Skip to main content
Log in

Ethic of Practicality Analysis of Successful Group Curriculum Planning by Teachers

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regardless of the source of the curriculum, classroom teachers make the necessary and crucial, final decisions of specifically what and how to teach. This paper examines how three, fourth-grade teachers, who planned together voluntarily, decided what learning activities were “practical” for their students. In their seminal work, Doyle and Ponder (Interchange 8(3):1–12, 1977b) created a construct to describe how teachers decide if curriculum choices actually get implemented. They called their concept the Ethic of Practicality (EoP). Concisely, this concept is based on the premise that teachers use curricula that they find to be sensible and realistic. Doyle and Ponder devised this model to address the question of why some curriculum innovations get used and therefore succeed, while others fail. The EoP was adapted in this paper to examine the processes used in making curriculum choices by a teacher planning group who met voluntarily. The EoP’s original intent was as a model for understanding why teachers use some curriculum innovations while rejecting others. This article uses the EoP to explore the satisfaction expressed by three teachers in their team curriculum planning process. This discussion centers on the question, “Did the teachers continue their voluntary planning sessions because the resultant curriculum products were ‘practical?’” The teacher trio apparently regarded their planning sessions as highly practical and therefore continued to meet after school hours to plan their lessons. Examples demonstrate that the planning process satisfied the teachers in terms of the three components of the EoP: instrumentality, congruence, and cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Crocker, R. K. (1984). Determinants of implementation of an elementary science program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 211–220. doi:10.1002/tea.3660210211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2011). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for emergent literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9208-3.

  • Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977a). The ethic of practicality: Implications for curriculum development. In A. Molar & Zahorik (Eds.), Curriculum theory (pp. 74–80). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977b). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF01189290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R., Miller, K., & Priestley, M. (2009). Curriculum-making in school and college: The case of hospitality. Curriculum Journal, 20(1), 27–42. doi:10.1080/09585170902763981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., Nachlieli, T., & Chazan, D. (2011). Studying the practical rationality of mathematics teaching: What goes into “installing” a theorem in geometry? Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 218–255. doi:10.1080/07370008.2011.556833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, E. (2010). Getting in step to improve the quality of in-service teacher learning through mentoring. Professional Development in Education, 36(3), 443–469. doi:10.1080/19415250903115962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutterodt, S. A. (1981). Design, utilization. Some problems associated with integrated science curricula with special reference to the project for science integration in Ghana. International Review of Education, 27(3), 301–314.

  • Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher’s beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 27–38. doi:10.1002/tea.3660210104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, M. J. (2009). Curriculum deliberations of experienced elementary teachers engaged in voluntary team planning. The Curriculum Journal, 20(4), 409–421. doi:10.1080/09585170903424955.

  • Reid, M. J. (2010). Commonplaces in practitioner curriculum deliberation. Research in the Schools, 17(2), 54–64.

  • Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501–522. doi:10.1086/443100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M. (1981). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in physical education. Interchange, 12(4), 1–22.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Reid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reid, M.J. Ethic of Practicality Analysis of Successful Group Curriculum Planning by Teachers. Interchange 45, 75–84 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-014-9222-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-014-9222-6

Keywords

Navigation