One last thing:
I wrote a blog each week and responded to at least two blogs per week. A couple of weeks I responded to everyone's blogs.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
17 January 2010: My fist post reflected upon the metaphors of curriculum and how current trends towards accountability are pushing the education system towards more of a production orientation, while I felt that my most successful classroom experiences with my students were in the traveller metaphor. I attempted to define the roles that I have assumed over the last 5 years and the forces that have swayed me from one educational perspective to another.
23 January 2010: This blog examined the introduction of values into the Manitoba Social Studies curriculum. I questioned to reason for the government feeling the need to inject values into an educational document, as these had traditionally been a latent function of education, rather than something that was explicitly taught. I made a connection to the Null curriculum and how our avoidance of including values up to this point might have been a sign of our Canadian sensibilities not wanting to offend anyone. Maybe Manitoba is getting bold and wanting to assert its own values.
2 February 2010: After Ashley’s presentation on the butterfly metaphor in the music curriculum, I noted how well it serves to reflect the interdependent nature of curriculum. All curriculum should be represented as a butterfly to show how each aspect of it is dependent upon the other. It is easy to get lost in one part of the curriculum without realizing how it will impact the others. As well, what is the “thorax” that holds it all together? Why do we teach each of our curriculums?
9 February 2010: Reflecting upon listening to “On the Trail” I thought about the use of the affective and effective domain in society. Our curriculum is heavily slanted towards the effective side, which I think is a cultural issue. In my blog, I referenced two books that I have read A Whole New Mind, which comments on the need for stimulating creativity in North American society to remain relevant, and Geography of Thought, which differentiates between the thinking processes of Easterns and Westerners. Both books raised important points that should make us review our educational systems.
16 February 2010: Based on Graham's presentation, I commented on my eperiences with constructivist strategies. I realized that my own efforts to be constructivist were much more guided than I thought, but the guidance seemed to be needed for students to reach their goals. I commened on the need for students to learn processes as well as content, but Graham's presentation reinforced the idea that it can be overwhelming for one to learn both simultaneously. Hence, an important consideration for teachers as they consider teaching new processes.
23 February 2010: Based on Vallance's article, I wrote a slightly outlandish piece about the use of art criticism for curriculum as a form of thought control. Vallance's approach to curriculum critique seems effective for its purpose of making one FEEL the curriculum. I made the thought police refence in connection to Vallance's comments about putting so much thought into what we do with our students since we see them for such a large amount of time. I questioned how much the government should be trying to CONTROL the time teachers spend with learners, and as to what sorts of outcomes they wish the learners to obtain. Bias is prevalent in any system, so what we teach through our mandated or underlying curriculum is going to influence our students.
2 March 2010: In reference to my own presentation, I wrote about the fact that Canada is one of very few industrialized countries without a national education strategy. I probed the reasons for having a national strategy, along with identifying peoples' fears of such a system. I concluded, supporting Chambers' request for a forum to promote national discourse on education issues.
9 March 2010: Class cancelled
16 March 2010: In response to the Gender Issues curriculum proposal, I stated that any public school should have to follow whatever curriculum is presented by the provincial government. If a school is receiving public funds, it is responsible for representing the public interest and in this case, it is was the Gender Studies Curriculum. I also stated that private religious schools should have a choice about instating the proposed curriculum.
30 March 2010: Based on Baudrillard, I commented on how the need to create the opposite of every situation is necessary to justify its presence is prevalent in education. There is a swinging pendulum that moves from one educational fad to another to justify the need for educational improvement, when nothing seems to have changed dramatically in the last two hundred years. I questioned whether we do this to justify our positions so we don't see education as a charade.
Overally, I thoroughly enjoyed the blogging experience as it allowed me to express my thoughts after class. As a quiet person, I don't always share as many ideas during discussions as I would like to, but having an opportunity to blog about them gives me a forum to express my thoughts. As well, blogging gave us the opportunity to reflect upon what we learned and how it applied to society. Blogging also made you feel that you could continue the class discussion if something else came to you after class. You were no longer in isolation and you could find out what others were thinking. I especially enjoyed reading about peoples' personal connections to topics, which one might never have heard during a class discussion.
Based on my blogging experiences, I am going to try it with my high school students. Despite it not being a formal paper, I feel like I learned just as much, if not more. This is authentic communication and not just an assignmnet to obtain a mark.
