater ability by taxpayers and as a vehicle for breaking with traditional ideas about how we teach our children. If implemented, this approach to curriculum development could change our schools more than any other reform proposal in the last thirty years. The focus of past and present curriculum has been on content, on the knowledge to be acquired by each student. Our language, literature, history, customs, traditions, and morals, often called Western civilization, dominated the learning process through secondary school. If students learned the information and performed well on tests and assignments, they received credit for the course and moved on to the next class. The point here is that the curriculum centered on the content to be learned; its purpose was to produce academically competent students. The daily schedule in a school was organized around the content. Each hour was devoted to a given topic; some students responded well to the instruction, and some did not. Outcome-based education will change the focus of schools from the content to the student. According to William Spady, a major advocate of this type of reform, three goals drive this new approach to creating school curricula. First, all students can learn and succeed, but not on the same day or in the same way. Second, each success by a student breeds more success. Third, schools control the conditions of success. In other words, students are seen as totally malleable creatures. If we create the right environment, any student can be prepared for any academic or vocational career. The key is to custom fit the schools to each student's learning style and abilities. The resulting schools will be vastly different from the ones recent generations attended. Yearly and daily schedules will change, teaching responsibilities will change, classroom activities will change, the evaluation of student performance will change, and most importantly, our perception of what it means to be an educated person will change. What is OBE?

Education is a political and emotional process. Just ask Pennsylvania's legislators. That state, along with Florida, North Carolina, and Kansas, has been rocked by political battles over the implementation of outcome-based educational reforms. The governor, the state board of education, legislators, and parents have been wrestling over how, and if, this reform should reshape the state's schools. Twenty-six other states claim to have generated outcome- based programs, and at least another nine are moving in that direction. Before considering the details of this controversy, let's review the major differences between the traditional approach to schooling in America and an outcome-based approach. Whereas previously the school calendar determined what a child might do at any moment of any school day, now progress toward specific outcomes will control activity. Time, content, and teaching technique will be altered to fit the needs of each student. Credit will be given for accomplishing stated outcomes, not for time spent in a given class. The teacher's role in the classroom will become that of a coach. The instructor's goal is to move each child towards pre-determined outcomes rather than attempting to transmit the content of Western civilization to the next generation in a scholarly fashion. This dramatic change in the role of the teacher will occur because the focus is no longer on content. Feelings, attitudes, and skills such as learning to work together in groups will become just as important as learning information--some reformers would argue more important. Where traditional curricula focused on the past, reformers argue that outcome-based methods prepare students for the future and for the constant change which is inevitable in our society. Many advocates of outcome-based education feel that evaluation methods must change as well since outcomes are now central to curriculum development. We can no longer rely on simple cognitive tests to determine complex outcomes. Vermont is testing a portfolio approach to evaluation, in which art work, literary works, and the results of group projects are added to traditional tests in order to evaluate a student's progress. Where traditional testing tended to compare the abilities of students with each other, outcome-based reform will be criterion based. This means that all students

must master information and skills at a predetermined level in order to move on to the next unit of material. Implementing OBE Reform

Reformers advocating an outcome-based approach to curriculum development point to the logical simplicity of its technique. First, a list of desired outcomes in the form of student behaviors, skills, attitudes, and abilities is created. Second, learning experiences are designed that will allow teachers to coach the students to a mastery level in each outcome. Third, students are tested. Those who fail to achieve mastery receive remediation or retraining until mastery is achieved. Fourth, upon completion of learner outcomes a student graduates. On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable approach to learning. In fact, the business world has made extensive use of this method for years, specifically for skills that were easily broken down into distinct units of information or specific behaviors. But as a comprehensive system for educating young minds, a few important questions have been raised. The most obvious question is who will determine the specific outcomes or learner objectives? This is also the area creating the most controversy across the country. Transitional vs. Transformational OBE

According to William Spady, a reform advocate, outcomes can be written with traditional, transitional, or transformational goals in mind. Spady advocates transformation goals. Traditional outcome-based programs would use the new methodology to teach traditional content areas like math, history, and science. The state of Illinois is an example of this approach. Although outcomes drive the schooling of these children, the outcomes themselves reflect the traditional content of public schools in the past. Many teachers find this a positive option for challenging the minimal achiever. For example, a considerable number of students currently find their way through our schools, accumulating enough credits to graduate, while picking up little in the way of content knowledge or skills. Their knowledge base reflects little actual learning, but they have become skilled in working the system. An outcome-based program would

