Activity 1: Analogy

The analogy of an umbrella has been used to illustrate how the key elements of a cohesive universally designed curriculum framework and collaboration are connected (DEC, 2005).

First, the principles of universal design for learning serve as the umbrella’s fabric or connective thread linking and underlying all program activities and practices.

Second, each panel of the umbrella represents a specific element of a curriculum framework. At the base or foundation of each panel are practices that are generic and applicable to all learners. As one moves up the panel, accommodations may be necessary to increase access and participation. At the top of the panel are modifications or practices identified as necessary for individual children.

Third, the umbrella is supported by a metal frame and handle, representing the essential need for collaborative partnerships among various team members.

Use the analogy of an umbrella and review the four elements of a curriculum framework. Next, divide students into groups of three or four and instruct them to select or create another analogy to represent the notion of a curriculum framework. Remind students to find ways to represent the following big ideas about a curriculum framework:

• Include all four elements (assessment, scope and sequence, activities and intervention strategies, and progress monitoring)
• Be comprehensive and address the needs of all children (e.g., ensure access and participation)
• Be cyclic in nature without a true beginning and/or end

Reference: Division for Early Childhood (DEC). (2005). Division for Early Childhood companion to the NAEYC and NAECS/SDE Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Manuscript in preparation.


Activity 2: Cooperative Learning Activity (Jigsaw)

Divide students into three core groups. Assign each group to one of the three approaches discussed in Chapter 2: activity-based intervention, Reggio Emilia, or Montessori. Each core group is responsible for answering the following questions about their assigned approach:

1. Who are the major contributors or authors?
2. What are the major underlying premises or beliefs?
3. What are the strengths and/or limitations?
4. For what populations is the approach applicable?
5. What support does the approach have from the research base?

Re-divide groups so that the new groups contain a representative from each approach: activity-based intervention, Reggio Emilia, and Montessori. In these new groups, students should then teach each other what they learned about their originally assigned approach. Finally, bring all groups back together as a class and debrief and summarize the similarities and differences between the three approaches. This cooperative learning activity can be done face –to face or online.


Activity 3: Critical Review of Materials

Have students obtain copies of the Creative Curriculum and High/Scope (these may be found in campus libraries or in a resource center in preschool programs). Divide into pairs to conduct a critical review of these two commercially available and widely used resources. Use the following questions to guide the review:

1. Is the resource organized around a theoretical rationale? Is this philosophical approach clearly stated?
2. Is the philosophical approach consistent with or appropriate to the early intervention program's approach and the population to be served?
3. Are directions clear and specifically stated?
4. Are curricular items sequenced in a developmentally appropriate order? Can what is taught be arranged or broken down to accommodate children who are at risk for or have disabilities?
5. Is parent/caregiver involvement encouraged? If so, how?
6. Is the selection of curricular items linked with assessment and observations of children’s behavior during play?
7. Are the outcomes for designated activities written in a clear, jargon-free manner so that they can be easily utilized?
8. Are curricular materials and ideas nonracist, nonsexist, and culturally nonbiased?
9. Has the resource been tested on the populations for which it was designed? Are these validation data presented?
10. Is the amount of time needed to implement the curriculum resource appropriate to the needs of the program?
11. Are the target environments or settings in which the resource is to be used appropriate to the goals and needs of the program?
12. Are the teaching techniques and areas of expertise required to implement the resource consistent with those of the staff?
13. Are special materials or equipment needed? If so, are these readily available to program staff members?
14. Is the package economically feasible for the program?