I also found curriculum much more interesting than I expected. Coming into the couse, I thought we'd be looking at a variety of curriculum frameworks drawn as flow charts and maps to help design the perfect curriculum. I foud the articles we read to be stimulating and advanced my thoughts on curriculum theory and practice.
I wish everyone success in their future endeavours. I was a pleasure to meet with each of you every Tuesday night.
23 January 2010: This blog examined the introduction of values into the Manitoba Social Studies curriculum. I questioned to reason for the government feeling the need to inject values into an educational document, as these had traditionally been a latent function of education, rather than something that was explicitly taught. I made a connection to the Null curriculum and how our avoidance of including values up to this point might have been a sign of our Canadian sensibilities not wanting to offend anyone. Maybe Manitoba is getting bold and wanting to assert its own values.
2 February 2010: After Ashley’s presentation on the butterfly metaphor in the music curriculum, I noted how well it serves to reflect the interdependent nature of curriculum. All curriculum should be represented as a butterfly to show how each aspect of it is dependent upon the other. It is easy to get lost in one part of the curriculum without realizing how it will impact the others. As well, what is the “thorax” that holds it all together? Why do we teach each of our curriculums?
9 February 2010: Reflecting upon listening to “On the Trail” I thought about the use of the affective and effective domain in society. Our curriculum is heavily slanted towards the effective side, which I think is a cultural issue. In my blog, I referenced two books that I have read A Whole New Mind, which comments on the need for stimulating creativity in North American society to remain relevant, and Geography of Thought, which differentiates between the thinking processes of Easterns and Westerners. Both books raised important points that should make us review our educational systems.
16 February 2010: Based on Graham's presentation, I commented on my eperiences with constructivist strategies. I realized that my own efforts to be constructivist were much more guided than I thought, but the guidance seemed to be needed for students to reach their goals. I commened on the need for students to learn processes as well as content, but Graham's presentation reinforced the idea that it can be overwhelming for one to learn both simultaneously. Hence, an important consideration for teachers as they consider teaching new processes.
23 February 2010: Based on Vallance's article, I wrote a slightly outlandish piece about the use of art criticism for curriculum as a form of thought control. Vallance's approach to curriculum critique seems effective for its purpose of making one FEEL the curriculum. I made the thought police refence in connection to Vallance's comments about putting so much thought into what we do with our students since we see them for such a large amount of time. I questioned how much the government should be trying to CONTROL the time teachers spend with learners, and as to what sorts of outcomes they wish the learners to obtain. Bias is prevalent in any system, so what we teach through our mandated or underlying curriculum is going to influence our students.
2 March 2010: In reference to my own presentation, I wrote about the fact that Canada is one of very few industrialized countries without a national education strategy. I probed the reasons for having a national strategy, along with identifying peoples' fears of such a system. I concluded, supporting Chambers' request for a forum to promote national discourse on education issues.
9 March 2010: Class cancelled
16 March 2010: In response to the Gender Issues curriculum proposal, I stated that any public school should have to follow whatever curriculum is presented by the provincial government. If a school is receiving public funds, it is responsible for representing the public interest and in this case, it is was the Gender Studies Curriculum. I also stated that private religious schools should have a choice about instating the proposed curriculum.
30 March 2010: Based on Baudrillard, I commented on how the need to create the opposite of every situation is necessary to justify its presence is prevalent in education. There is a swinging pendulum that moves from one educational fad to another to justify the need for educational improvement, when nothing seems to have changed dramatically in the last two hundred years. I questioned whether we do this to justify our positions so we don't see education as a charade.
Overally, I thoroughly enjoyed the blogging experience as it allowed me to express my thoughts after class. As a quiet person, I don't always share as many ideas during discussions as I would like to, but having an opportunity to blog about them gives me a forum to express my thoughts. As well, blogging gave us the opportunity to reflect upon what we learned and how it applied to society. Blogging also made you feel that you could continue the class discussion if something else came to you after class. You were no longer in isolation and you could find out what others were thinking. I especially enjoyed reading about peoples' personal connections to topics, which one might never have heard during a class discussion.
Based on my blogging experiences, I am going to try it with my high school students. Despite it not being a formal paper, I feel like I learned just as much, if not more. This is authentic communication and not just an assignmnet to obtain a mark.