prevent such students from graduating or ing to the next grade without reaching a pre-set mastery level of competency. The idea of transformational reform is causing much turmoil. Transformational OBE subordinates course content to key issues, concepts, and processes. Indeed, Spady calls this the "highest evolution of the OBE concept." Central to the idea of transformational reform is the notion of outcomes of significance. Examples of such outcomes from Colorado and Wyoming school systems refer to collaborative workers, quality producers, involved citizens, self-directed achievers, and adaptable problem solvers. Spady s transformational outcomes because they are future oriented, based on descriptions of future conditions that he feels should serve as starting points for OBE designs. True to the spirit of the reform philosophy, little mention is made about specific things that students should know as a result of being in school. The focus is on attitudes and feelings, personal goals, initiative, and vision--in their words, the whole student. It is in devising learner outcomes that one's world view comes into play. Those who see the world in of constant change, politically and morally, find a transformation model useful. They view human nature as evolving, changing rather than fixed. Christians see human nature as fixed and unchanging. We were created in God's image yet are now fallen and sinful. We also hold to moral absolutes based on the character of God. The learner outcomes that have been proposed are controversial because they often accept a transformational, changing view of human nature. Advocates of outcome-based education point with pride to its focus on the student rather than course content. They feel that the key to educational reform is to be found in having students master stated learner outcomes. Critics fear that this is exactly what will happen. Their fear is based on the desire of reformers to educate the whole child. What will happen, they ask, when stated learner outcomes violate the moral or religious views of parents? For example, most sex-education courses used in our schools claim to take a valueneutral approach to human sexuality. Following the example of the Kinsey studies and materials from the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States, most curricula make few distinctions between various sex acts. Sex within marriage

between those of the opposite sex is not morally different from sex outside of marriage between those of the same sex. The goal of such programs is selfactualization and making people comfortable with their sexual preferences. Under the traditional system of course credits a student could take a sex-ed course, totally disagree with the instruction and yet the course by doing acceptable work on the tests presented. Occasion-ally, an instructor might make life difficult for a student who fails to conform, but if the student learns the material that would qualify him or her for a ing grade and credit towards graduation. If transformational outcome-based reformers have their way, this student would not get credit for the course until his or her attitudes, feelings, and behaviors matched the desired goals of the learner outcomes. For instance, in Pennsylvania the state board had recommended learner outcomes that would evaluate a student based on his or her ability to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of families. Many feel that this is part of the effort to widen the definition of families to include homosexual couples. Another goal requires students to know about and use community health resources. Notice that just knowing that Planned Parenthood has an office in town isn't enough, one must use it. Parents vs. the State

The point of all this is to say that transformational outcome- based reform would be a much more efficient mechanism for changing our children's values and attitudes about issues facing our society. Unfortunately, the direction these changes often take is in conflict with our Christian faith. At the core of this debate is this question, "Who has authority over our children?" Public officials assume they do. Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, calling for reform, told his legislature, "We must never forget that you and I--the elected representatives of the people--and not anyone else--have the ultimate responsibility to assure the future of our children." I hope this is merely political hyperbole. I would argue that parents of children in the state of Pennsylvania are ultimately responsible for their children's future. The state has rarely proved itself a trustworthy parent.

Outcome-based education is an ideologically neutral tool for curricular construction; whether it is more effective than traditional approaches remains to be seen. Unfortunately, because of its student-centered approach, its ability to influence individuals with a politically correct set of doctrines seems to be great. Parents (and all other taxpayers) need to weigh the possible benefits of outcome-based reform with the potential negatives. Other Concerns About OBE

Many parents are concerned about who will determine the learner outcomes for their schools. One criticism already being heard is that many states have adopted very similar outcomes regardless of the process put in place to get community input. Many wonder if there will be real consideration of what learner outcomes the public wants rather than assuming that educators know what's best for our children. Who will decide what it means to be an educated person, the taxpaying consumer or the providers of education? If students are going to be allowed to proceed through the material at their own rate, what happens to the brighter children? Eventually students will be at many levels, what then? Will added teachers be necessary? Will computer-assisted instruction allow for individual learning speeds? Either option will cost more money. Some reformers offer a scenario where brighter students help tutor slower ones thereby encouraging group responsibility rather than promoting an elite group of learners. Critics feel that a mastery- learning approach will inevitably hold back brighter students. With outcome-based reform, many educators are calling for a broader set of evaluation techniques. But early attempts at grading students based on portfolios of various kinds of works has proved difficult. The Rand Corporation studied Vermont's attempt and found that "rater reliability--the extent to which raters agreed on the quality of a student's work--was low." There is a general dislike of standardized tests among the reformers because it focuses on what the child knows rather than the whole child, but is there a viable substitute? Will students find that it is more important to be politically correct than to know specific facts? Another question to be answered by reformers is whether or not school bureaucracies will allow for such dramatic change? How will the unions respond? Will legislative

