Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Summer 8-26-2019 A Study of Curriculum Customization in the Era of Standardization of Education Sylvia A. Dixon McInerney Seton Hall University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, and the Educational Leadership Commons Recommended Citation Dixon McInerney, Sylvia A., "A Study of Curriculum Customization in the Era of Standardization of Education" (2019). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2698. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2698 A STUDY OF CURRICULUM CUSTOMIZATION IN THE ERA OF STANDARDIZATION OF EDUCATION By SYLVIA A. DIXON MCINERNEY Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of EducAtion DepArtment of EducAtion LeAdership, MAnAgement And Policy Seton HAll University August 2019 © 2019 SylviA A. Dixon McInerney ii SETON HALL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES APPROVAL FOR SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE Sylvia A. Dixon-McInerney has successfully defended And mAde the required modificAtions to the text of the doctorAl dissertAtion for the Ed.D. during this Summer Semester 2019. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE The mentor And Any other committee members who wish to review revisions will sign And dAte this document only when revisions hAve been completed. PleAse return this form to the Office of GrAduAte Studies, where it will be placed in the cAndidate's file And submit A copy with your finAl dissertAtion to be bound As pAge number two. Abstract The turn of the 19th Century in the United StAtes wAs a period of immense economic, sociAl and politicAl growth. The Progressive Era wAs born out of this rapid change and led to a shift in educAtional theory creAting A debate over curriculum. Curriculum has been a fervent point of discussion among educAtional theorists and practitioners with politiciAns and businessmen having All had something to add to the fray. The current movement in curriculum content has been at the forefront since 2010 where educAtion has been besieged by a strong impetus towArd stAndardizAtion. This has tAken the form of the Common Core StAte StAndards (Common Core or CCSS). Until the advent of the Common Core the individual StAtes in the United StAtes eAch had their own curriculum stAndards that were meAnt to be guidelines for locAl curriculum writers. John Dewey, the philosopher and educAtional theorist wrote that curriculum should be locAl. In the United StAtes, the movement towArd a national curriculum and with this movement is the need for an assessment test(s). A scripted curriculum, however, does not leAd to conceptual change nor does it foster intellectual curiosity. This study focused on whether or not teAchers rigidly follow the adopted curriculum and if the teAcher’s had the power to customize that curriculum in their daily clAssroom practice. Finally, if the teAchers engaged in active curriculum mAking, what if any, were the meAsurable or perceived effects in terms of teAcher efficAcy and in terms empowerment? iii Acknowledgements I would like to extend my thanks to my mentor Dr. Michael Kuchar who provided me with a tremendous amount of insight throughout this entire process. When I wAs in the mire Dr. Kuchar helped me find the wAy through. My committee members I would also like to thank for their time, knowledge and support. Dr. Christopher H. Tienken for his generous time in the feedback process and knowledge about the current stAte of curriculum. Dr. Scott TAylor, who, as an adjunct professor, inspired me to continue my study of curriculum. iv DedicAtion This dissertAtion is dedicAted to my wonderful husband Shawn. You have given generously of your love and support in encouraging me to finish this process. To my children Connor and Kelsey who led me to educAtion as a professional vocAtion. WAtching both of you grow and acquire knowledge brought me to this point. Thank you all for your understAnding and love. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………...………………….….iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………....iv DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………………..v LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………...…….…...ix LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...x Chapter I INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………..…..…..…..1 StAtement of the Problem ………………………………………….…….…..….5 Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………….…..........….7 ReseArch Questions ………………………………………………….….………7 SignificAnce of the Study ……………………………………………………….8 TheoreticAl Framework …………………………………………………………9 Zone of ProximAl Development …….………………………….…….…9 Conceptual Change Model …………………………………….….