I also found curriculum much more interesting than I expected. Coming into the couse, I thought we'd be looking at a variety of curriculum frameworks drawn as flow charts and maps to help design the perfect curriculum. I foud the articles we read to be stimulating and advanced my thoughts on curriculum theory and practice.
I wish everyone success in their future endeavours. I was a pleasure to meet with each of you every Tuesday night.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Simulations
Baurillard's article immediately made me think of The Matrix as I was reading through it. I could envision the scene where Keanu Reeves wakes up in the pool of slime and nothing is as it was before. I was about 16 when The Matrix came out and my limited perspective made me criticize the movie for being outlandish, unrealistic, and a little offensive. I was so wrapped up in my simulation that I couldn't fathom anything different.
Since reading Baudrillard, I've come to a greater appreciation of The Matrix and its assault on my prized daily simulation game. What impacted me the most from Baudrillard's article was how the simulation of something is necessary to support its opposite. For example, capitalism is needed to promote morality and political scandal is needed to support political principles. Our daily simulation is a cyclical experience that must be perpetuated, or else we will see what is true and real...nothing?
We perpetuate the simulation of reality through all of our actions. For everything we criticize and every solution we create, we help the cycle flow. Education seems to be so valued in our society, but I wonder how people would react to the fact that it is useless. Isn't that what we'd find if we stopped the cycle of simulation? Quite literally, education goes through its own cycles to necessitate its existence in society. Various researchers propose different methods of instruction, assessment, or curriculum development causing divisions and teachers to hop on the metaphorical bandwagon and change everything they do. The wagon ride only lasts for so long until people get bored, or the public becomes wary of why test scores aren't increasing. Thus, another theory on learning is adopted and everyone jumps on the next wagon heading the other way down the path. Meanwhile, the people on the wagon are so weary, and their eyes are clouded with the dust from the trail that they can't even see which way they're going.
The simulation of reality is like a huge pendulum. It must swing as far as it possibly can one way before it will fall and come thundering back in the other direction, only to reach the top of the other side and repeat the process again. If we know this is also how trends work in education why do we keep following them? If we do whole language instruction for 10 years, then try phonics for 10 years, realizing that neither is completely appropriate, what comes next? (Obviously it is a balanced literacy program, but how long can that last for?) If we stop letting the pendulum swing, what will happen to the education system? Will the public still have faith in us? Do we need to necessitate our existence as educators in the school system? Is there something we're trying to hide? Maybe it is all a waste of time? If western education ceases to change, it will be seen for what it really is... according to Baudrillard. I don't think we're ready to accept that.
Since reading Baudrillard, I've come to a greater appreciation of The Matrix and its assault on my prized daily simulation game. What impacted me the most from Baudrillard's article was how the simulation of something is necessary to support its opposite. For example, capitalism is needed to promote morality and political scandal is needed to support political principles. Our daily simulation is a cyclical experience that must be perpetuated, or else we will see what is true and real...nothing?
We perpetuate the simulation of reality through all of our actions. For everything we criticize and every solution we create, we help the cycle flow. Education seems to be so valued in our society, but I wonder how people would react to the fact that it is useless. Isn't that what we'd find if we stopped the cycle of simulation? Quite literally, education goes through its own cycles to necessitate its existence in society. Various researchers propose different methods of instruction, assessment, or curriculum development causing divisions and teachers to hop on the metaphorical bandwagon and change everything they do. The wagon ride only lasts for so long until people get bored, or the public becomes wary of why test scores aren't increasing. Thus, another theory on learning is adopted and everyone jumps on the next wagon heading the other way down the path. Meanwhile, the people on the wagon are so weary, and their eyes are clouded with the dust from the trail that they can't even see which way they're going.