mandates that are already on the books be removed, or will this new approach simply be laid over the rest, creating a jungle of regulations and red tape? Reformers ing outcome-based education claim that local schools will actually have more control over their programs. Once learner outcomes are established, schools will be given the freedom to create programs that accomplish these goals. But critics respond by noting that although districts may be given input as to how these outcomes are achieved, local control of the outcomes themselves may be lost. Finally, there are many who feel that focusing on transformational learner outcomes will allow for hidden agendas to be promoted in the schools. Many parents feel that there is already too much emphasis on global citizenship, radical environmentalism, humanistic views of self-esteem, and human sexuality at the expense of reading, writing, math, and science. They feel that education may become more propagandistic rather than academic in nature. Parents need to find out where their state is in regards to this movement. If an outcome-based program is being pursued, will it focus on traditional or transformational outcomes? If the outcomes are already written and adopted, can a copy be acquired? If they are not written yet, how can parents get involved? If the state is considering a transformational OBE program, parental concerns should be brought before the legislature. If the reform is local, parents should their school board. Parents have an obligation to know what is being taught to their children and if it works. Recently, parental resistance halted the OBE movement in Pennsylvania when it was pointed out to the legislature that there is no solid evidence that the radical changes pro-posed will actually cause kids to learn more. While we still can, let's make our voices heard on this issue. PHILOSOPHY The philosophy of the UP College of Nursing is anchored on the belief that its major role is to strengthen the capabilities of its individual and the society as a whole, for them to realize their aspirations. This can be achieved through relevant education, research and continuing education and community extension services. The UPCN’s core values are summarized as follows: INTEGRITY, NATIONALISM, CARING, UNIVERSALISM and EXCELLENCE (INCUE).

Mission and Vision

The UP College of Nursing is the premiere nursing school that acts as a change agent serving the health needs of the Filipino people, and provides leadership and excellence in nursing development in the “global community”.

Mission - Vision - Values The overriding philosophy of the School of Nursing is the unification of education, research and practice. The Unification Model s the University of Rochester School of Nursing Mission and Vision.

Mission Statement Building on a pioneering tradition of unifying nursing education, research, and practice, the URSON pursues excellence in clinical and scientific learning, discovery, and nursing care.

Vision Statement Lead the national agenda in transforming the discipline of nursing through innovative education, practice, and research. Vision A University committed to Exemplary Christian Education for Life (EXCEL) and responsive to the needs of the total person and the world.

Mission The mission of Central Philippine University is to carry out a program of spiritual, intellectual, moral, scientific, technological, and cultural training, and allied studies under influences which strengthen Christian faith, build up character and promote scholarship, research and community service.

Quality Policy To fulfill the mission and realize the vision of Central Philippine University, we commit to consistently provide superior quality services by integrating Christian values, academic excellence, highest level of professionalism, and quality considerations in every aspect of our operations. We maintain a quality management system that complies with international quality standards. We continually improve to achieve global excellence that satisfies the expectations of the university community, partner institutions, and the general public.

Core Values     

Faith Character Justice Stewardship Excellence

Faith The act of believing the things God has revealed about Himself and acting on those beliefs. This includes commitment, cooperation, trust and confidence.

Character The aggregate features and traits that form the individual’s nature of a person, moral quality and good report. This includes honesty, integrity, humility and loyalty.

Justice Righteousness or lawfulness and fairness. It is observing due process in istering the deserved punishment of reward. This includes fairness, equality, morality, and peace.

Stewardship The proper and responsible management of life, position, possessions, and other resources entrusted by God to man. This includes service, ability, culture and outreach.

TERMINAL OBJECTIVES The graduate program terminal objectives provide clear statements of expected results. The terminal objectives, derived from the mission and core values of the Georgetown University School of Nursing & Health Studies, require that the graduate be able to: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Integrate advanced nursing knowledge, ethical principles and clinical excellence in advanced practice nursing within an area of specialization to reflect the Jesuit values ideas and Georgetown University Nursing Model of valuing cura personalis, excellence in the pursuit of knowledge, holistic care of the patient, and integrating the principles of common good and social justice. Develop the role of the advanced practice nurse with commitment toexcellence and quality outcomes. Utilize research and evidence to assist in the development and validation of nursing science. Integrate theoretical and scientific concepts that influence leadership in advanced practice roles consistent with education, practice and research. Participate in the process of health policy development for continued improvement of health care systems. Engage in lifelong learning, and the professional development of self and others.

to provide student-centered, excellent professional education in the Jesuit tradition, the School of Nursing & Health Studies has based its baccalaureate and master's program curricula on terminal objectives derived from its mission and core values.

