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...
It is interesting that you describe trying to visualize the song "On the Trail" when we were listening to it last class. That makes me think of the fist class, when we were asked to "listen carefully" to the Christmas song by Perry Como. To me, "listening carefully" meant making a list, a sequential inventory, of what happened in the song. I listed when there was instrumental music, when there was narration, when there was a choir, and several of the key lyrics. I remember that during the listening exercise, I looked over at your paper and saw that, instead of writing a list, you had drawn a picture of what the song was describing. At first, my reaction was to feel panic because I thought I had totally missed the boat on what we were supposed to be doing. But then I felt surprised because I realized that never in a BILLION years would I have thought of drawing a picture instead of making a list.
ReplyDeleteYour reference to the book "Geography of Thought" included the comment "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". I can totally relate to that statment because, for both of the listening exercises, I think I was separating ideas and objects from the big picture context. I concentrated more on trying to figure out what instruments were making the music box sounds than how the music box scene fit into the context of the cowboy story as a whole. While I don't think I am a person who is particularly good at left brain things like reasoning and logic, it is interesting that I interpreted "carefully" listening to something as making lists about it instead of experiencing it. That said, I think I will go and do some art now to pump up my right brain a little bit so my head doesn't get lopsided :)
hey brad...thanks for the comments on my blog...hopefully you read the postscript I added later...and relative to your blog...I think you are right about different cultural perspectives...we process our world through a set of filters that we have developed over time...trying to understand even the people in our class is very difficult because they will not have the same set of filters...now how do I teach in the affective domain without my set of filters influencing what I teach and how I teach it??...(visions of james keegstra or intelligent design!!!!!)...arguably there are a set of citizenship values that could be taught to everyone...but there is much that we don't touch and my hunch is that we don't wish to open a pandora's box...this stuff can easily get away from you and managing group processes takes a lot of skill...some compulsive helpers get into it but they can also do more damage than help...lot easier to stick to facts...and so very critical and fundamental human skills are not covered...I believe they should be but it should not be left to the classroom teacher...I would actually like to see teacher counsellors...a whole curriculum on communication...P.S. wanna know about the teacher who performed an exorcism at V.M.!!!!!G
ReplyDeleteBrad, I thoroughly enjoyed your post. Your discussion on the development of curriculum/thought in response to culture and geography reminded me of Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” Diamond chronicles the development of the war, disease, and industry throughout history and how that has shaped the cultures of the world. Perhaps he should write a sequel called “Guns, Germs, Steel & Curriculum”….or perhaps one of us should as a Doctoral Dissertation some years down the road.
ReplyDeleteMore and more intellectuals apply Darwinian principles in attempts to understand the development and possible solutions to social, political, and economical problems. In response to this I’ve been fascinated about seeking developmental or “evolutionary” explanations for everything confusing I encounter these days…..I even found myself analysing my current food preferences and diet from an evolutionary basis.
Close your eyes and imagine the future…….some futuristic beings uncover curriculum documents and try to recreate the events that led to our eventual destruction. Would they discover that creativity and compassion was slowly “taught out of us” until we lost what it truly means to be human and became mechanistic robots? I’m not sure…you’ll have to watch my Doctor Dissertation movie “Curriculum Odyssey 3010”
Ha ha….i love taking these opportunities to explore the “curriculum potential” of everyone’s comments!