The simulation of reality is like a huge pendulum. It must swing as far as it possibly can one way before it will fall and come thundering back in the other direction, only to reach the top of the other side and repeat the process again. If we know this is also how trends work in education why do we keep following them? If we do whole language instruction for 10 years, then try phonics for 10 years, realizing that neither is completely appropriate, what comes next? (Obviously it is a balanced literacy program, but how long can that last for?) If we stop letting the pendulum swing, what will happen to the education system? Will the public still have faith in us? Do we need to necessitate our existence as educators in the school system? Is there something we're trying to hide? Maybe it is all a waste of time? If western education ceases to change, it will be seen for what it really is... according to Baudrillard. I don't think we're ready to accept that.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
I fully support the concept of faith-based education. People should have the opportunity to send their children to a school that promotes a set of values and beliefs that they find fundamental for success in society. This becomes challenging when faith-based education is an option within the public school system. In Ontario there are 4 types of publicly funded schools: the English and French non-denominational stream and the English and French Catholic stream. People should be able to choose where they send their children to school, but should taxpayers be supporting a faith-based program that has no relevance to some of their lives, or might even be offensive to some of their beliefs?
Students attending Catholic schools should expect to receive quality Catholic teachings. Why would you send your child to a religious school without the expectation that it would help he or she develop a core set of religious values. In this vein, should Catholic schools be forced to implement curricula that challenges their traditional teachings? If the school is private, I would say no. If the school is publicly funded, they have a mandate to implement provincial curricula; therefore, they should implement something such as the Gender Studies course.
After reading through parts A and B of the Gender Studies curriculum, I can see why ardent Catholics would be opposed to its implementation with its confrontation of traditional gender roles, homosexuality, and women's reproductive rights. What I also see are issues that appear to be important to religious groups. From my limited knowledge of Christianity, I feel that Christians pride themselves on missionary work in foreign countries, denounce the rampant sexual and violent images in the media and their influence on children, and support centres for women and men who are victims of abuse. The previous examples all connect to curricular outcomes in the Gender Studies course, giving Christian educators ample opportunity to integrate Gender Studies with Christian values.
We have spent much time in class discussing the role of the teacher to interpret curriculum and select outcomes that are most relevant to our students. Why can't the Catholic schools do the same? Parts A and B do not promote values whatsoever. They simply require students to describe and analyze current and historic issues in society. If one has been well instructed in the values of his or her faith, they will not be foregone by exposure to new content. A solid set of values allows one to make judgements of the world from his or her perspective. Providing students with ample opportunities to view the world through multiple lenses allows them to be better citizens. As well, to truly understand your faith, it needs to be challenged; otherwise, one will be left with a superficial understanding of religion and church attendance and priests as the only conduit to God. Teachers in publicly funded Catholic schools must teach this curriculum because they receive funding from the provincial government. But, as professionals, they must also interpret the curriculum in the way that will best serve their students and communities.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
2 March 2010
Canada is one of the one only developed nations in the world without a national education strategy. This is due to the structure and distribution of powers established by our federal government. Our government system is set up in a post-modern way with a central government controlling issues of national interest, while powers of more local interest are delegated to the provinces. This creates an interesting dichotomy as issues such as health care and education are provincially managed, but receive some funding from the federal level (when I say education in this context, think post-secondary).
If we, as a society, are concerned about establishing a "Canadian" curriculum, shouldn't we have a framework upon which to build it? Aren't we doomed for regionalization of curriculum documents if we lack a national platform for educational development and discussion?
Most developed countries have education as a responsibility of their federal government. After all, the federal government is also concerned about research and innovation, economic development, productivity and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Recent statistics have shown that, compared to similar countries, we have lower worker productivity and workplace literacy skills. As we shift to a knowledge-based society, we seem to be lagging behind.
What are some of the benefits of a national education strategy? National standards would help ensure that all Canadian students were being exposed to a certain set of key outcomes. This way, the government would be able to compare educational programming and achievement in rural British Columbia, to suburban Toronto, to metropolitan Halifax. To improve our economy, a national education strategy could focus on implementing common objectives that are needed to be successful in the modern workforce. A common strategy would also enable the government to better promote a sense of national identify and common norms, values, and mores.
Many people seem to fear the concept of a national strategy as it might reveal the injustice being served to some regions of Canada. Maybe we would discover that some schools do not adequately prepare students for the 21st century. Maybe we would discover the glaring inequities that exist between our regions. Maybe we would see too closely that we are post-national when we are not quite ready to embrace all that it encompasses.
There are also problems with a national education strategy. Students need to be taught in a way that reflects the community in which they live. Students need to learn about what is happening in their community and how they can work to improve it. Students need curriculum that is reflective of and responsive to local social and environmental problems. As well, is it fair to compare educational achievement between vastly diverse regions? Relevant learning in one are is irrelevant in another? Who decides which knowledge is of most worth?