Georgetown University School of Nursing & Health Studies prepares future leaders to respond to the growing complexity of health care delivery at all levels.

ission Information Adventist University of the Philippines is an institution of higher learning operated by the Seventhday Adventist Church. However, it accepts applications from individuals irrespective of race, color, sect, and religious affiliation, whose manner of acting, feeling and thinking are in harmony with the objectives, values and beliefs of the institution and whose capacities and abilities show the possibility of achieving a satisfactory scholastic record. Although church hip is not a pre-requisite for ission, applicants are expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the University.

ission Requirements for all Students - Undergraduate Level To qualify for ission, applicants must give evidence of good moral character, intellectual capacity, satisfactory health, financial capability, and a desire to learn. ission to the University is a privilege, and not a right. The following are the general requirements for ission: Freshmen 1. Payment of application, testing and ID fees 2. Original Form 138/High School Report Card 3. Two letters of recommendation from (a) school principal/adviser (b)district pastor 4. Original Certification of Good Moral Character from the school last attended 5. Certification from the principal that the applicant graduated valedictorian, salutatorian and first honorable mention from a class of 50 and above 6. Pictures: Two copies (2” x 2”) (prepare more for other departments) 7. Photocopy of birth certificate and marriage certificate, if married (female) (NSO authenticated copy) Transferees 1. Payment of application, testing and ID fees 2. Certificate of Transfer Credentials from the last school attended 3. Certification of Grades/Transcript of Records (for evaluation purposes) 4. Original Certification of Good Moral Character from the last school attended 5. Two letters of recommendation from

(a) school dean/guidance counselor (b) district pastor 6. Pictures: Two copies (2” x 2”) (prepare more for other departments) 7. Photocopy of birth certificate and marriage certificate, if married (female)(NSO authenticated copy) Note: Internal requirements are by respective colleges. English Profieciency as a Requirement for ission All students who scored 0-19 in the English Placement Test be required by their department chairs to enroll in Communication Arts 1 with Intensive Review and Lab (6 units). The said students be allowed to take a maximum of 4 subjects only (12 units), making a total of 18 units or less as adviced by the department chairs.

Application Forms  Go to s page

ission Requirements for Foreigners In addition to the above, foreign students must comply with the following requirements for ission: 1. The applicant must have an average grade/over-all grade point average (GPA) of B- (2.00). 2. For non-English speaking countries, an applicant must present a certification that he/she ed the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) from the country of origin. If not available, the prospective student must attend the AUP English Proficiency (Language) Center for at least one semester. 3. Must submit a certification of good moral character and a recommendation letter from the school last attended. 4. Must submit a copy of the transcript of records for evaluation purposes. 5. Must pay an application fee of US $175 which is non-refundable upon submission of the filled out application form to the University. 6. An Airfare Guarantee Deposit is required upon enrollment. This deposit represents the student’s purchase of his/her ticket back to his/her own country, which could only be withdrawn upon finishing the course or leaving the university permanently. This cannot be used for any other purpose.

For Student Visa Application A foreign student who comes to the Philippines for the sole purpose of taking courses higher than high school should at least be 18 years of age. He/She must submit the following documents required by the Department of Foreign Affairs: 1. Six (6) copies of Personal History Statement (PHS form will be provided) – with original signature, picture, and left and right thumb marks on each copy. 2. Two (2) copies of transcript of records – original, translated to English and properly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the applicant’s country of origin or legal residence. 3. An affidavit of and a bank reference/certification of a sponsoring person or organization properly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the applicant’s country of origin or legal residence. 4. Photocopy of port where the picture, birth dates and birthplace appear. Additional Information for the ission of Foreign Students In order for foreign students to have a pleasant stay in the country, the student must abide with the following instructions: 1. Upon arrival of the student in the Philippines, he/she is required to go to the National Quarantine Office for medical clearance. Then he/she proceeds to the Office of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to apply for ACR I-Card. 2. The student upon arrival in the Philippines is to enroll in no other school than the Adventist University of the Philippines. 3. The student is expected to be a full time student, taking not less than 15 units and should finish the course within the time specified in the approved curriculum. 4. An additional fee of PhP1, 000.00 is charged per semester on a foreign student, excluding summer sessions, for services done for them while they are in the Philippines. (DECS Order No. 74, s. 1989) 5. A foreign undergraduate married student coming with his/her family is not provided housing. 6. All foreign students, except the married ones are expected to stay in the dormitory and eat at the University Cafeteria which serves vegetarian food only. 7. Any irregularity committed by a foreign student, academic or behavioral, will be reported to the office of the Bureau of Immigration for proper action. Requirements for Change of Status from Temporary Visitor to Foreign Student Visa (Under Section 9(f) of the PIA of 1940, as amended)

