"There is little doubt, in short, that the field of curriculum is in a crisis of principle." (Schwab 126) This quote represents to me the fact that curriculum is always a topic of debate. Laws and policies are created with different views in mind that are often conflicting and restricting.While reading the articles of this week I found two common concepts that stuck out to me.
The first concept is that there are an endless amount of purposes and reasons that drive education. The History of Curriculum spoke of the various purposes throughout time, Perspectives on Four Curriculum Traditions speak of four views from a teachers standpoint, The Child and the Curriculum argues if schooling should be child-centered or academic focused, and finally The Practical: A Language for Curriculum speaks of the many characteristics that drive theory. In all of these articles there is argument for all sides. All of these arguments brings me back to the conversations from theme 1. What is the right principle of education? Should there be some sort of combination? Schwab says, "...a defensible curriculum or plan of curriculum must be one which somehow takes account of all these subsubjects which pertain to man. It cannot take only one and ignore the others; it cannot even take account of many of them and ignore one." It is clear that as time has passed, education has become more complex. Teaching began by experience, expanded to include civic rights, then to segmented academic disciplines. It is simple to see that as it becomes more complex it would be easy to find a time or situation that would prove each theory right in some fashion.
The second concept that stuck out to myself is that in some fashion the child should be part of the focus. It is not a new knowledge that students are able to learn more if they have some sort of real-life connection to the material. Even when the many theories are argued, they all speak towards the learner and how the information effects the learner. The question is do you start with the student or do you start with curriculum and alter it to work for the student. Dewey speaks of "continuous reconstruction." To me this meant that yes, we do have organized disciplines, but the teachers should constantly be reevaluating the information, even if unchanged, to find connections to the students own lives. With different generations there are different experiences, interests, and personal connections to the material. Dewey also stated later that a student, 'is told to think things out, or work things out for himself, without being supplied any of the environment conditions which are requisite to start and guide thought." This quote reminded me of many things that are taught in the Algebra curriculum. I am asking students to figure out problems when they can not see any real connection to why they should have to learn the information many times. And many times, even if I wanted to, it is impossible to give them real life connections because they are so extended from the students' own lives that the information still feels disconnected.
Throughout the theories I find myself to be the closest to a social behaviorist. I think students should be taught the disciplines but through investigation and critical thinking. If students are taught to be critical thinkers, they should ultimately be able to naturally find a way to succeed in the future.
Extension:
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-environments-paul-bogdan
This article speaks of change where a classroom is student centered. It also gives several resources to allow teachers to explore more into the idea of student centered learning.
I'm glad you were able to pinpoint which speaker you could identify with. It was much harder for me! All of the "speakers" spoke to their desire for children to be engaged and successful in learning. I did agree a lot with the Social Behaviorist, but I also found myself identifying with the Experientialist speaker and the Intellectual Traditionalist. I think successful teachers embody the ideas of each of these speakers, but most likely have a tendency to lean more towards one than the other. This makes all of us as educators, unique and able to put forth our best practices in our own ways with a collective desire to inspire our students and guide them down a successful path.
ReplyDeleteAndrea,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the connections you make across the readings and even back to our thinking from Theme 1. Thinking about the complexity of the current moment in education, I wonder if it is time for a new paradigm for curriculum? Or, as you suggest, perhaps a new combination of old paradigms to suit our current challenges? What might this look like?
The relationship between the child and the curriculum is at the core of so many discussions, debates, and, heck, flat out arguments about what we should be teaching kids. Like Dewey, I wonder if it has to be the case that these are seen as two ends on a continuum...where we EITHER start with the curriculum OR we start with the child. I think Dewey argues that the two can be intertwined...that through the lived experiences and intuitions of the child, the curriculum can be indirectly presented. Dewey's "continuous reconstruction", I think, speaks to this. All learning is made up of a continuous reconstruction of experiences. There are endless combinations of experiences that build on one another and open up opportunities to new & different learning. To hold this tenet as a core principle when thinking through both curriculum and pedagogy, teachers would, I think, need to do far more than try to find connections for kids. I think it would be a radical shift in the way we think about schooling, teaching, and learning.
Lots to think about here...
Best,
amanda