As Chambers wrote in her article, there needs to be a forum for Canadians to discuss curricular concerns and share their concept of "place." What makes one Canadian is more ideological than tangible, so people need to discuss it to try to make it real for the population. We need to be given experiences to FEEL what it means to be Canadian. I don't believe that it is hockey itself that makes us feel a sense of national pride, but the cold, gritty nature of the sport that appeals to us. Baseball on the other hand, is too civilized to be considered Canadian.
I feel that we do need a national education strategy, but not as a set of prescriptive outcomes set out in a pan-Canadian curriculum, but as an ideological think-tank dedicated to promoting discourse on regional educational issues and sharing our concept of "place." Even beyond that, why can't we have a national goal for educational initiatives? We are a diverse nation, but we share the same economic goal.
What makes me feel Canadian is the fact that I've travelled across Canada from Victoria to Halifax and met many interesting people along the way. Seeing our land and hearing peoples' stories makes me realize how much we all have in common and how much we have to learn from each other. Why can't we have a forum to do this in education?
If we, as a society, are concerned about establishing a "Canadian" curriculum, shouldn't we have a framework upon which to build it? Aren't we doomed for regionalization of curriculum documents if we lack a national platform for educational development and discussion?
Most developed countries have education as a responsibility of their federal government. After all, the federal government is also concerned about research and innovation, economic development, productivity and increasing the Gross Domestic Product. Recent statistics have shown that, compared to similar countries, we have lower worker productivity and workplace literacy skills. As we shift to a knowledge-based society, we seem to be lagging behind.
What are some of the benefits of a national education strategy? National standards would help ensure that all Canadian students were being exposed to a certain set of key outcomes. This way, the government would be able to compare educational programming and achievement in rural British Columbia, to suburban Toronto, to metropolitan Halifax. To improve our economy, a national education strategy could focus on implementing common objectives that are needed to be successful in the modern workforce. A common strategy would also enable the government to better promote a sense of national identify and common norms, values, and mores.
Many people seem to fear the concept of a national strategy as it might reveal the injustice being served to some regions of Canada. Maybe we would discover that some schools do not adequately prepare students for the 21st century. Maybe we would discover the glaring inequities that exist between our regions. Maybe we would see too closely that we are post-national when we are not quite ready to embrace all that it encompasses.
There are also problems with a national education strategy. Students need to be taught in a way that reflects the community in which they live. Students need to learn about what is happening in their community and how they can work to improve it. Students need curriculum that is reflective of and responsive to local social and environmental problems. As well, is it fair to compare educational achievement between vastly diverse regions? Relevant learning in one are is irrelevant in another? Who decides which knowledge is of most worth?
As Chambers wrote in her article, there needs to be a forum for Canadians to discuss curricular concerns and share their concept of "place." What makes one Canadian is more ideological than tangible, so people need to discuss it to try to make it real for the population. We need to be given experiences to FEEL what it means to be Canadian. I don't believe that it is hockey itself that makes us feel a sense of national pride, but the cold, gritty nature of the sport that appeals to us. Baseball on the other hand, is too civilized to be considered Canadian.
I feel that we do need a national education strategy, but not as a set of prescriptive outcomes set out in a pan-Canadian curriculum, but as an ideological think-tank dedicated to promoting discourse on regional educational issues and sharing our concept of "place." Even beyond that, why can't we have a national goal for educational initiatives? We are a diverse nation, but we share the same economic goal.
What makes me feel Canadian is the fact that I've travelled across Canada from Victoria to Halifax and met many interesting people along the way. Seeing our land and hearing peoples' stories makes me realize how much we all have in common and how much we have to learn from each other. Why can't we have a forum to do this in education?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Enter ... the Thought Police!
Can art criticism of curriculum lead to an Orwellian future? Our students are with us for more hours out of the day than with any other group, such as their family, sports team, etc. Based on Vallance's article, it is essential for us to consider how we shape the experiences we give our students. If we don't provide them with the experiences necessary to engage with material, become better learners, and informed citizens, then our educational system is doing them a disservice. After all, isn't education supposed to purport a set of desired social values? Isn't education supposed to cultivate essential knowledge and skills to prepare students for high education and the world of work? Isn't education supposed to make students think (critically)?