1. Written endorsement from the school for the conversion of applicant’s status to student on the school’s official stationary signed by the school’s Registrar and stamped with the school’s official dry seal 2. Original copy of the Notice of Acceptance (NOA) containing a clear impression of the school’s official dry seal 3. Original copy of the Certificate of Eligibility for ission (CEA) issued by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) for Medicine and Dentistry students 4. Proof of adequate financial to cover the expenses for the student’s accommodation and subsistence as well as the school dues and other incidental expenses 5. Scholastic records duly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the student’s country of origin or legal residence 6. Police Clearance Certificate issued by the National Police Authorities in the student’s country of origin or residence duly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post having consular jurisdiction over the place for student who resided in the Philippines for less than 59 days. 7. However, for a student who resided in the Philippines for less than 59 days at the time he applies for the said change/conversion of his ission status to that of a student, he shall also be required to submit the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance. 8. Quarantine Medical Clearance Certificate by the National Quarantine Office 9. Copy of the student’s Personal History Statement signed by the student with a 2 x 2-inch photograph just recently taken 10. Photocopy of the photo, data and stamp of the latest arrival pages of the port of the student. The port itself shall be presented to the BI office for verification 11. National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) Clearance Source: Republic of the Philippines, Department of Justice, Bureau of Immigration, Manila. Requirements for Special Study Permits for Foreign Students A foreign student who is below 18 years of age (minor under guardianship) is required to apply for Special Study Permit from the Bureau of Immigration with the following requirements: 1. Letter request from the duly appointed guardian / parents if in the country 2. Certificate of acceptance from the school 3. Photocopy of port reflecting applicant’s valid stay 4. Affidavit of and the proof thereof (bank certificate) / Guaranty of return to country of origin 5. Birth certificate

6. Affidavit executed by the parents appointing said guardian to take custody and care over the minor-applicant (if executed outside the Philippines, the same must be duly authenticated to be itted as foreign document/s; if executed in the Philippines, parents’ port must be presented) 7. Photocopy of the guardians’ port reflecting authorized stay, if guardian is an alien and he/she must not be a mere 9(a) visa holder Air Fare Guarantee Deposit All foreign students are required to pay an air fare guarantee deposit as one of the ission requirements amounting to the following rates: Africa (Central, East, South, North, West)

US $950

Australia

850

Bangladesh

550

Canada

800

Caroline Island

550

China

300

Eastern Caroline Island

800

Europe

950

Guam

600

Hong Kong

250

India

550

Indonesia

450

Japan

450

Korea

400

Malaysia

400

Middle East

950

Nepal

500

Nigeria

950

Myanmar

500

Pakistan

600

Palau

350

Papua New Guinea

600

Sabah

450

Singapore

400

Solomon Islands

600

Sri Lanka

600

Taipei

250

Thailand

400

United States of America

800

Note: Figures are subject to change depending on the cost of the airline tickets. ission Procedures 1. Inquiries or application for issions to AUP should be addressed to: The University Registrar Adventist University of the Philippines P.O. Box 1834, Manila 0901 Philippines Location Address : Puting Kahoy, Silang 4118 Cavite Telephone Nos. : (049)541-1211 to1225 Fax Nos. Email

: (049) 541-1228; 1229 : [email protected]

