I have to say that I am a little sad that this is the last post, and that this course is over. I thoroughly enjoyed this course for many reasons.
First, I think the class size helped to make it such a beneficial experience. We were able to go deeper into our conversations with one another, and felt comfortable with sharing our thoughts and ideas. For me, working with only 5 other people made it feel comfortable and easier to delve into ideas and conversations. It almost felt more like a PLC – where we were able to discuss current issues in the field of curriculum and teaching and relate them to our own classrooms.
This brings me to my second point. I really appreciated that, in this course, we were able to take everything we were learning and apply it to our own experiences and situations. This is what makes these courses extremely valuable. I cannot say how many times I have been in a class where, being a “minority” as a music teacher, was not permitted to take projects or assignments and shape them so they would apply to my field. So this course most definitely helped me in my area of music because I was able to take what we were learning and apply it to my own teaching. Isn’t that what education (of any age) should be about? Being able to take what we are learning and apply it to our everyday lives?
Third, I thoroughly enjoyed the blogs. At first I wasn’t too keen on it, but once I set it up I realized it was going to be awesome. I really appreciated the way we were able to write about what was on our minds in relation to what we were discussing, reading, and experiencing. I think it is definitely more beneficial for learning to take this route, rather than having exactly what we need to write about (ie. a specific article) dictated to us. This left it open for us to write about issues and ideas that were important to us, our fields of teaching, and various experiences.
Fourth, I found the course work to be very useful. I promise I am not sucking up here! :) This is one of those rare courses where I think I will go back and use a lot of the ideas and thoughts that have come up through discussions, readings and presentations. The material and discussions were meaningful and useful.
I think that, even if I never plan on actually designing a curriculum, the content of this course was extremely useful at the teaching level. We covered so many important topics centered around curriculum, and I think that they would be important for any educator to consider. I learned that even if one is not involved in the making of the curriculum, it is still important to understand where the curriculum is coming from. We pondered some important questions. What knowledge is of most worth? What are we teaching now that we might be apologizing for in the future? What is real and what is not? What are the pros and cons of specific curriculum designs? Should curriculum and instruction be together or separate? What role do teachers play in curriculum? What should the role of the curriculum be? And so many more! Thinking about these questions allows us to look at our own curriculum documents, as well as methods of implementation, and make important decisions on the “how’s”, “what’s” and “when’s” of our curriculum.
Then there is the big question that, I think, will now eternally haunt all of us to our graves! What is curriculum? The next person that asks me that will get the following answer: “Do you have five hours?” Exactly one year ago I would have thought “easy question”. It’s a book that tells teachers what to teach so that everyone is teaching the same material. Now, I know it is so much more. For one thing, I believe curriculum is art. It is the process of deciding what is important to human life, just as the arts are often trying to figure this out. It is also one person’s (or group of people’s) interpretation of life and its’ important aspects. It is also open to the interpretation of the eye of the beholder. Curriculum is science. It is full of hypotheses, subject to variables, and seeking truth. Curriculum is math. It comes with many different formulas, each providing different answers. It hopes that the end result will be the same for everyone. We know, however, that this cannot always be the case. One of the descriptions of curriculum that stuck out in my mind was a metaphor from Graham in one of his blogs: The curriculum is a living document, and the teacher is the life-giver.
And now, a summary of my blogging experience. I have already stated that I found the blogs to be an extremely useful for learning. I didn’t usually write my blogs until just under one week after each class. This was due to think time. I am the kind of person who takes a long time to process information and formulate my own ideas. I often need quite a few days of thinking before I am able to comment! I need to give information time to sink in. Therefore, I was glad for the blogs, rather than say…having to write some sort of “exit slip” at the end of each class. (I’ll note here that I am not a fan of exit slips. I have always found them extremely difficult because I have not processed information yet, and I am not ready to comment). The blogs gave us the think time. Mine were also usually more “emotionally charged” rather than strictly factual, because that is the way I experience life. I am driven by emotions, and they always work their way into my responses!
Altogether I wrote 15 blogs (summarized below), and commented on 29 blogs.
January 13th – Reflections On Our First Class:
As a result of the Christmas canon that was presented in our first class, my mind, of course, went to Christmas concerts! I talked about how we seem to be losing our Canadian Christian identity in order to accommodate all cultures and beliefs. This led me to note that perhaps in education we sometimes hide who we are (and quite possibly encourage students to do this also) in order to avoid “offending” others. I questioned the fact that we call ourselves a Canadian Mosaic (rather than a melting pot), but we do not seem to practicing what we preach.
January 18th – Initial Thoughts on “Metaphorical Roots of Curriculum Design”:
This blog was written after reading Kliebard’s article on metaphors for curriculum design. I didn’t necessarily like the Metaphor of Production (good metaphor, but I don’t like to think of education in this way!). I thought the Growth and Journey metaphors hit the nail on the head.
January 26th – Thoughts on Questions Posed in Class on January 19th:
In this entry, I examined two questions. The first was, “What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?” I noted that there are always going to be mistakes, but part of the problem with mistakes is that you don’t always see them as mistakes when you are in the process of making them (hence the term “mistake”). Sometimes it takes years to realize the outcomes of our actions, especially where education is involved. The second question was “What knowledge is of most worth?” I thought that it wasn’t the specific objectives of courses like science and math that were most important, but it is the skills and values we gain from such experiences.
January 27th – For Vikki
I took this opportunity to say what I had planned on saying to Vikki, but did not get the chance. This was an excellent reminder for me to let people know that I appreciate them and show them the difference they have made in my life.
January 27th – Reflections on January 26th
In this entry, I discussed the idea of teaching to student interests. While I believe it is important to take student interests into account, I also think it is important to expose them to new things rather than only catering to their interests and wants.
January 27th – Not on the Test
This was not a I also shared a link to the video “Not on the Test” which addresses issues with assessment (based on the U.S. No Child Left Behind policy).
February 8th – Thoughts on Feb. 2nd
This blog took me to the topic of curriculum potential. I noted that teaching music allows for a lot of flexibility, and discussed the new music curriculum and its’ implications for teaching music.
February 15th – February 9th- Curriculum & Instruction
In this entry I took a look at curriculum as including instructions or leaving out instruction. I tended to favour the idea of leaving instruction out of curriculum in order to allow teachers to make the curriculum more relevant for their specific groups of students.
February 21st – Standing in the Gap – Feb. 16th
This week I discussed our technological culture, and how I think that it may not be technology itself that causes the issues, but it is how and when we use the technology. I also noted that teachers need to stand in the gap between how students are using technology and how they should be using technology.
February 28th – Models and the Creative Mind
In this entry I discussed the implications of a creative mind and the use of models versus metaphors in curriculum design. It also brought me into a discussion of the different “minds” in our classrooms and how we teach to these varying ways of thinking.
March 6th – A View from My “Place” – Reflections from March 2nd
This blog focused on a question posed by Brad in his Cynthia Chambers presentation, “How do we construct a provincial curriculum to give voice to all of these different places?” I hoped that the curriculum “makers” were from a variety of backgrounds, but also thought that curriculum should be flexible so that teachers can adapt it to their own (and their students’ own) places in life.
March 22nd – Gender Studies Course – Reflections on March 16th
In this entry I discussed issues that arose from the Ontario proposed Gender Studies curriculum. I could see points on both sides of the debate and realize that topics such as these can put us in a sticky situation!
April 5 – Reflections on March 23rd
In my last blog, I confessed that I am a genius and that is probably why I had a difficult time understanding/getting much out of the Baudrillard article…
So I went on to discuss technology and its’ implications both in and outside of the schools.
April 13th – The Last Post
See above!
Well guys, it has been a blast. I’ve learned a lot and truly enjoyed getting to know you. Discussions were so rich and it felt like such a supportive atmosphere. I will miss you! Hopefully our paths will cross again!!
THE END.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Reflections on March 23rd
Ok, as we all know, I think Baudrillard was a little over my head. Or, as I said to my mom, perhaps I am just too much of a genius and it was under my head. Haha :) So...I will not talk about Baudrillard.
