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!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
9 February 2010
Do our current curriculums give enough opportunities to build context and touch the affective domain in our learners? Think back to your own learning experiences, was it the more affective or effective learning experiences that you remember the most? Personally, I recall my high school learning experiences that went beyond the facts and made a meaningful connection.
Listening to the song "On the Trail" in class made me reflect upon the affective domain in our curriculum. Our curriculums focus on effective ways of knowing. I wonder if this is a cultural issues, considering we are a western culture. Our society does not seem to place as high of a value on feeling, creativity, interdependence, as it does on reason, logic, and independence. I've been in the process of reading several books over the last year that deal with the differences in thinking processes between the right brain and left brain and western and eastern traditional thought processes.
From what I've learned, we use our left brain for the majority of the day because, since the industrial revolution, this is what has been deemed the most important. The right brain, which is seldom used by most people is relegated to an inferior position as its processes as viewed as superfluous and frivolous. In reality, our right brain processes are responsible for our initial reactions to situations and the underlying motivator behind our thoughts. The right brain processes seem to nurtured in early elementary grades, as students are encouraged to see themselves as creators and emotions are viewed as positive expressions of humanity. As children progress through the school system, there is less and less time for creative pursuits and emotion is lost to productivity. Who has time to emote or transcend to a deeper affective understanding of content when you have a curriculum to cover? (insert sarcasm)
The book A Whole New Mind asserts that society needs to develop right brain attributes to be competitive in the world. The reasoning is that many left-brained occupations, such as banking, insurance, and telemarketing, can be done much cheaper overseas, while the creativity and compassion need home-grown solutions. As our society changes, we will need more right-brained people to help heal, care, and inspire people at home and these jobs cannot be completed overseas. The book recognizes that since right-brained jobs are not as valued in society, people will not benefit as much financially, but there is a greater spiritual reward that can be found in these jobs. Teaching falls into this right-brained category.
As well, the book Geography of Thought explains the difference between the origins of western "Greek-style" societies and eastern "Chinese-style" societies. The different social structures and thought processes have impacted peoples' thinking processes. While Greek civilization developed from a sense of mercantile Independence, Chinese society developed from an agrarian interdependence. One interesting point in the book was the importance of context in traditional eastern thinking. Easterners are more dependent on context to understand situations and develop understanding, while westerners can separate ideas and objects from their context, and often prefer to do so. It is presumed that easterners have a greater perspective of situations and are able to connect ideas in a more affective way than westerners.
I wonder how our western curriculums differ from curriculums in eastern countries (who have not experienced western colonization)? Is there a greater emphasis on affective domains and right-brain thinking? Do these cultures have a deeper appreciation for life? Our curriculums are not void of affective learning opportunities, nor should they be the focus, but are we providing our students with sufficient opportunities to develop right-brain and affective attributes? Does our curriculum perpetrate a social structure that is beginning to shows signs of inefficiency? What implications do our ways of thinking and learning have on curriculum development in an increasingly multicultural society? If different cultures process information differently, does our curriculum provide the necessary depth?
The more I learn about Aboriginal culture, the more I realize its emphasis on the developing the affective domain in individuals and seeing the spirituality in the surrounding world. As our Aboriginal population grows exponentially in Manitoba, will the Department of Education see this an opportunity to develop a wealth of human capital and rediscover traditional teachings, or will they continue with the status quo? If we were to examine an Aboriginal elder's "curriculum" what would it look like. Oh wait... we probably wouldn't be able to see it because we'd have to experience it. Hmmmmmm.... wouldn't that be interesting.
As I listened to On the Trail, I tried to visualize the song in my head. I remember this being so easy when I was young. I wonder what the visualization process is like now for youth who are bombarded with visual images. Can they still see vivid images in their head? Has our society's technological development robbed them of an important aspect of right-brain thinking? I think I'm going on a tangent now...
Listening to the song "On the Trail" in class made me reflect upon the affective domain in our curriculum. Our curriculums focus on effective ways of knowing. I wonder if this is a cultural issues, considering we are a western culture. Our society does not seem to place as high of a value on feeling, creativity, interdependence, as it does on reason, logic, and independence. I've been in the process of reading several books over the last year that deal with the differences in thinking processes between the right brain and left brain and western and eastern traditional thought processes.
