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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well summarized and critiqued Ashley!
ReplyDeleteI have a couple comments focusing on your statement how "Canada’s “no fail” policy most definitely does not support individual needs either."
During my Wednesday night Educational Research class we read and article that revealed Manitoba does NOT actually have a provincial "no fail" policy. It was revealed as one of the largest "false beliefs" in Manitoba education. In fact, every member of the class (before reading the article) believed that the policy existed.
That begs the question....do we need a provincial policy? Or should we leave it up to individual school divisions to make the decisions?
My immediate reaction would be to say "a decision of that magnitude should be based on solid research and should be consistent across the province." However, does that fly in the face of a "gardener" approach to curriculum. Are all school divisions the same? Should an inner city school have the same policies as a affluent rural school? A school on a reserve? Private schools?
I find myself stronly aligned with the gardener and traveller methaphors but realized how difficult that can be when considering widespread policy.
Thanks Ryan - that's good to know!
ReplyDeleteI think aside from each division deciding their own policy on this, it should be on a student by student basis. Maybe this sounds unfair, but I honestly don't think you can treat every child the same because they are all different. I think if a child was doing really poorly in his/her grade due to them simply not trying or not handing in assignments, then perhaps they can be moved along. This is actually opposite of what I originally thought, but then I realized that holding this student back probably wouldn't help them to succeed in school. It would make them hate it even more, and maybe even drop out altogether. However, if a child is really trying and just doesn't get it, perhaps holding them back could work. BUT...I don't think it could work for ALL struggling students. For example, if a student is really struggling but has very close ties with friends in the same grade, holding them back could be damaging. Maybe he/she just needs to be promoted but have a lot of extra support. But if the struggling student doesn't seem to have a lot of close bonds or play with children his/her own age then it might not be a problem. I don't know if this is coming off the way I mean it to, but I definitely think this is a matter that needs to take each individual student into account and look at what is best for the student involved.