Website

: www.aup.edu.ph

2. Applicants must submit the completed application forms together with a non-refundable application fee and all the ission requirements to the University Registrar’s office. 3. After all the ission requirements are submitted, the applicant must take the entrance examinations istered by the Guidance Department. RETENTION POLICIES The UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF NURSING offers a community-oriented, competency-based 4-year curriculum leading to the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NURSING (BSN) in consonance with prescribed CHED (Commission on Higher Education) requirements. An added dimension to the program is a one-month live-in Community Immersion Experience. The College reserves the right NOT TO ALLOW a student to continue with the program based on the following specific RETENTION POLICIES OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSING. 1. After ission to the Nursing program, the student is expected to all the courses including REED, PE and NSTP as prescribed in the curriculum. 2. To be eligible for Capping and Badge Investiture, the second year student must have completed successfully all the courses or its equivalent number of units of the first two years of the BSN program inclusive of summer to include REED, PE and NSTP. 3. For professional nursing courses, the student must both the lecture and laboratory (RLE) portions of the course to be eligible to take up the next higher professional course. Students who fail either in the lecture or laboratory (RLE) portion of a professional nursing course must re- enrol in that subject. 4. Students who shall incur an “NC” or a failing grade in at most two (2) courses (including REED, PE and

NSTP) may be reitted for the next semester only after g a waiver that must be witnessed by the faculty class adviser and a parent or guardian. Students with more than two (2) failures shall no longer be itted for enrolment. 5. A repeated occurrence of “NC” or failure in any subject in the subsequent semester after a waiver has been signed shall be a ground for the student’s dismissal. 6. Students who fail to comply with the rules, regulations, policies and requirements of the University in general and/or the College of Nursing shall be subjected to the appropriate penalty as set forth in the USC Student Manual after due process has been observed. Very specifically, at any phase of the BSN program, a student may be expelled, eliminated, dismissed or asked to withdraw after due process on any of the following grounds. 

illegal termination of pregnancy;



immorality in any form;



drug abuse;



gross misconduct in the classroom or clinical area;



eserious error/variance in the clinical area due to negligence which may have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the condition of the patient;



incapacitating diseases such as psychosis, cancer, heart disease, lung ailment and/or communicable disease, ed with a medical certificate from the University Physician;



hip and/or involvement in any fraternity/sorority organizations and activities.

ission Requirements 

Fresh High School Graduates o

One (1) 2x2 ID Pictures

o

General High School average of at least 80 percent (2.5).

o

Final grades in Science & Math at least 80%

o

Must the following:

o



Interview conducted by the committee on ission, Retention and Promotion (CARP)



Certificate of Good Moral Character from the school head.



Photocopy of birth certificate.

For married applicants: 

A photocopy of his/her marriage contract.

 o



A promissory letter that she will not get pregnant for the duration of the course.

Good physical and mental health with normal result of the following: 

Chest X-ray



ECG



CBC



Urinalysis



Fecalysis



For married applicants-negative pregnancy test

TRANSFEREES: o

One (1) 2x2 ID Pictures

o

Honorable dismissal

o

Transcript of records

o

Must have no grade below 2.0 (80%) in any subject.

o

Must the following:

o



Interview conducted by the committee on ission, Retention and Promotion (CARP).



Certificate of good moral character from the head of the school last attended.



Photocopy of birth certificate.

For married applicants: 

A photocopy of his/her marriage contract.



A promissory letter that she will not get pregnant for the duration of the course.

o

Not more than 30 years old.

o

Good physical and mental health with normal result of the following:



Chest x-ray



ECG



CBC



Urinalysis



Fecalysis



Hepa B screening



For married applicants-negative pregnancy test

Retention Policy 



Academic Requirements o

BSN I, II, III, and IV students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in any general education subject will be made to repeat the said subject only once. He/she will be dismissed from the college if he/she fails in the same subject for the second time. Failure in two or more general education subjects will mean dismissal from the college.

o

BSN I, II, III, and IV students who obtain grade below 3.0 (75%) in any major subject (Bsci 100NT, Chem 101NT, Chem 103AH, Bsci 104NP, Math 101, Educa 103N, Philo 102AH, Chem 107AH,Phys 101AH, Bsci 106N, Econ 101AH, PharmN, Math 111, Res N) will be dismissed from the college.

o

For professional subjects in BSN II, III, and IV (ASHE 101 ASHE 102, NCM 100, NCM 101, NCM 102, NCM 103, NCM 104, NCM 105,):

o

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in the lecture portion will be made to repeat the said subject (both lecture and RLE) only once.

o

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in the RLE portion will be made to repeat the RLE only once.

o

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%), lecture and RLE on the said subject, will be dismissed from the college.

Good Physical Health o

Normal result of Chest x-ray, ECG and laboratory studies, e.g. stool, urine, and CBC are requirements for promotion to the next level.

o

In addition, Hepa B screening is required for BSN II.

o

In case of epidemic or a threat to the retention policy (as in cases of suspected pregnancy) or as required, the College reserves the right to require a student to undergo diagnostic test or routine examination, as the case warrants.