The first was the three-minute montage of media images that bombard viewers on a daily basis. It is obvious that a lot of what is on television is definitely not appropriate, but this video provided an excellent look at the variety and frequency of such images/ideas. The material we make available to children is shocking. In fact, I was just watching America's Funniest Home Videos the other night - a family show, on at 6:00 in the evening - and it went to a commercial break and the very first commercial we see is a bunch of young girls drinking beer and dancing suggestively with beer in hand at a huge house party. Because I was watching the show with my 9-year old niece I was particularly disturbed by this. Of course it spawned a nice discussion between the two of us about drinking. But it is crazy that these types of images are so easily accessible to young children. What about all the kids that don't have someone watching with them and discussing the things they see on TV?
So I guess this is where schools, teachers and curriculum come in! With our society changing the way it is, I do believe it is absolutely necessary acknowledge these issues. I'll bet that such media images had some part in causing people to feel the need to create that gender document we looked at in class. There is definitely a need to acknowledge in schools what students are seeing and hearing through multi-media. Like we've discussed in class - where is the line between the job of the teachers and the job of the parents? When I talk to my parents, grandparents and other family members and friends, it is obvious that those lines haven't always been so blurry. The school had its place and the parents had theirs. So what has happened now that causes schools to have to fill in the gaps? As much as one might like to say that schools should not have to take on parental roles, what can we do? We can't leave our students floundering. So I definitely think that curriculum and curriculum design do need to accommodate the changing needs of our students and the changing jobs of the school.
In the second video - the Profiles of Generation M2 from the Kaiser Family Foundation - there was one line at the very end that caught my attention. It was when the young guy was talking about text messaging constantly, and he said that when he gets a text "I feel special". I think that one statement hit the nail on the head. "Young people of today" are always being admonished for talking on the phone, texting friends, emailing, using social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, and playing video games. But I have to wonder...it can't be solely at the fault of these kids. If these kids didn't have their cell phones, computers, video games and friends to occupy themselves with in their spare time, what else would they be doing? Would their parents play board games with them in the evenings? Would they take them out to the museum? The zoo? For a walk? Chances are that many of these parents are either holed up in their offices working, or else glued to the TV for the evening. I really do think that this "hyperconnectivity" is a way for people to feel special. They feel part of a community when they would otherwise be lacking that feeling. Now, I don't want to sound like a grump. Obviously there are many, many, many wonderful parents out there. And I'm sure even wonderful parents have kids who are obsessed with "hyperconnectivity". But I do think that family time has definitely suffered.
Turning again to curriculum, I think that this raises a lot of conflicting issues. On one hand, we say that because we are a technological world and our students use all kinds of technology we should be incorporating technology into our classrooms. At the same time, one could say that because students are bombarded with all of these technologies outside of school we should try to expose them to different ideas and methods of communication in school. Personally, I tend to lean toward the latter. I am here to teach students what they do not know. Not what they already know. I'm not sure I've said this before, but as an example, we have many wonderful music technologies that can enhance music learning (ie. Garage Band, Music Ace, etc.). However, I generally choose not to incorporate these into my classroom because I know that many students spend much of their evenings and weekends "plugged in". Instead, I use the time to help them make music as a community, with real people and real instruments, rather than on their own while staring at a computer screen.
So technology creates a tricky situation for education. Do you go with the flow, or do you go against the grain?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Gender Studies Course - Reflections on March 16th
In reference to the Ontario proposed Gender Studies curriculum, I can definitely understand where both sides are coming from.
On the one side, times have changed and therefore education needs to change in order to address these differences. And with all of the media we have available now, students are having all kinds of images and ideas thrown at them. So maybe the schools do need to step in and organize these ideas for students in such a way that they can explore them in a safe environment. Upon looking through the proposed curriculum, I found that there was a lot of valuable information in there. Information that may directly help students in their lives (when they enter the work force, when they get married, when they have children, etc.).
On the flip side, I can also see why there is some resistance to implementing this document. While some of the objectives could be seen as "non-disputable" (basically seen by the majority of Canadians as "right" - ie. violence prevention), there are many objectives that are not accepted by many people. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, transgener/transsexuality, and just plain old sexuality are not agreed upon by everybody as being right, one way or the other. Even aspects of gender equity - the woman's "place" or roles versus the man's "place" or roles are not seen as the same across the board. Some religions and/or cultures believe they should be equal while some believe that each sex has specific roles.
So the condundrum is, of course, which side is right? Obviously there will never be a consensus. And I can see why this course is being resisted in the Catholic schools. I was curious about what kind of response it got from the non-Catholic schools.
In Lana, Brad and Chelsea's presentation last class on Social Studies, they mentioned that the Social Studies curriculum is meant to be taught without bias. Personally, I would hope that some aspects of this gender course would be as well. I do think that the majority of the material is important for our students to learn, and much of it should be taught with a bias (once again, violence!!), but I do think that there are some aspects that should be taught with an unbiased approach (such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.). This is only because there is still such a split on topics such as these, and what right does anybody have to say that one side is wrong?
If I were a parent, I would have no problem with this course being taught as long as some of these sensitive issues were presented with both "sides" in mind and the teachers didn't lean towards one way or the other in their presentation of material. If parents are concerned, then this would be a good opportunity to get involved in what their children are learning at school by bringing the material into discussions at home as well. However, sadly, in this day and age (there I go sounding like a ninety year old woman again!) many parents are not involved in their child's education. So I think a course like this is extremely important. Some believe schools should just stick to the basics (good old reading, writing and arithmatic), but if parents and communities/societies in general are failing to teach everything else at home (values, morals, etc.), then, in order to make an attempt at changing the downward spiral in which our communities have fallen into I think the schools do need to step in. I think it is sad. But true.
On the one side, times have changed and therefore education needs to change in order to address these differences. And with all of the media we have available now, students are having all kinds of images and ideas thrown at them. So maybe the schools do need to step in and organize these ideas for students in such a way that they can explore them in a safe environment. Upon looking through the proposed curriculum, I found that there was a lot of valuable information in there. Information that may directly help students in their lives (when they enter the work force, when they get married, when they have children, etc.).
On the flip side, I can also see why there is some resistance to implementing this document. While some of the objectives could be seen as "non-disputable" (basically seen by the majority of Canadians as "right" - ie. violence prevention), there are many objectives that are not accepted by many people. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, transgener/transsexuality, and just plain old sexuality are not agreed upon by everybody as being right, one way or the other. Even aspects of gender equity - the woman's "place" or roles versus the man's "place" or roles are not seen as the same across the board. Some religions and/or cultures believe they should be equal while some believe that each sex has specific roles.
So the condundrum is, of course, which side is right? Obviously there will never be a consensus. And I can see why this course is being resisted in the Catholic schools. I was curious about what kind of response it got from the non-Catholic schools.
In Lana, Brad and Chelsea's presentation last class on Social Studies, they mentioned that the Social Studies curriculum is meant to be taught without bias. Personally, I would hope that some aspects of this gender course would be as well. I do think that the majority of the material is important for our students to learn, and much of it should be taught with a bias (once again, violence!!), but I do think that there are some aspects that should be taught with an unbiased approach (such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.). This is only because there is still such a split on topics such as these, and what right does anybody have to say that one side is wrong?
If I were a parent, I would have no problem with this course being taught as long as some of these sensitive issues were presented with both "sides" in mind and the teachers didn't lean towards one way or the other in their presentation of material. If parents are concerned, then this would be a good opportunity to get involved in what their children are learning at school by bringing the material into discussions at home as well. However, sadly, in this day and age (there I go sounding like a ninety year old woman again!) many parents are not involved in their child's education. So I think a course like this is extremely important. Some believe schools should just stick to the basics (good old reading, writing and arithmatic), but if parents and communities/societies in general are failing to teach everything else at home (values, morals, etc.), then, in order to make an attempt at changing the downward spiral in which our communities have fallen into I think the schools do need to step in. I think it is sad. But true.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A View from My "Place" - Reflections from March 2
After Brad's presentation on Cynthia Chambers article, I was thinking about how we all view the world from our own "place" in society, and wondering about the question, "How do we construct a provincial curriculum to give voice to all of these different places?" I will get back to this in just a minute, but first...
As I read through Johnson's article that was handed out last class, "Burt Lancaster is Apache: Hollywood's shocking reel Indians", I couldn't help feeling defensive. The main reason is probably that I LOVED the movie Avatar. I thought it was brilliant. So, my arguments are probably completely biased but here I go anyway:
"The Vatican frets about its creed of nature worship." First of all, I'm not sure what is wrong with "worshiping" nature - don't we want to have a clean world in which to live? Don't we preoccupy ourselves these days with sustainability and living "green"? Second, (and as a Christian) I didn't find this offensive either. In my mind I spent most of the movie seeing this "nature worship" as a metaphor for God. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way by James Cameron, but does that matter? The point is that we all experience things differently due to our "places" in life.
