| Abstract: | Conclusions What conclusions can be reached on the basis of the kind of project I have described. First, there is an alternative to the large, expensive curriculum development models that were popular in the 1960s. A small, clinical model has many advantages. A project can begin with a general curriculum idea in several classrooms, or even one classroom, without becoming trapped in a web of quantitative data, logistical problems, and fund-raising, and work from that point towards a polished model for wider summative evaluation.Second, teachers and children need not be mere consumers of curricula developed by publishing houses or schools of education, nor even play the passive role of testing a formalized model developed outside classrooms. They can actively participate in elaboration of the conceptual content, the pedagogical strategies, and the specific lessons and materials of a new model.Third, there are university scholars who are willing and able to collaborate in bringing recently discovered knowledge to elementary school children; they do this by helping shape curricula and by making their departmental resources available to enterprising teachers or principals. Many scholars with youngsters themselves have a deep interest in communicating their knowledge to children. This group includes not only educational psychologists but scholars in traditional disciplines like biology and anthropology. David Pilbeam's research in human evolution, Goodall's research on primates, Cousteau's research on whales are a few examples of the rich variety of knowledge that can be shaped into pedagogical forms —experiments, audio-visual materials, readers, etc. — appropriate for children at varied levels of development.Fourth, children have a far broader range of intellectual interests than has generally been recognized. Bringing them into contact with fields of knowledge, methods of inquiry in these fields, and the processes of logical reasoning at a time when they have a natural receptivity can have a fundamental impact on their intellectual confidence, which will serve them well in later school years. The content of elementary education need not be trivial nor composed totally of tedious work on the traditional basic skills. There is room enough for children to exercise higher level cognitive abilities suggested by their own questions.Fifth, children are a primary source of ideas, theories, interests; feelings, and questions, which can be tapped systematically in the service of sensitive and accurate teaching. Interviews, discussions, and observations of children manipulating materials and ideas are relatively simple ways for teachers and curriculum developers to keep their ears to the ground, and to discover, keep alive, and cultivate the intellectual interests and capacities of children.Roger Landrum is a doctoral candidate at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, with a general interest in theoretical models of education based on human development theory and a research interest in measurable effects of classroom programs based on Piagetian theory. He has directed teacher education programs for the Peace Corps, The Teacher's Inc., and Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies. |