A Sound Mind o



The College of Nursing reserves the right, for the benefit of both student and the institution, to require students to submit themselves to neuropsychiatry/psychiatric examination. A psychological clearance is required for reission to the College of Nursing.

Student must comply with the requirements, rules and regulations of the College of Nursing and of the University of San Augustin.

I hope this can answer what you are trying to ask: integrated means the class has a mix while block means time is specifically spent on one format. Confusing? Here is the example for integrated vs. block at my school. My A&P class is integrated. The teacher chooses how long lecture will be and how long lab will be. Class is 3 hours, so she can choose which we do first, how much time we spend on it etc. My chemistry class was block. So for 3 hours a week we had specific time for chemistry lecture. Then, once a week we showed up to a different classroom, possibly another instructor, and worked ONLY on chem lab stuff. I hope this is helpful.

Benefits of an Integrated Curriculum Posted on January 6, 2011 | Leave a comment

As a future teacher, I recognize that “good” teaching is not simply the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student, but is rather the means by which learning occurs – both for the teacher and for the students. Learning does not take place within a vacuum in which students simply accept whatever knowledge is handed to them without first examining it against their schema. Students are constantly bombarded with information and ideas from the world around them – to assume that these do not infiltrate their opinions about life would be foolish. This is one reason I find such value in pursuing teaching via an integrated curriculum. An integrated curriculum is all about making connections, whether to real life or across the disciplines, about skills or about knowledge (Drake & Burns, 2004, p. 7-8). An integrated curriculum fuses subject areas, experiences, and real-life knowledge together to make a more fulfilling and tangible learning environment for students. This may mean simply giving a math assignment that involves the characters in that week’s reading story or it could be as complex as giving the entire year a theme and creating lessons to incorporate that topic. Because students are not taught in a vacuum, devoid of outside interaction and information, their connections between what they learn in school and the knowledge and experiences they have already had, play a large role in understanding concepts and retention of learning.

Another reason that I find use of an integrated curriculum to be so pertinent is due simply to the fact that it offers more repetition of information than to teach subjects in isolation. As John Medina, renowned molecular biologist and author, in his book Brain Rulesand on his website brainrules.net, explains, “The capacity of memory is initially less than 30 seconds. If we don’t repeat the information, it disappears,” (2008). If students are not receiving this information more than once, it is quite reasonably “going in one ear and out the other.” By taking the information learned in the morning in one subject, and refreshing students’ memories about this information later in the day, in a different subject study, they are much more likely to retain this knowledge. Medina shares, “The way to make long-term memory more reliable is to incorporate new information gradually and repeat it in timed intervals,” (Medina, 2008, p.147). By incorporating various subjects into others throughout the day, I would be able to repeat information that students may have missed or forgotten about from previous discussions. The more often the information is repeated, and the more interesting the information is, the greater the likelihood that students will preserve it. Finally, each and every student in my future classroom will be different. Each student will have a distinct learning style. By using an integrated curriculum, I will be much more likely to reach more students in a way that attracts them. While one student may not have cared about a subject studied in the morning, when it is tied to a favorite afternoon subject, his or her interest will suddenly become piqued. While it is virtually impossible to individualize classroom instruction to the degree that I would like to, using an integrated curriculum is heading in the direction of teaching each student in a way that is relevant and applicable to him or her. I think that I will definitely put in the time and effort it takes to use an integrated curriculum because the benefits for students are significant.

3 Basic Types of Curriculum Explicit This type of curriculum is what appears in documents and teachers' plans.

Implicit (or Hidden) This type of curriculum has to do with how particular assumptions about schooling and learning manifest in practice. For example, when a teacher has her or his desk at the front of the classroom and "teaches" from this area, the message that is being learned by students is that the teacher is in control, including being the knowledge authority, and is the center of attention. The teacher is also of central importance.

Another example involves the value of particular topics that is communicated implicitly. Such values can be communicated by time spent, by tone of voice, or by how the topic is treated (e.g., trivialized or marginalized).

Null The null curriculum is what is not taught. Not teaching some particular idea or sets of ideas may be due to mandates from higher authorities, to a teacher’s lack of knowledge, or to deeply ingrained assumptions and biases. Teachers and schools may not teach that Christopher Columbus slaughtered many of the native peoples he encountered when he "discovered" the Americas. Many teachers are under pressure not to teach evolution.