"U.S. Conservatives condemn it as anti-military eco-liberalism." It's just a movie. It is one person's point of view. I'm sure if the movie had the opposite spin (the "Americans" taking over this fresh land and defeating the Na'vi) the "eco" people would be in an uproar. Again, it's just a movie. It's just art. It's up for your own interpretation.
"The Na'vi aliens on Pandora are clearly patterned on North American natives, or more specifically their Hollywood stereotype - noble savages in braids and riding bareback with bows and arrows. And as in Dances With Wolves, their messiah is a white man who goes native". Once again, I am probably biased because I am not of Aboriginal descent. When I was watching the movie I thought it was a brilliant way of showing what it must have been like for indiginous people (both in Canada and the U.S., as well as all round the world) to be "invaded" by a group of people who thought they were both stronger and superior. The article pointed out that North American natives were "misrepresented" by putting feathers in their hair and doing a "war whoop". I can understand the frustrations of being misrepresented. But then I was thinking that perhaps James Cameron wanted to get his point across, and thought that this was the best way in which to do it. Maybe the general public do need to be "hit over the head" with "obvious" similarities in order to get it. Had he been more discreet in his portrayal, maybe the story wouldn't have had as much resonance. Of course the "white man" coming in on his high horse and saving everyone is a little chiche. Actually, a LOT cliche. But I still think the point was made very nicely. And, again, it is art. It is one person's representation. It is up to us how we choose to interpret it.
I think the same can be said for curriculum. First, it is written by one group of people. I would hope that the people who make up the team would be from a variety of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, etc. This would help to make it more authentic. But, it is still the point of view of one group of people. And these people cannot help where they come from and how they think about things. They are defined by their "place" just as much as the rest of us. Second, we all have the opportnity to interpret these curriculum documents based on our own "places". Some of us will see one document as lacking in certain areas based on our place, and others may see the same document as full and rich based on their place. I think that it is most important that curriculum be flexible enough to be adapted/shaped to fit where we are, while still providing a sense of unity among all "places".
Going back to the white man on the horse saving the day image again, we have to remember who this movie is coming from. It is produced in Hollywood, by Americans. Of course they are going to make themselves the hero of the story. Who wouldn't? If a movie was made by Canadians, they would probably be presented in a flattering light. If a movie was made by Pakistanis, they would probably be the heroes. If Native Americans had made the movie Avatar, the hero would most likely have been one of the Na'vi people. We have to remember that everything that is made by people is going to have a personal spin based on our own biases, beliefs, values and experiences. How can we say that someone else's expression is wrong? So I think when we are looking at curriculum in terms of how it fits with our own place in society, it is really up to us (the teachers) to make it fit. We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it.
As I read through Johnson's article that was handed out last class, "Burt Lancaster is Apache: Hollywood's shocking reel Indians", I couldn't help feeling defensive. The main reason is probably that I LOVED the movie Avatar. I thought it was brilliant. So, my arguments are probably completely biased but here I go anyway:
"The Vatican frets about its creed of nature worship." First of all, I'm not sure what is wrong with "worshiping" nature - don't we want to have a clean world in which to live? Don't we preoccupy ourselves these days with sustainability and living "green"? Second, (and as a Christian) I didn't find this offensive either. In my mind I spent most of the movie seeing this "nature worship" as a metaphor for God. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way by James Cameron, but does that matter? The point is that we all experience things differently due to our "places" in life.
"U.S. Conservatives condemn it as anti-military eco-liberalism." It's just a movie. It is one person's point of view. I'm sure if the movie had the opposite spin (the "Americans" taking over this fresh land and defeating the Na'vi) the "eco" people would be in an uproar. Again, it's just a movie. It's just art. It's up for your own interpretation.
"The Na'vi aliens on Pandora are clearly patterned on North American natives, or more specifically their Hollywood stereotype - noble savages in braids and riding bareback with bows and arrows. And as in Dances With Wolves, their messiah is a white man who goes native". Once again, I am probably biased because I am not of Aboriginal descent. When I was watching the movie I thought it was a brilliant way of showing what it must have been like for indiginous people (both in Canada and the U.S., as well as all round the world) to be "invaded" by a group of people who thought they were both stronger and superior. The article pointed out that North American natives were "misrepresented" by putting feathers in their hair and doing a "war whoop". I can understand the frustrations of being misrepresented. But then I was thinking that perhaps James Cameron wanted to get his point across, and thought that this was the best way in which to do it. Maybe the general public do need to be "hit over the head" with "obvious" similarities in order to get it. Had he been more discreet in his portrayal, maybe the story wouldn't have had as much resonance. Of course the "white man" coming in on his high horse and saving everyone is a little chiche. Actually, a LOT cliche. But I still think the point was made very nicely. And, again, it is art. It is one person's representation. It is up to us how we choose to interpret it.
I think the same can be said for curriculum. First, it is written by one group of people. I would hope that the people who make up the team would be from a variety of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, etc. This would help to make it more authentic. But, it is still the point of view of one group of people. And these people cannot help where they come from and how they think about things. They are defined by their "place" just as much as the rest of us. Second, we all have the opportnity to interpret these curriculum documents based on our own "places". Some of us will see one document as lacking in certain areas based on our place, and others may see the same document as full and rich based on their place. I think that it is most important that curriculum be flexible enough to be adapted/shaped to fit where we are, while still providing a sense of unity among all "places".
Going back to the white man on the horse saving the day image again, we have to remember who this movie is coming from. It is produced in Hollywood, by Americans. Of course they are going to make themselves the hero of the story. Who wouldn't? If a movie was made by Canadians, they would probably be presented in a flattering light. If a movie was made by Pakistanis, they would probably be the heroes. If Native Americans had made the movie Avatar, the hero would most likely have been one of the Na'vi people. We have to remember that everything that is made by people is going to have a personal spin based on our own biases, beliefs, values and experiences. How can we say that someone else's expression is wrong? So I think when we are looking at curriculum in terms of how it fits with our own place in society, it is really up to us (the teachers) to make it fit. We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Models and the Creative Mind
I apologize for going back to the Music Curriculum butterfly again, but I am thinking more and more that it was a genius idea to use a metaphor for such a curriculum.
First of all, I am and always have been a creative person. Pure logic was something I always struggled with. I always flourished when we were given an assignment that allowed for some creativity - when we were able to put some thought into what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. And those are the assignments/projects that I remember the most as well. One that stands out from high school was having to create a "soundtrack" to Macbeth. That was right up my alley. Basically we had to make a tape with a song to represent each scene. We also had to provide a written document explaining why each song was chosen and how it complimented/supported the scene. I think this was an excellent example of how the teacher could still get a good picture of how well we understood what we were reading, while making it more intriguing for us rather than just writing an essay. Now writing is something I also love, so I probably wouldn't have minded an essay either. But give me a page of math questions or ask me to list facts about how the heart works and I freeze.
Anyway, my point is that those of us who are blessed/cursed with creative minds obviously see the world in a creative light. This brings me to our discussion of models versus metaphors in Chelsea's presentation of Gustafson's article, and why I think it is genius that they chose to use a metaphor for the music curriculum. I would say that probably most elementary music teachers are creative-minded people - especially Orff specialists. So it is only fitting that they didn't try to confuse our creative minds with a bunch of models with arrows and boxes. Again, I would take one look at that and freeze.
This led me to think about students within the context of my classroom. Being that I teach music using the Orff process, most of our time is spent being creative and expressive. This is partially due to the fact that I am a trained Orff specialist, but I'm sure the fact that I need creativity in my life has something to do with it. However, after our discussion of metaphors versus models and which representations we are most comfortable with, I was reminded of the fact that not all of my students have that creative mind. Not to say that all students are not creative - I think that everyone has the potential to be creative in some form or another. But just as non-creative pieces confuse and torture me, I'm sure that creative pieces can be confusing and torturous to others, and this is something that I need to remember in my classroom.
