Kilpatrick, William Heard

William Heard Kilpatrick (1871–1965) popularized the project method and child-centered curriculum and proved most important to curriculum studies as an emblematic figure for progressive education curricula. Although Kilpatrick's reputation suffers criticism for misapplying progressive ideals and the beliefs of John Dewey, he remains the self-proclaimed interpreter and leading proponent of the progressive education curriculum of the early to mid-20th century.

Kilpatrick graduated from Mercer College and taught mathematics in the Georgia public schools, returning to Mercer to serve as a faculty member and acting president. His decision to leave Mercer was precipitated by charges of religious heresy, where he subsequently moved to Teachers College and completed his PhD in 1912. Referred to during his later years as the white-haired gentleman from Georgia with his distinctive appearance and accent and charismatic public presence, Kilpatrick taught at Teachers College from 1912 until his retirement in 1937. He was described by the New York City press as Teachers College's million dollar professor in recognition of his large classes and the amount of tuition he generated for the institution.

The launching of Kilpatrick's national career occurred in 1918 with the publication in Teachers College Record of “The Project Method: The Use of the Purposeful Act in the Educative Process,” later reprinted and widely distributed in monograph form. Although the project method was already popular in the areas of agricultural, architectural, and vocational education, Kilpatrick offered the general elementary school classroom teacher a rationale for shifting the curriculum away from rigid content and recitation to a more child-centered program. With the emergence of new psychological and sociological research influencing educational thought, Kilpatrick focused curriculum planning on the interests of the self-directed student. Curriculum development, thus, turned from predefined subject matter to experiences that fostered self-directed, purposive living. Accordingly, curriculum was viewed as a process of living in what has become a fundamental definition for the field of curriculum studies. Yet such basic beliefs, willingly embraced by progressive educators, still [Page 513]left teachers wondering just what to do in the classroom, and the project method offered tangible direction and guidance for developing a child-centered program. Kilpatrick classified types of projects and described the project method as having two necessary components: (1) a hearty, purposeful act and (2) an activity conducted in a social context. From this framework of curriculum and instruction, Kilpatrick popularized this educational method that came into common usage throughout the 20th century. Although the practice received much criticism from both progressives and traditional educators, Kilpatrick underscored the importance of subject matter, the role of teacher as expert and guide, and the significance of democracy as a social process for schools. The project method remains the most popular and defining curricular-instructional practice of progressive education.

Interestingly, one of Kilpatrick's truly insightful contributions to curriculum studies never received the attention that many believed it deserved: the concept of concomitant learnings. Although Kilpatrick saw the project method as providing a framework for curriculum design and development, his belief in educating the whole child and his familiarity with learning theory caused him to take a broader view of educational experience. He would come to articulate two types of learning: (1) direct (or primary-intentional) learning resulting from traditional or student-centered curriculum and (2) concomitant (or associate-simultaneous) learning, representing students' transactional feelings, attitudes, and reactions to content (again, stemming from primarily the project method, but also possible in traditional school settings). Concomitant learning recognized positive and negative aspects of the process of learning, including both the joy of discovery and the dread of testing. Thus, Kilpatrick's conception of curriculum as the process of living caused the fostering of positive attitudes and habits toward learning, through concomitant learning, to become as important a curricular activity as the actual selection of the content. The project method—arising from the interests of the child and engaged as a hearty, purposeful act—served as a successful means of providing both direct and concomitant learning. Since Kilpatrick underscored the importance of concomitant learning and student growth and interests, critics of progressive education were once again able to interpret his comments as a way to expose an inattention to subject matter and disciplinary knowledge.

...