Reading through Vallance's article I couldn't help but feel a connection to the curriculum, as described through the eyes of an art critic. It helped me feel the flow of the course and experience aspects of the course that might not be notable otherwise, such as the appropriateness of the essay and one's perception of it. Art criticism can provide curriculum developers with an interesting way to review and revise elements of curriculum to make it more meaningful for students and teachers.
What I must question is our quest to control learner experiences. Outcomes can be objective. The way people experience them doesn't have to be. Every teacher has a bias and that can be apparent in the way that we deliver our lessons or through the topics that we decide to teach or leave out. Despite this potential bias, students will still learn curricular outcomes and the bias is isolated at the classroom level (although throughout various classrooms).
What happens when the bias comes from the curriculum developers? What happens when they have a political agenda that they are trying to promote? What about social change? Of course our society needs to recognize that there are better ways to live than what we have been doing, but whose job is it to tell us? When curriculums begin considering how to shape learner experiences, one must demand to know whose perspective those experiences represent! Is it appropriate for teachers to teach a curriculum that verges on social constructivism? What about in science? Is there a social constructivist aspect to it as well? That would be interesting.
As curriculums prescribe learner experiences, it becomes easier for the government to become "thought police" and promote ideas and values in students to achieve a certain societal end. Could we be creating a generation of drones aligned with government ideologies? Maybe we've already done this? Maybe our current problems in society are the result of too much consideration of learner experiences. Maybe the department of education has purported an ineffective set of knowledge and values on society. To be a successful democratic, free-market capitalist society, we need to share a certain mind-set. Hmmmm.....
If curriculum were stripped down to bare facts, then we could leave it to students are parents to impart their own values. Teachers could get extra training on how to provide effective instructional activities, and anti-bias training. Let's see the thought police get us now!
Reading through Vallance's article I couldn't help but feel a connection to the curriculum, as described through the eyes of an art critic. It helped me feel the flow of the course and experience aspects of the course that might not be notable otherwise, such as the appropriateness of the essay and one's perception of it. Art criticism can provide curriculum developers with an interesting way to review and revise elements of curriculum to make it more meaningful for students and teachers.
What I must question is our quest to control learner experiences. Outcomes can be objective. The way people experience them doesn't have to be. Every teacher has a bias and that can be apparent in the way that we deliver our lessons or through the topics that we decide to teach or leave out. Despite this potential bias, students will still learn curricular outcomes and the bias is isolated at the classroom level (although throughout various classrooms).
What happens when the bias comes from the curriculum developers? What happens when they have a political agenda that they are trying to promote? What about social change? Of course our society needs to recognize that there are better ways to live than what we have been doing, but whose job is it to tell us? When curriculums begin considering how to shape learner experiences, one must demand to know whose perspective those experiences represent! Is it appropriate for teachers to teach a curriculum that verges on social constructivism? What about in science? Is there a social constructivist aspect to it as well? That would be interesting.
As curriculums prescribe learner experiences, it becomes easier for the government to become "thought police" and promote ideas and values in students to achieve a certain societal end. Could we be creating a generation of drones aligned with government ideologies? Maybe we've already done this? Maybe our current problems in society are the result of too much consideration of learner experiences. Maybe the department of education has purported an ineffective set of knowledge and values on society. To be a successful democratic, free-market capitalist society, we need to share a certain mind-set. Hmmmm.....
If curriculum were stripped down to bare facts, then we could leave it to students are parents to impart their own values. Teachers could get extra training on how to provide effective instructional activities, and anti-bias training. Let's see the thought police get us now!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On Thursday evening I saw someone struggling with a Sudoku puzzle, so I asked them if they would like to know a good strategy for solving their Sudoku. I volunteered the information that Graham shared during his presentation, the person was thankful, and in a small way, I felt like a bit of a Sudoku hero. Trying to solve the Sudoku last class when I had never encountered one before was honestly frustrating. I had heard about them, but I was not sure what the point was. Based on what I knew, I thought I had to get lines to add up to nine. If I progressed through the Sudoku with that rule in my head, I would have wasted a lot of time, or else created a new game. Once I knew some strategy, the game was accessible and more fulfilling.