Here's an example of a class period in grade 4 or 5:
Students are divided into small groups and given a card with a 4-line poem (or piece of a story) on it. They are instructed to use instruments and/or body sounds of their choice (previous examples and discussions on choosing sounds to enhance a story have been explored as a group) and appropriate movements/staging to enhance the given text. They will also need to make use of previously learned concepts such as dynamics, tempo, timbre and form. Students practice their selection, refine and then perform for the class. They are given feedback from their peers as well as their teacher. Students are given an opportunity to refine and polish their performance after hearing the feedback. Finally, each group performs as a whole – perhaps as a Rondo (ABACAD…) to present the final product.
To the creative mind, this is a party! But when I observe students doing activities such as these, there are always some who sit back and don't contribute, or some who keep saying "I don't know what to do", or some who can't agree on anything to try with their group. I think that aside from problems such as difficulty working in groups or just not wanting to do anything, some of these issues might stem from the fact that this creative type of activity "freezes" students who are not as creative-minded. They are afraid to take a leap, or perhaps don't know how to take the leap. Perhaps their minds just don't work that way, or haven't been exercised in that way. But just as I know it is important for me to experience and develop facility with non-creative thinking, I believe that those non-creative thinkers also need to expand their creative capacities.
I was at a workshop one time where they were discussing the qualities most needed for jobs in this day and age, and one of the top qualities was creativity. When you think about it, it makes sense! Just think about the way our world is going - technology, technology, technology. And what kinds of qualities do you think one needs to develop video games, cell phones, web sites, television commercials, new cars, new curriculums, etc.? Hmmmm...
First of all, I am and always have been a creative person. Pure logic was something I always struggled with. I always flourished when we were given an assignment that allowed for some creativity - when we were able to put some thought into what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. And those are the assignments/projects that I remember the most as well. One that stands out from high school was having to create a "soundtrack" to Macbeth. That was right up my alley. Basically we had to make a tape with a song to represent each scene. We also had to provide a written document explaining why each song was chosen and how it complimented/supported the scene. I think this was an excellent example of how the teacher could still get a good picture of how well we understood what we were reading, while making it more intriguing for us rather than just writing an essay. Now writing is something I also love, so I probably wouldn't have minded an essay either. But give me a page of math questions or ask me to list facts about how the heart works and I freeze.
Anyway, my point is that those of us who are blessed/cursed with creative minds obviously see the world in a creative light. This brings me to our discussion of models versus metaphors in Chelsea's presentation of Gustafson's article, and why I think it is genius that they chose to use a metaphor for the music curriculum. I would say that probably most elementary music teachers are creative-minded people - especially Orff specialists. So it is only fitting that they didn't try to confuse our creative minds with a bunch of models with arrows and boxes. Again, I would take one look at that and freeze.
This led me to think about students within the context of my classroom. Being that I teach music using the Orff process, most of our time is spent being creative and expressive. This is partially due to the fact that I am a trained Orff specialist, but I'm sure the fact that I need creativity in my life has something to do with it. However, after our discussion of metaphors versus models and which representations we are most comfortable with, I was reminded of the fact that not all of my students have that creative mind. Not to say that all students are not creative - I think that everyone has the potential to be creative in some form or another. But just as non-creative pieces confuse and torture me, I'm sure that creative pieces can be confusing and torturous to others, and this is something that I need to remember in my classroom.
Here's an example of a class period in grade 4 or 5:
Students are divided into small groups and given a card with a 4-line poem (or piece of a story) on it. They are instructed to use instruments and/or body sounds of their choice (previous examples and discussions on choosing sounds to enhance a story have been explored as a group) and appropriate movements/staging to enhance the given text. They will also need to make use of previously learned concepts such as dynamics, tempo, timbre and form. Students practice their selection, refine and then perform for the class. They are given feedback from their peers as well as their teacher. Students are given an opportunity to refine and polish their performance after hearing the feedback. Finally, each group performs as a whole – perhaps as a Rondo (ABACAD…) to present the final product.
To the creative mind, this is a party! But when I observe students doing activities such as these, there are always some who sit back and don't contribute, or some who keep saying "I don't know what to do", or some who can't agree on anything to try with their group. I think that aside from problems such as difficulty working in groups or just not wanting to do anything, some of these issues might stem from the fact that this creative type of activity "freezes" students who are not as creative-minded. They are afraid to take a leap, or perhaps don't know how to take the leap. Perhaps their minds just don't work that way, or haven't been exercised in that way. But just as I know it is important for me to experience and develop facility with non-creative thinking, I believe that those non-creative thinkers also need to expand their creative capacities.
I was at a workshop one time where they were discussing the qualities most needed for jobs in this day and age, and one of the top qualities was creativity. When you think about it, it makes sense! Just think about the way our world is going - technology, technology, technology. And what kinds of qualities do you think one needs to develop video games, cell phones, web sites, television commercials, new cars, new curriculums, etc.? Hmmmm...
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Standing in the Gap - Feb. 16th
Wow - there is so much that one could possibly say this week. But I think I'm going to jump on the technology bandwagon this week. I think so many people are so ready to blame technology for our problems. But honestly, I believe it is not technology that is the problem, but how we allow ourselves to use and be affected by technology. I think there are wonderful benefits to cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, computers, television, and so on. But we have allowed ourselves to be carried away in this technology flurry without actually thinking about it ourselves (I say "we" as in society in general). With the way media works today, we are told a smart phone is the way to go, so we get one (myself included). One person writes a successful book about vampires, so everybody writes books, tv shows and movies about vampires. One person shoots up his school and it's all over the news, so other people shoot up their schools too. One person blames the internet, and media/technology in general on the world's problems, so we all do. I think it is just another example of people being less and less willing to take responsibility for their actions. It's easy to blame something else. It's easy to say cartoon characters dropping anvils on one another causes children to be violent. It's easy to say that goth culture causes teenagers to go on shooting rampages. It's easy to say that people can't think for themselves anymore because we've got the internet. But couldn't the internet be considered kind of like a library? We could get all the information we needed from the library, and if your library didn't have what you needed, they'd find it for you. Now we've got it all online - same info - just faster. Of course I realize that any old Joe can post stuff online and call it legit (just look at what we're doing with our blogs!). But I don't think that means we shouldn't embrace our new "technological culture" and cut it out of the schools! All we need to be doing is teaching how to use these technologies responsibly. Wasn't there a time when some people thought books were a waste of time? They thought their children should be learning how to run a farm or cook meals, or take care of babies instead of "filling their heads with nonsense"? I think it's just an endless cycle of being afraid of the new and unfamiliar.
As we've said many times in the past few weeks, times change. And we can spend time trying to fight the natural evolution of our world, or we can embrace it and use it wisely. I most definitely think that curriculum documents have changed over the years to reflect changes in our lives. Perhaps it's teachers who don't always implement the changes. Haven't you ever heard grumblings from fellow staff members about these stupid new programs, or new reporting systems, or anything new? As adults we do sometimes have a difficult time embracing change. Children are so flexible and can pick anything up on a dime. It's nothing for them to try something new, and we expect them to do it all the time. I think a lot of the time it is adults who are afraid to make the leap into the unknown. We like to be experts. We like to be good at what we do. So perhaps one of the reasons why we feel that children and teens (and even adults) are using technology unwisely and lack common sense, is that "we" dig our heels in about acknowledging its' existence. We say, "Cell phones are stupid. All kids do is text all day long, so we need to ban them from the schools". Don't we want our kids to have social experiences and communicate with their friends? We say, "The internet is bad. Children are exposed to way too much." Isn't it the job of the parent to monitor what their kids are doing online, and perhaps the schools to teach them about appropriate internet usage? With anything new, there will be resistance (the telephone, the motorized vehicle, email...). But we can waste time fighting the inevitable, or we can embrace change and educate our students and ourselves about adaptability and responsibility.
And I think that's where schools come in. We were discussing last class about how teachers are often expected to be parents to these students. I think it is safe to say that while there are many responsible parents out there, there are probably some just like "us" who resist change. Therefore, it is also probably safe to assume that many children are not being educated or monitored adequately regarding the use of technology. And that's where we, teachers, come in. Again, we can fight it, or we can use it to educate.
I decided to visit the Church of the Rock last night for their Saturday evening service, and at one point during the sermon the pastor was talking about intercession - praying for people who need help in their lives. Then he used the phrase, "Stand in their gap." And I thought, "Aha"! I think that is exactly what we do as teachers. We stand in the gap and try to make connections in order to fill that gap. So if there is a gap between what students are learning on their own where technology is concerned and how they should be using technology, then we should be there to fill that gap. And it is not just true for technology, but curriculum in general. Where are our students now, and where do we want them to be? And whether it is written in a curriculum document or not, we need to be aware of these gaps in our specific groups of students and be ready to fill them.