Commentary These three types of curricula can allow us to identify the nature and emphases of the curricula in use in various schools and school districts. The implicit and null curricula are of particular interest for identifying the underlying assumptions and biases of specific curricula and programs. curriculumexplicithiddennull

1. o

Written Curriculum The Written Curriculum is the published curriculum that is part of the formal education. The Written Curriculum includes course objectives, course guides, lesson plans, course material and grading criteria. The Written Curriculum is supplemented by other types of curricula, such as the Electronic Curriculum. Although this s the official curriculum, it is often subordinated by other more powerful curricula.

Hidden Curriculum o

o

The Hidden, or Covert, Curriculum refers to messages communicated by an organization that are implied. The Hidden Curriculum may have more influence than the Written Curriculum because it is based on the norms and values of the organization. The Hidden Curriculum includes ongoing school activities and routines that are not documented and can indicate unofficial preferences for certain subjects. The scheduling or prioritization of certain courses over others can point to a Hidden Curriculum that some subjects are not as important as others. Sponsored Links

Eyetec GmbH Lübeck



Augenoptische Geräte - Alle Volk Lupen mit 10% Rabatt www.eyetec.com

Null Curriculum o

The Null Curriculum represents the material or subjects that are not being taught as part of the Written Curriculum. Due to limited resources or an emphasis on purely academic courses, not all material or subjects will be taught. When subjects such as music or

art are not included in the Written Curriculum and thus form part of the Null Curriculum, students may believe these subjects have minimal value.

Tested Curriculum o

The Tested, or Assessed, Curriculum is the body of information on which students will be tested. Teachers may prefer to teach material that will be tested on state or school tests to improve their success rates. Teachers who put more emphasis on the Tested Curriculum may overlook the material prescribed in the Written Curriculum.

Electronic Curriculum o

The Electronic Curriculum includes all learning activities that are Internetbased. By acknowledging the existence of the issues to be considered with the electronic curriculum, educators must take into consideration the credibility of information on the Internet. Students must develop critical-learning skills to determine the quality of information they are researching. 2.

Courses

PHM 350:

Pharmacology

NUR 330*:

Health Assessment and Nursing Therapeutics

NUR 340:

Foundations of Nursing Practice

NUR 360*:

Acute Nursing Care of Adults and Older Adults

NUR 370*:

Mental Health and Psychiatric Nursing

NUR 435*:

Nursing Care of the Childbearing Family

NUR 440*:

Nursing Care of Children, Adolescents and their Families

NUR 450:

Level III Integrative Seminar

NUR 460*:

Leadership Clinical Immersion

NUR 470*:

Community and Population Health Nursing

NUR 480:

Role Transition Seminar

TRADITIONAL BSN PREREQUISITES* & UNIVERSITY GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

WRA 110-150 (4) WRITING* MTH 103 (3) COLLEGE ALGEBRA STT 200 (3) STATISTICAL METHODS* ISS 2XX: (4) SOCIAL SCIENCE ISS 3XX (4) SOCIAL SCIENCE IAH 201-210 (4) HUMANITIES I IAH 211+ (4) HUMANITIES II ELECTIVE CREDITS WILL BE NEEDED TO REACH THE 120 CREDIT MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR GRADUATION * Indicates Prerequisite course (Minimum of a 2.0 is required in each science prerequisite.)

PSY 101 (4) INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY* HDFS 225 (3)

LIFESPAN OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT* CEM 141 (4) GENERAL CHEMISTRY* BS 161 (3) CELLS AND MOLECULES* ANTR 350 (3) HUMAN ANATOMY AND STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY* PSL 250 OR 310 (4) INTRODUCTORY PHYSIOLOGY* CEM 143 (4) SURVEY OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY* MMG 201 */302 (3/1) FUNDAMENTALS OF MICROBIOLOGY* + LAB HNF 260 (3) PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NUTRITION* NUR 300 (4) PATHOPHYSIOLOGY*

TBSN Course Sequence Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Level 4 CR CR CR CR NUR 330 Health Assessment & Nursing Therapeutics

7 NUR 360 Acute Nursing Care of Adults 8 NUR 435 Care of the Childbearing Family 4 NUR 460 Leadership Clinical Immersion 5 NUR 340 Foundations of Scholarly Nursing Practice 4 NUR 370 Mental Health & Psychiatric Nursing

4 NUR 440 Nursing Care of Children, Adolescents & Their Families

4 NUR 470 Community Health & Population Nursing 4 PHM 350 Pharmacology

3 NUR 450 Level III Integrative Seminar 3 NUR 480 Role Transition Seminar

3 Semester Credits 14 Semester Credits 12 Semester Credits 11 Semester Credits 12 Effective Fall 2011

Total Credits 120