I can understand how constructivist learning can be frustrating for learners, as they struggle to access prior knowledge that would be appropriate for solving the task at hand. This process seems similar to the first few years of teaching, where novice teachers spend incredible amounts of time creating "novel" lessons and units, only to find out that they have replicated what others have done for years. Why recreate the wheel when you don't have to? Why do we get students to spend time trying to develop and derive theories and responses that we already know? Why don't we preserve their efforts by giving them what we know and challenging them to find out something we don't know?
While reading the article on constructivist learning, I reflected upon my own use of inquiry and experiential activities in my classroom. My initial reaction to the article was that its claims were ludicrous! How could one question the strategies that are heralded by professors, administrators, and some curriculums? What I realized from reading the article was that the inquiry and experiential activities I have done in my classroom are much more guided than the minimal guided activities referenced in the article. Much of the reason for me adding structure to the inquiry and experiential activities I did with my students was because of the struggles they faced without the structure. From my own experience, I feel that minimal guidance does not work very well in a late early years to early high school setting. The article suggests that minimal guidance is not an effective strategy for students who have not yet developed enough schema to effectively problem-solve the situations around them. I feel that a child's psychological developmental level is also an important factor in the use of minimal guidance.
Most K-2 teachers slot time into their day for "exploration centres," where students have time to interact with different objects and substances to find out how they work, problem-solve, or be creative. It is fascinating to watch a student design a boat for the water table to safely transport their favourite action hero to the other side. The explanations provided for their decision making can range from practical to absurd, but they are usually based on an authentic problem-solving situation.
As kids get older they become more inhibited and their risking taking skills diminish. They are less likely to enjoy minimally guided activities as there is too much risk involved. Adolescents want to do activities that are "safe," where they are more likely to predict the outcome, so they are not embarrassed in front of their peers. The desire to be correct and avoid failure takes over from any sort creative exploration. When structure is involved and adolescents can see the path to success, they will be more likely to try something exploratory.
Is there research on the psychological development of children and minimally guided instruction?
I feel like there is value in students learning processes as well as content, but Graham's examples showed how it can be challenging to learning content and processes at the same time as we tax our working memory. There are many responses to Kirschner's article on J-stor and it would be interesting to explore defences and support for his argument.
I can understand how constructivist learning can be frustrating for learners, as they struggle to access prior knowledge that would be appropriate for solving the task at hand. This process seems similar to the first few years of teaching, where novice teachers spend incredible amounts of time creating "novel" lessons and units, only to find out that they have replicated what others have done for years. Why recreate the wheel when you don't have to? Why do we get students to spend time trying to develop and derive theories and responses that we already know? Why don't we preserve their efforts by giving them what we know and challenging them to find out something we don't know?
While reading the article on constructivist learning, I reflected upon my own use of inquiry and experiential activities in my classroom. My initial reaction to the article was that its claims were ludicrous! How could one question the strategies that are heralded by professors, administrators, and some curriculums? What I realized from reading the article was that the inquiry and experiential activities I have done in my classroom are much more guided than the minimal guided activities referenced in the article. Much of the reason for me adding structure to the inquiry and experiential activities I did with my students was because of the struggles they faced without the structure. From my own experience, I feel that minimal guidance does not work very well in a late early years to early high school setting. The article suggests that minimal guidance is not an effective strategy for students who have not yet developed enough schema to effectively problem-solve the situations around them. I feel that a child's psychological developmental level is also an important factor in the use of minimal guidance.
Most K-2 teachers slot time into their day for "exploration centres," where students have time to interact with different objects and substances to find out how they work, problem-solve, or be creative. It is fascinating to watch a student design a boat for the water table to safely transport their favourite action hero to the other side. The explanations provided for their decision making can range from practical to absurd, but they are usually based on an authentic problem-solving situation.
As kids get older they become more inhibited and their risking taking skills diminish. They are less likely to enjoy minimally guided activities as there is too much risk involved. Adolescents want to do activities that are "safe," where they are more likely to predict the outcome, so they are not embarrassed in front of their peers. The desire to be correct and avoid failure takes over from any sort creative exploration. When structure is involved and adolescents can see the path to success, they will be more likely to try something exploratory.
Is there research on the psychological development of children and minimally guided instruction?
I feel like there is value in students learning processes as well as content, but Graham's examples showed how it can be challenging to learning content and processes at the same time as we tax our working memory. There are many responses to Kirschner's article on J-stor and it would be interesting to explore defences and support for his argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)