Monday, February 15, 2010
February 9th - Curriculum & Instruction
I little light bulb went on in my head when we were discussing curriculum as including instruction or leaving out instruction. I had never actually thought of these two as separate, and I think it's a neat thing to consider!
When Graham was presenting the Beauchamp article and noted that the "how" of curriculum (how to implement it) should be, according to Beauchap, left up to the instructor because clientele is differs from place to place, I thought that was quite interesting. And true! I am not saying that curriculum documents should not have any ideas on instruction or implementation - I think those are very important for two reasons - 1) to give teachers (especially new teachers) ideas on how to teach specific outcomes, and 2) to give educators an idea of "how" students are to know specific outcomes (do they need to answer questions, perform a task, etc.). I think, however, that there is something to the thought that maybe curriculum should be just that - curriculum. "What ought to be taught". And perhaps the implementation of the curriculum should be left up to the teacher.
This relates to a subject we discuss and my school many, many times. Clientele. Although I agree that all children should be given similar opportunities, the differences among schools most definitely affects what and how we teach. I am often jealous of what I see colleagues of mine accomplishing in their music classrooms. But then I remind myself that I need to keep my students in mind. These students, coming from foster homes, or broken homes, or coming to school with no food in their tummies or mittens on their hands might not always be able to be taught in the same way as students from another school who may have most of their primary needs met. While I am a music teacher, I find the majority of my day (and anyone else working in our school) is spent on behaviour. Either correcting negative behaviour, encouraging positive behaviour, counselling students who are upset, cuddling students who might not otherwise be cuddled, providing snacks sent by Winnipeg Harvest, scouting out a clean t-shirt, and so on. We all know that these primary needs (physiological, safety, love & belonging) need to be met before students are able to work to their full capacity. There seems to be no point in forcing an unwilling student to accompany a song about bunny rabbits on a xylophone when he is hungry and feeling completely unloved. These primary needs have to be met first. This does put a strain on what we can teach and how to teach it.
My point after this little ramble is that I don't see how a group of "experts" sitting at a table can tell us how to teach. What to teach - sure. But how? We are the only ones that know our students and what they need. I think we need to keep this in mind not only when implementing curriculum, but also when designing curriculum. It has to be flexible. Teachers need to be able to take the concepts that need to be taught and teach them in a way that will be beneficial for their particular set of students. Otherwise it would be like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.
When Graham was presenting the Beauchamp article and noted that the "how" of curriculum (how to implement it) should be, according to Beauchap, left up to the instructor because clientele is differs from place to place, I thought that was quite interesting. And true! I am not saying that curriculum documents should not have any ideas on instruction or implementation - I think those are very important for two reasons - 1) to give teachers (especially new teachers) ideas on how to teach specific outcomes, and 2) to give educators an idea of "how" students are to know specific outcomes (do they need to answer questions, perform a task, etc.). I think, however, that there is something to the thought that maybe curriculum should be just that - curriculum. "What ought to be taught". And perhaps the implementation of the curriculum should be left up to the teacher.
This relates to a subject we discuss and my school many, many times. Clientele. Although I agree that all children should be given similar opportunities, the differences among schools most definitely affects what and how we teach. I am often jealous of what I see colleagues of mine accomplishing in their music classrooms. But then I remind myself that I need to keep my students in mind. These students, coming from foster homes, or broken homes, or coming to school with no food in their tummies or mittens on their hands might not always be able to be taught in the same way as students from another school who may have most of their primary needs met. While I am a music teacher, I find the majority of my day (and anyone else working in our school) is spent on behaviour. Either correcting negative behaviour, encouraging positive behaviour, counselling students who are upset, cuddling students who might not otherwise be cuddled, providing snacks sent by Winnipeg Harvest, scouting out a clean t-shirt, and so on. We all know that these primary needs (physiological, safety, love & belonging) need to be met before students are able to work to their full capacity. There seems to be no point in forcing an unwilling student to accompany a song about bunny rabbits on a xylophone when he is hungry and feeling completely unloved. These primary needs have to be met first. This does put a strain on what we can teach and how to teach it.
My point after this little ramble is that I don't see how a group of "experts" sitting at a table can tell us how to teach. What to teach - sure. But how? We are the only ones that know our students and what they need. I think we need to keep this in mind not only when implementing curriculum, but also when designing curriculum. It has to be flexible. Teachers need to be able to take the concepts that need to be taught and teach them in a way that will be beneficial for their particular set of students. Otherwise it would be like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thoughts on Feb. 2nd
I have been trying all week to come up with something to write here, but have been coming up dry. So I'll just start, and see what happens!
I really enjoyed our discussions about curriculum potential. I think that it is extremely important that there are opportunities for teachers to follow varying paths (based on student interest, teacher interest, current events, etc.). If we only ever stuck to one way of teaching one set of material it would be very boring (both for teachers and for students). It also doesn't provide accurate correlations to real life, or the here and now. Our world is constantly changing and we need our curriculi to be flexible! Personally, I feel very lucky to be working with the new music curriculum, as it provides a framework of concepts, but allows for much creativity and interpretation. This is partially due to the subject - music, when taught using the Orff process, should always be creative and open to possibilities. For those of you who are not familiar with the Orff method, here's a brief description from the Carl Orff Canada website:
“Carl Orff (1895-1982) is probably best known as the composer of such works as Carmina Burana and Catulli Carmina, but it is his work with "Music for Children" which has inspired a global movement in music education.
The Orff approach to Music Education is holistic, experiential and process oriented. It is for all children, not just the most musically or intellectually gifted and encompasses aural, visual and kinesthetic learners.
Orff's philosophy is based on solid, pedagogical principles. A structured, sequential development of knowledge and skills encourages joyful participation, creativity, and personal musical growth from all participants. The Orff approach taps the very essence of our beings. Children learn through doing, exploring and improvising. They are active participants in an integrated, guided process, one which allows for differing musical abilities. In the Orff approach, no child is neglected.
The Orff philosophy combines the elements of speech, rhythm, movement, dance, and song. And at the heart of all this is improvisation - the instinct children have to create their own melodies, to explore their imaginations.
Elemental music is never only music but an integration of movement, dance and language. It is music one creates oneself in which one is involved not as a listener, but as a participant."
The new music curriculum lends itself beautifully to this philosophy of teaching music. And I do think that the butterfly metaphor also helps to enhance this curriculum. Just to help illustrate, I'll quickly go through the main aspects of the music curriculum:
As we discussed in class, "Making Music" is the center of the butterfly because it is at the center of the Orff process. All children are music makers, and in order to better understand and appreciate music, students will all have the opportunity to experience music hands-on by making it themselves.
As I also pointed out, the four wings do not usually work alone.
The first wing, "Music Language and Performance Skills" focuses on specific concepts (such as rhythm, melody, form, harmony, timbre) and techniques for making music. The second wing, "Creative Expression in Music", is all about communicating ideas through music, using the concepts from the afore mentioned wing. The third wing, "Understanding Music in Context", is where students learn to connect music to time, place and community - basically understand the purposes for music in the past and present. Some of these purposes might include telling a story, communicating emotions, celebrating events, etc. The fourth wing, "Valuing Musical Experience" focuses on appreciating music and constructing meaning from one's own music and the music of others. In any general lesson we touch on most, if not all, of these wings.
As I mentioned earlier, the curriculum is also extremely flexible. For example, grade 3 and 4 students are expected to "describe a variety of purposes and roles for music in daily life, in own community and in other places and times". This leaves the door open to study all kinds of music. I always enjoy teaching a unit on musical theatre every year (and show a different musical movie each year). And while it does not specify "musical theatre" anywhere in the curriculum, it most definitely fits several outcomes.
The music curriculum also fits well with going on "tangents" as we discussed before. This is most likely due to the fact that it is such a creative subject - we can basically go anywhere we'd like within the context of music!
I am also lucky that I get the same kids all year for 6 years. There is no pressure of what they have to know by the end of the year because I have them again the following year. Of course I try to stick as much as possible to getting things done in a timely manner, but I feel no "pressure". But perhaps pressure is one reason why some educators do not want to deviate from their standard ways of teaching. There is so much pressure to get things done, and get them done now. Has anyone been reading the Free Press lately? There was a whole article about how we should be publishing school academic achievement statistics so that people can compare schools. Perhaps this is one reason why some teachers are afraid to go off on "tangents". The public will eat them alive if their class does not live up to the "public's" expectations. Just a thought.