…...10 TeAcher EfficAcy …………………………………………………….....11 ReseArch Design ……… ……………………………………………………....13 SummAry of Methodology ……..…………………………………………,…...13 LimitAtions/DelimitAtions………………………………………………….…...13 Definition of Terms ……….………………………………………………..….14 OrganizAtion of the Study ………………………………………………….…..15 Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………...………………….……16 Purpose of the Review ……………………………………………………..…...16 Literature SeArch Procedures ………………………………………………...…16 HistoricAl Perspective of Curriculum…………….. ……………………..…..…17 PhilosophicAl Theory of Curriculum ……………………………………….......19 StAndardizAtion of Curriculum ……………………………………..……..…....20 Curriculum CustomizAtion ………………………………………………..…....27 TheoreticAl Framework.. ………………………………………………….........33 Conclusion ……………………………………………………….…………….41 Chapter III METHODOLOGY ……….……………………………………………….…..43 ReseArcher Role…..…………………...……………………………….….…...43 Design and Methods ……………………………………………………..…....46 Profile of Site……..……………………………………………………………47 PArticipants……………………………………………………………….....…49 Ms. Lessing………………………………………………………..…..49 Mr. LAmb…………………………………………………………..….50 Mrs. Lu…………………………………………………………..…….52 Ms. Lee……………………………………………………………..….52 vi Ms. Lovecraft……………………………………………….……………….………….53 Ms. ShakespeAre…………………………………………………………………….….54 Mrs. Shaw………………………………………………………………………………54 Ms. PArk……….………………………………………………………………………..55 Mrs. FArmer………….………………………………………………………………....56 Mrs. WAlker………….…………………………………………………………………57 DAtA Collection…………...…………….………………………………………………60 Interview Themes ………………….…..………………………………………..……..61 Analysis………………………….……………………………………………………..62 VAlidity and ReliAbility ……….…………………………………………………….…64 TeAcher Selection…………….……………………………………………………...…66 Site Selection…………………………………………………………………………..66 ReliAbility of PArticipants…………………………………………………………..….66 EthicAl Issues ……………………………………………………………………….…66 Chapter IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS…………………………………………….….……….68 Zone of ProximAl Development……………………………………………………..…68 Knowledge of Curriculum StAndards..................................................................72 Use of StAndards………………………………………………………………..74 Implied Authority……………………………………………………….…...…77 Conceptual Change Model………………………………………………………….….80 TeAcher Authority………………………………………………………………82 Student Choice…………………………………………………………….……83 Knowledge of CustomizAtion……………………………………………………….….85 TeAcher EfficAcy………………………………………………………..…………..…..8 Administrative Trust……………………………………………………………87 Professionalism………………………………………………………………....89 LeAdership Opportunities……………………………………………………….90 Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………..….…92 Overview of Study……………………………………………………………………….92 Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………...93 ProximAl Curriculum Development…..………………………………………………….93 Recommendation for policy And practice…………………………………...…..95 Curriculum LeAdership and Authority…………………………………………………...97 Recommendation for policy and practice…………………………………….…98 LeAdership Opportunities …………………………………………………….…99 Perceptions of TeAcher EfficAcy……..…………………………………………..……..101 Recommendation for policy and practice……………………………………...102 SummAry of Interconnected Themes………………………………………………..… 103 Theory vs. Practice………………………………………………………….………… 104 Recommendations for Future ReseArch ……………………………………..…..…… 105 vii REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………...105 APPENDIX A: SolicitAtion Letter ……….…………………………………………………116 APPENDIX B: IRB Approval of ReseArch ….……………………………………….……….118 APPENDIX C: Approval for DissertAtion ProposAl………………………………….……...…119 APPENDIX D: District Approval to Conduct ReseArch……………………………………….120 APPENDIX E: Interview Questions………………………………………………..………….121 viii LIST OF TABLES TAble 1 NAEP Average ScAle Scores………………………………………………...….31 TAble 2 U.S scores on PISA. 15-yeAr old (2000-2015)......................................................32 TAble 3 SummAry of PArticipants view towArd CCCS ……………………………….58-59 TAble 4 Code Book Example………………………………………………….………63-64 TAble 5 EfficAcy belief tied to curriculum mAking……….……………………..……....100 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. SummAry of interconnected themes…………………………………………..102 x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION John Dewey (1916) viewed public educAtion as having three essentiAl functions: economic, socio-civic and avocAtional. These components were to be complementAry with the goal of educAting the whole person. Over time, formAl educAtion has come to be viewed as preparation for the future (Kliebard, 1995). An extension of this premise involves defining a prescribed course of study that students will follow in order to be prepared for economic contributions to society. Public educAtion has tAken on some of the characteristics of Dewey’s vision, however, in recent yeArs, the focus has narrowed