From what I've learned, we use our left brain for the majority of the day because, since the industrial revolution, this is what has been deemed the most important. The right brain, which is seldom used by most people is relegated to an inferior position as its processes as viewed as superfluous and frivolous. In reality, our right brain processes are responsible for our initial reactions to situations and the underlying motivator behind our thoughts. The right brain processes seem to nurtured in early elementary grades, as students are encouraged to see themselves as creators and emotions are viewed as positive expressions of humanity. As children progress through the school system, there is less and less time for creative pursuits and emotion is lost to productivity. Who has time to emote or transcend to a deeper affective understanding of content when you have a curriculum to cover? (insert sarcasm)
The book A Whole New Mind asserts that society needs to develop right brain attributes to be competitive in the world. The reasoning is that many left-brained occupations, such as banking, insurance, and telemarketing, can be done much cheaper overseas, while the creativity and compassion need home-grown solutions. As our society changes, we will need more right-brained people to help heal, care, and inspire people at home and these jobs cannot be completed overseas. The book recognizes that since right-brained jobs are not as valued in society, people will not benefit as much financially, but there is a greater spiritual reward that can be found in these jobs. Teaching falls into this right-brained category.
As well, the book Geography of Thought explains the difference between the origins of western "Greek-style" societies and eastern "Chinese-style" societies. The different social structures and thought processes have impacted peoples' thinking processes. While Greek civilization developed from a sense of mercantile Independence, Chinese society developed from an agrarian interdependence. One interesting point in the book was the importance of context in traditional eastern thinking. Easterners are more dependent on context to understand situations and develop understanding, while westerners can separate ideas and objects from their context, and often prefer to do so. It is presumed that easterners have a greater perspective of situations and are able to connect ideas in a more affective way than westerners.
I wonder how our western curriculums differ from curriculums in eastern countries (who have not experienced western colonization)? Is there a greater emphasis on affective domains and right-brain thinking? Do these cultures have a deeper appreciation for life? Our curriculums are not void of affective learning opportunities, nor should they be the focus, but are we providing our students with sufficient opportunities to develop right-brain and affective attributes? Does our curriculum perpetrate a social structure that is beginning to shows signs of inefficiency? What implications do our ways of thinking and learning have on curriculum development in an increasingly multicultural society? If different cultures process information differently, does our curriculum provide the necessary depth?
The more I learn about Aboriginal culture, the more I realize its emphasis on the developing the affective domain in individuals and seeing the spirituality in the surrounding world. As our Aboriginal population grows exponentially in Manitoba, will the Department of Education see this an opportunity to develop a wealth of human capital and rediscover traditional teachings, or will they continue with the status quo? If we were to examine an Aboriginal elder's "curriculum" what would it look like. Oh wait... we probably wouldn't be able to see it because we'd have to experience it. Hmmmmmm.... wouldn't that be interesting.
As I listened to On the Trail, I tried to visualize the song in my head. I remember this being so easy when I was young. I wonder what the visualization process is like now for youth who are bombarded with visual images. Can they still see vivid images in their head? Has our society's technological development robbed them of an important aspect of right-brain thinking? I think I'm going on a tangent now...
Sunday, February 7, 2010
2 February 2010
When listening to Ashley's presentation about the use of the butterfly to represent the music curriculum I couldn't help but think "This is how they should all be done!" I love metaphors and find them to be a useful teaching tool. When I see a butterfly, I think about the lesson that my wife does with her grade one students on symmetry. She gets the kids to fold a piece of paper in half. On one side, they paint a design. Once done, they fold it over and they can see that the other half of the butterly is identical. The kids are amazed to think that the two sides of the butterfly have identical markings.
I especially like this metaphor for curriculum because it shows the dependece between the outcomes in all of the clusters. When examining the music curriculum, one can see that the G.O. in the top left wing complements the G.O. in the top right right, and same for the bottom wings. The thorax of the butterfly, which represents "making music" is dependant on all G.O.'s working together. The butterfly metaphor clearly slows how multiple aspects of curriculum must be integrated to achieve the end product. In other subject areas, our curriculums are very linear and it can be challenging to see the interconnectedness of the outcomes. Maybe if us educators had an opportunity to "paint" half of our curriculum we would be amazed as well, to see the connections between our outcomes and the final goal. Having a big picture also makes it easier to see currculum potential and jump in at points where individual teachers feel most comfortable. Now maybe I feel this way because I'm a visual learner, but I'd be interested to know what others think about turning their curriculum documents into metaphors as well?
I especially like this metaphor for curriculum because it shows the dependece between the outcomes in all of the clusters. When examining the music curriculum, one can see that the G.O. in the top left wing complements the G.O. in the top right right, and same for the bottom wings. The thorax of the butterfly, which represents "making music" is dependant on all G.O.'s working together. The butterfly metaphor clearly slows how multiple aspects of curriculum must be integrated to achieve the end product. In other subject areas, our curriculums are very linear and it can be challenging to see the interconnectedness of the outcomes. Maybe if us educators had an opportunity to "paint" half of our curriculum we would be amazed as well, to see the connections between our outcomes and the final goal. Having a big picture also makes it easier to see currculum potential and jump in at points where individual teachers feel most comfortable. Now maybe I feel this way because I'm a visual learner, but I'd be interested to know what others think about turning their curriculum documents into metaphors as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)