I'm not sure what else to say at the moment - but I do think that every curriculum should give opportunities to be flexible, and be easily adaptable to current students and situations.
I really enjoyed our discussions about curriculum potential. I think that it is extremely important that there are opportunities for teachers to follow varying paths (based on student interest, teacher interest, current events, etc.). If we only ever stuck to one way of teaching one set of material it would be very boring (both for teachers and for students). It also doesn't provide accurate correlations to real life, or the here and now. Our world is constantly changing and we need our curriculi to be flexible! Personally, I feel very lucky to be working with the new music curriculum, as it provides a framework of concepts, but allows for much creativity and interpretation. This is partially due to the subject - music, when taught using the Orff process, should always be creative and open to possibilities. For those of you who are not familiar with the Orff method, here's a brief description from the Carl Orff Canada website:
“Carl Orff (1895-1982) is probably best known as the composer of such works as Carmina Burana and Catulli Carmina, but it is his work with "Music for Children" which has inspired a global movement in music education.
The Orff approach to Music Education is holistic, experiential and process oriented. It is for all children, not just the most musically or intellectually gifted and encompasses aural, visual and kinesthetic learners.
Orff's philosophy is based on solid, pedagogical principles. A structured, sequential development of knowledge and skills encourages joyful participation, creativity, and personal musical growth from all participants. The Orff approach taps the very essence of our beings. Children learn through doing, exploring and improvising. They are active participants in an integrated, guided process, one which allows for differing musical abilities. In the Orff approach, no child is neglected.
The Orff philosophy combines the elements of speech, rhythm, movement, dance, and song. And at the heart of all this is improvisation - the instinct children have to create their own melodies, to explore their imaginations.
Elemental music is never only music but an integration of movement, dance and language. It is music one creates oneself in which one is involved not as a listener, but as a participant."
The new music curriculum lends itself beautifully to this philosophy of teaching music. And I do think that the butterfly metaphor also helps to enhance this curriculum. Just to help illustrate, I'll quickly go through the main aspects of the music curriculum:
As we discussed in class, "Making Music" is the center of the butterfly because it is at the center of the Orff process. All children are music makers, and in order to better understand and appreciate music, students will all have the opportunity to experience music hands-on by making it themselves.
As I also pointed out, the four wings do not usually work alone.
The first wing, "Music Language and Performance Skills" focuses on specific concepts (such as rhythm, melody, form, harmony, timbre) and techniques for making music. The second wing, "Creative Expression in Music", is all about communicating ideas through music, using the concepts from the afore mentioned wing. The third wing, "Understanding Music in Context", is where students learn to connect music to time, place and community - basically understand the purposes for music in the past and present. Some of these purposes might include telling a story, communicating emotions, celebrating events, etc. The fourth wing, "Valuing Musical Experience" focuses on appreciating music and constructing meaning from one's own music and the music of others. In any general lesson we touch on most, if not all, of these wings.
As I mentioned earlier, the curriculum is also extremely flexible. For example, grade 3 and 4 students are expected to "describe a variety of purposes and roles for music in daily life, in own community and in other places and times". This leaves the door open to study all kinds of music. I always enjoy teaching a unit on musical theatre every year (and show a different musical movie each year). And while it does not specify "musical theatre" anywhere in the curriculum, it most definitely fits several outcomes.
The music curriculum also fits well with going on "tangents" as we discussed before. This is most likely due to the fact that it is such a creative subject - we can basically go anywhere we'd like within the context of music!
I am also lucky that I get the same kids all year for 6 years. There is no pressure of what they have to know by the end of the year because I have them again the following year. Of course I try to stick as much as possible to getting things done in a timely manner, but I feel no "pressure". But perhaps pressure is one reason why some educators do not want to deviate from their standard ways of teaching. There is so much pressure to get things done, and get them done now. Has anyone been reading the Free Press lately? There was a whole article about how we should be publishing school academic achievement statistics so that people can compare schools. Perhaps this is one reason why some teachers are afraid to go off on "tangents". The public will eat them alive if their class does not live up to the "public's" expectations. Just a thought.
I'm not sure what else to say at the moment - but I do think that every curriculum should give opportunities to be flexible, and be easily adaptable to current students and situations.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Not On the Test
Hey guys,
I just thought I'd also share this video - I love it! It totally addresses some of our assessment struggles...
Just go to www.notonthetest.com
I just thought I'd also share this video - I love it! It totally addresses some of our assessment struggles...
Just go to www.notonthetest.com
Reflections on January 26th
One thing that caught my attention in class was when we were discussing teaching to student interests.
I do think it is important to address student interests in school, and try to use these interests as much as we can. It is a good way to hook students into learning, and also to show them the relevance of what they learn to their own lives. I do not, however, think that everything should be tailored to student interest. Isn't our job to educate our students? They already KNOW cell phones. So why do we need to incorporate them into the classroom? Not to say we shouldn't EVER, but I don't think it needs to become an integral part of the curriculum. Students also aready KNOW computers. But just like anything else, I don't think we need to "computer" them to death. Why not do more technology-free group work instead in order to counteract the amount of time that is spent outside of school sitting alone in front of a computer? Students also already KNOW all of the "music" on Hot 103...so why would we incorporate that into school? Again, I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. I just think it should all be in moderation.
Take music, for example. My students are constantly asking me, "Why can't we listen to OUR music in music?". My usual answers to them are: a) "Because most of it is not appropriate", and b) "Because I want you to learn about all kinds of music". Then I silently say "and c) it is not music. It's heavy breathing and yelling." :) (that is meant to be a smiley face - not a colon and a bracket...haha).
At the risk of sounding like an 89 year old, set-in-her-ways woman, I think that part of the problem is that we have become accustomed to getting what we want, when we want it. There seems to be very little "want" for most middle to upper class Canadians. I even see many children who come to school without food, but as soon as the newest game console comes out they've got it. And I think this "I want it, and I want it now" mentality might be filtering into our school systems. We have become so concerned with what students want and maybe not so concerned with what they need. So, there's my "old lady rant". On the flipside, however, I certainly don't mean to say that kids are all spoiled and teachers are all pushovers. I just think that sometimes we might worry a little too much about what students want. I think we need to keep in mind that our job is to expose students to the new. Perhaps start with what they're comfortable with (ie. Justin Beiber), and progress to the new (ie. jazz, classical, opera, country, musical theatre, etc.).
This sort of brings me to the question that arose during Lana's presentation - "How much freedom should teachers have?" (in regards to the curriculum). I definitely don't think that all teachers in all schools should be exactly the same! This is because the students are not all exactly the same! How can some government people sitting in offices, or people sitting at home watching the news possibly know what our students need? It is the teachers who know these kids the best. We know who they are, what they need, and how they need it. So yes, I think there should be some flexibility in the curriculum so that we can tailor it to what will benefit our students. At the same time, I think it is beneficial for teachers as well. It is a lot easier to be passionate about what we are doing if we can do it in a way that appeals to/inspires/excites us as well.
I do think it is important to address student interests in school, and try to use these interests as much as we can. It is a good way to hook students into learning, and also to show them the relevance of what they learn to their own lives. I do not, however, think that everything should be tailored to student interest. Isn't our job to educate our students? They already KNOW cell phones. So why do we need to incorporate them into the classroom? Not to say we shouldn't EVER, but I don't think it needs to become an integral part of the curriculum. Students also aready KNOW computers. But just like anything else, I don't think we need to "computer" them to death. Why not do more technology-free group work instead in order to counteract the amount of time that is spent outside of school sitting alone in front of a computer? Students also already KNOW all of the "music" on Hot 103...so why would we incorporate that into school? Again, I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. I just think it should all be in moderation.
Take music, for example. My students are constantly asking me, "Why can't we listen to OUR music in music?". My usual answers to them are: a) "Because most of it is not appropriate", and b) "Because I want you to learn about all kinds of music". Then I silently say "and c) it is not music. It's heavy breathing and yelling." :) (that is meant to be a smiley face - not a colon and a bracket...haha).
At the risk of sounding like an 89 year old, set-in-her-ways woman, I think that part of the problem is that we have become accustomed to getting what we want, when we want it. There seems to be very little "want" for most middle to upper class Canadians. I even see many children who come to school without food, but as soon as the newest game console comes out they've got it. And I think this "I want it, and I want it now" mentality might be filtering into our school systems. We have become so concerned with what students want and maybe not so concerned with what they need. So, there's my "old lady rant". On the flipside, however, I certainly don't mean to say that kids are all spoiled and teachers are all pushovers. I just think that sometimes we might worry a little too much about what students want. I think we need to keep in mind that our job is to expose students to the new. Perhaps start with what they're comfortable with (ie. Justin Beiber), and progress to the new (ie. jazz, classical, opera, country, musical theatre, etc.).
This sort of brings me to the question that arose during Lana's presentation - "How much freedom should teachers have?" (in regards to the curriculum). I definitely don't think that all teachers in all schools should be exactly the same! This is because the students are not all exactly the same! How can some government people sitting in offices, or people sitting at home watching the news possibly know what our students need? It is the teachers who know these kids the best. We know who they are, what they need, and how they need it. So yes, I think there should be some flexibility in the curriculum so that we can tailor it to what will benefit our students. At the same time, I think it is beneficial for teachers as well. It is a lot easier to be passionate about what we are doing if we can do it in a way that appeals to/inspires/excites us as well.
For Vikki
I apologize for getting a little sentimental here, but I just wanted to take a moment to share my appreciation for Vikki.
I truly enjoyed listening to all of Vikki’s stories, and was so pleased to see that she was in this class as well, so that we could hear more. When she shared her stories and experiences they were always so heartfelt and honest. There was one thing in particular that she said one day, and it has stuck with me since. She was talking about the H1N1 shots, and how she was on the priority list because she was aboriginal. She told us that she struggled with whether or not she should get it before it opened up for everyone else because she felt ashamed of being called a priority. She had also heard a caller on CJOB complaining about aboriginal people and saying that they were probably on the priority list so that they could be the guinea pigs to make sure the shot was safe. And from this came her statement: “I always feel like I have to justify myself”. That one phrase has stuck with me since then. Nobody should have to feel that way – like they have to prove their “worthiness” for anything to anyone. And I am so thankful for this phrase. Vikki’s comment opened my eyes and shed a new light for me. She was someone who was hard-working, kind, responsible – I could go on – and struggled with the knowledge that some people did not think that she, as an aboriginal person, was of worth or deserved kindness in return. I don’t even know if she was aware of how amazing she was. Listening to stories of her life, the things she had overcome, her strength of character and determination to push on inspired me. I had planned on telling her what an impact her stories had on me. Unfortunately we did not have the chance for another conversation, but I think she knows now.
Vikki was amazing. She was so special. And I’m not saying these things because they’re the things to say at a time like this, I’m saying them because they’re true. I think that anyone who had the privilege of talking with Vikki most likely felt very blessed to know her.
I truly enjoyed listening to all of Vikki’s stories, and was so pleased to see that she was in this class as well, so that we could hear more. When she shared her stories and experiences they were always so heartfelt and honest. There was one thing in particular that she said one day, and it has stuck with me since. She was talking about the H1N1 shots, and how she was on the priority list because she was aboriginal. She told us that she struggled with whether or not she should get it before it opened up for everyone else because she felt ashamed of being called a priority. She had also heard a caller on CJOB complaining about aboriginal people and saying that they were probably on the priority list so that they could be the guinea pigs to make sure the shot was safe. And from this came her statement: “I always feel like I have to justify myself”. That one phrase has stuck with me since then. Nobody should have to feel that way – like they have to prove their “worthiness” for anything to anyone. And I am so thankful for this phrase. Vikki’s comment opened my eyes and shed a new light for me. She was someone who was hard-working, kind, responsible – I could go on – and struggled with the knowledge that some people did not think that she, as an aboriginal person, was of worth or deserved kindness in return. I don’t even know if she was aware of how amazing she was. Listening to stories of her life, the things she had overcome, her strength of character and determination to push on inspired me. I had planned on telling her what an impact her stories had on me. Unfortunately we did not have the chance for another conversation, but I think she knows now.
Vikki was amazing. She was so special. And I’m not saying these things because they’re the things to say at a time like this, I’m saying them because they’re true. I think that anyone who had the privilege of talking with Vikki most likely felt very blessed to know her.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thoughts on Questions Posed in Class on January 19th
After last week's class I've had a hodgepodge of thoughts floating around, but I think I will address two of the questions asked in class - "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?", and "What knowledge is of most worth?".
My first thought is in regards to our government apologizing for residential schools. The question was posed, "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" I thought this was an interesting question. While I do think the residential schools were a huge mistake and definitely called for an apology, I think there will always be mistakes. There are things that have been done all throughout history that we look back on thinking, "how could we have let that happen?" - for example, slavery. Now, obviously this is a big, BIG mistake, as were the residential schools. But I have to wonder if the people making these mistakes at the time actually realized the extent of their horror? I am by no means standing up for what was done, I'm just thinking out loud here. But take residential schools. It can probably be stated fairly certainly that those implementing and carrying out the residential schools plan most likely thought they were helping. Obviously they did not go about it the right way, but I think many things are much more easily seen from afar...after things have taken place...after we have seen the effects. We can judge the mistakes of others, but the fact is that sometimes when one is in the moment of the mistake he/she may not see the mistake being made. It is only after it is done and the effects occur that eyes are opened. The positive side is that many of us learn from these past mistakes and take care not to repeat them.
That being said, I'd like to go back to the question "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" with reference to education. I think we are probably making all kinds of mistakes! Not to say that we do nothing right, because I'm sure that there are many, many things we do well. But because mistakes are difficult to see when we are in the act of making them, we just have to try things, wait them out to see the effects, and adjust accordingly. Trial and error. The unfortunate thing about education is that we try and fail (and try and succeed) with the world watching.
A second thought was on the question, "What knowledge is of most worth"? Of course one could make a list that would wrap around the world twice. However, while I think certain subjects important (and honestly, I do think we're doing pretty well on that - math, science, social studies, L.A., arts), I think what is most important may not be the subject material itself (gasp!). Really, when I think back, I don't actually remember much of what I learned in grade 11 Biology. I'm sure some things have stuck around, but like they say, "if you don't use it, you lose it"! But I definitely do not think that it was a waste of time. This brings me to my personal "answer" of sorts to the question, "what knowledge is of most worth?". Perhaps the most important things we gain from our education are our values and skills. I think that while students may not remember exact content of the subjects, they will take with them the skills that were practiced (for example, working in a group, creating hypotheses, carrying out experiments, knowing how to find information when it is needed, etc.). They will also absorb the values that were positively modeled for them (and also those that were not modeled (excluded) - or modeled in negative ways). I most definitely think it's important, when designing curriculum, choosing course content, or creating a single lesson, that we think about what skills and values are also being learned, because this is what students will take with them!
My first thought is in regards to our government apologizing for residential schools. The question was posed, "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" I thought this was an interesting question. While I do think the residential schools were a huge mistake and definitely called for an apology, I think there will always be mistakes. There are things that have been done all throughout history that we look back on thinking, "how could we have let that happen?" - for example, slavery. Now, obviously this is a big, BIG mistake, as were the residential schools. But I have to wonder if the people making these mistakes at the time actually realized the extent of their horror? I am by no means standing up for what was done, I'm just thinking out loud here. But take residential schools. It can probably be stated fairly certainly that those implementing and carrying out the residential schools plan most likely thought they were helping. Obviously they did not go about it the right way, but I think many things are much more easily seen from afar...after things have taken place...after we have seen the effects. We can judge the mistakes of others, but the fact is that sometimes when one is in the moment of the mistake he/she may not see the mistake being made. It is only after it is done and the effects occur that eyes are opened. The positive side is that many of us learn from these past mistakes and take care not to repeat them.
That being said, I'd like to go back to the question "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" with reference to education. I think we are probably making all kinds of mistakes! Not to say that we do nothing right, because I'm sure that there are many, many things we do well. But because mistakes are difficult to see when we are in the act of making them, we just have to try things, wait them out to see the effects, and adjust accordingly. Trial and error. The unfortunate thing about education is that we try and fail (and try and succeed) with the world watching.
A second thought was on the question, "What knowledge is of most worth"? Of course one could make a list that would wrap around the world twice. However, while I think certain subjects important (and honestly, I do think we're doing pretty well on that - math, science, social studies, L.A., arts), I think what is most important may not be the subject material itself (gasp!). Really, when I think back, I don't actually remember much of what I learned in grade 11 Biology. I'm sure some things have stuck around, but like they say, "if you don't use it, you lose it"! But I definitely do not think that it was a waste of time. This brings me to my personal "answer" of sorts to the question, "what knowledge is of most worth?". Perhaps the most important things we gain from our education are our values and skills. I think that while students may not remember exact content of the subjects, they will take with them the skills that were practiced (for example, working in a group, creating hypotheses, carrying out experiments, knowing how to find information when it is needed, etc.). They will also absorb the values that were positively modeled for them (and also those that were not modeled (excluded) - or modeled in negative ways). I most definitely think it's important, when designing curriculum, choosing course content, or creating a single lesson, that we think about what skills and values are also being learned, because this is what students will take with them!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Initial Thoughts on "Metaphorical Roots of Curriculum Design"
I thought the three metaphors for curriculum design posed by Kliebard were quite interesting! It was a neat way to look at it!
In the first section, “The Metaphor of Production”, students were titled “raw material” and were expected to be “transformed into a finished and useful product”. I am sure that for some the term “raw material” works for this metaphor, but to me it sounds like the whole “blank slate” idea. Students come to school with a variety of background knowledge, varying life experiences, and extremely varied personalities. They are already people before they come to school! But I do understand where he was going with the metaphor, so perhaps "raw material" was fitting in that particular case.
In the metaphor of Growth, Kliebard likened plants to students when he stated, “The plants that grow in the greenhouse are of every variety, but the gardener treats each according to its own needs, so that each plant comes to flower. The universal blooming cannot be accomplished by leaving some plants unattended”. I love this metaphor, and as much as I would like to think we follow it at all times, I don’t think we do. How can standardized tests possibly treat each “flower” according to it’s own needs? What about the American “No Child Left Behind” policy, which basically expects all students to learn all material in the same capacity and at the same time, regardless of individual learning needs? And Canada’s “no fail” policy most definitely does not support individual needs either. I think anything that is black-and-white, all-or-nothing, is not a good way in which to support our students. Every student is different, and therefore each case needs to be assessed and dealt with on an individual basis, just like the variety of flowers in the greenhouse need to be treated accordingly by the gardener.
I also liked that Kliebard noted that “Each traveller will be affected differently by the journey”. There are so many things that can affect what we get out of our learning (such as past experiences, background knowledge, family life, interests and aspirations), and it is important to remember that each of our students, although experiencing the same content may come away with varying sets of knowledge, skills and values.
In the first section, “The Metaphor of Production”, students were titled “raw material” and were expected to be “transformed into a finished and useful product”. I am sure that for some the term “raw material” works for this metaphor, but to me it sounds like the whole “blank slate” idea. Students come to school with a variety of background knowledge, varying life experiences, and extremely varied personalities. They are already people before they come to school! But I do understand where he was going with the metaphor, so perhaps "raw material" was fitting in that particular case.
In the metaphor of Growth, Kliebard likened plants to students when he stated, “The plants that grow in the greenhouse are of every variety, but the gardener treats each according to its own needs, so that each plant comes to flower. The universal blooming cannot be accomplished by leaving some plants unattended”. I love this metaphor, and as much as I would like to think we follow it at all times, I don’t think we do. How can standardized tests possibly treat each “flower” according to it’s own needs? What about the American “No Child Left Behind” policy, which basically expects all students to learn all material in the same capacity and at the same time, regardless of individual learning needs? And Canada’s “no fail” policy most definitely does not support individual needs either. I think anything that is black-and-white, all-or-nothing, is not a good way in which to support our students. Every student is different, and therefore each case needs to be assessed and dealt with on an individual basis, just like the variety of flowers in the greenhouse need to be treated accordingly by the gardener.
I also liked that Kliebard noted that “Each traveller will be affected differently by the journey”. There are so many things that can affect what we get out of our learning (such as past experiences, background knowledge, family life, interests and aspirations), and it is important to remember that each of our students, although experiencing the same content may come away with varying sets of knowledge, skills and values.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Reflections On Our First Class
So…after this first class, what else could I talk about but Christmas! Being a music teacher, one of the first things I think about when I hear the word “Christmas” is CHRISTMAS CONCERT! It’s the highlight of a music teacher’s year! However, with all the joys of putting on a “Christmas concert” (or should I say, “winter concert”!) come all of the politics as well! These are what came to mind when we were discussing the different types of “Christmas” that have all seemed to fuse into one.
I am still allowed to call it a Christmas concert. But there are rules. “Secular Christmas” (reindeer, Santa, Elves, etc.) is fine. However, if “Sacred Christmas” is to be mentioned, so too must other “spiritual” holidays that occur in December (such as Kwanzaa and Hannukah). I am not saying this is “wrong” – of course we should be exposing students to as many traditions and points of view as possible! But I do think I am one of the lucky ones. Many colleagues are not even allowed to mention the "C" word in their schools! I just find it somewhat odd that most school communities expect there to be an elaborate concert - held in December - with somewhat of a celebratory air to it – maybe even decorated with Christmas trees and Christmas lights, and children sporting Santa hats and reindeer antlers - but it is NOT a “Christmas” concert. It is a “winter” concert. Are we really fooling anyone? I think the majority of students performing in these concerts, as well as the majority of the members in the audience know that a celebration of the Christmas season is in the air. Don’t get me wrong – I know that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and that should most definitely be respected. I just find it odd that we are trying to “hide” or “disguise” these concerts when their purposes seem so obvious. And considering all of my students spend all of December and half of January talking about Christmas (especially their Christmas presents!), I’m not entirely sure why we feel the need to put on this façade that it is not “Christmas” – it is “winter”.
At the risk of getting too deep here, it makes me wonder how we can possibly be accurately teaching our students when we have to hide parts of who we are at school. We don’t want to “offend” anyone by talking about Christmas (and personally, I have to wonder...what about peace, love, gift-giving, and celebrating family is offensive anyway?). Christianity is taboo and all traces are removed from the schools. Prayers of any kind (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so on) are not permitted. Is it possible that we are teaching children to hide who they are in order to create a “one-dimensional, nobody-can-be-different” world? As a country that boasts being a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”, are we actually practicing what we preach?
I do agree that in the past public schools were probably too “Christian”. But now I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and we are afraid to be anything (at least in public). I think we need to find a healthier balance.
Just a thought.
I am still allowed to call it a Christmas concert. But there are rules. “Secular Christmas” (reindeer, Santa, Elves, etc.) is fine. However, if “Sacred Christmas” is to be mentioned, so too must other “spiritual” holidays that occur in December (such as Kwanzaa and Hannukah). I am not saying this is “wrong” – of course we should be exposing students to as many traditions and points of view as possible! But I do think I am one of the lucky ones. Many colleagues are not even allowed to mention the "C" word in their schools! I just find it somewhat odd that most school communities expect there to be an elaborate concert - held in December - with somewhat of a celebratory air to it – maybe even decorated with Christmas trees and Christmas lights, and children sporting Santa hats and reindeer antlers - but it is NOT a “Christmas” concert. It is a “winter” concert. Are we really fooling anyone? I think the majority of students performing in these concerts, as well as the majority of the members in the audience know that a celebration of the Christmas season is in the air. Don’t get me wrong – I know that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and that should most definitely be respected. I just find it odd that we are trying to “hide” or “disguise” these concerts when their purposes seem so obvious. And considering all of my students spend all of December and half of January talking about Christmas (especially their Christmas presents!), I’m not entirely sure why we feel the need to put on this façade that it is not “Christmas” – it is “winter”.
At the risk of getting too deep here, it makes me wonder how we can possibly be accurately teaching our students when we have to hide parts of who we are at school. We don’t want to “offend” anyone by talking about Christmas (and personally, I have to wonder...what about peace, love, gift-giving, and celebrating family is offensive anyway?). Christianity is taboo and all traces are removed from the schools. Prayers of any kind (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so on) are not permitted. Is it possible that we are teaching children to hide who they are in order to create a “one-dimensional, nobody-can-be-different” world? As a country that boasts being a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”, are we actually practicing what we preach?
I do agree that in the past public schools were probably too “Christian”. But now I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and we are afraid to be anything (at least in public). I think we need to find a healthier balance.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
