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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the point you raise that teachers "are the only ones that know our students and what they need". I think knowing the students is an integral piece of implementing curriculum effectively. It is true that curriculua are not "one size fits all" in terms of what will work with specific groups learners. I think that it is important for curriculum designers to keep the audience in mind; but I also think it is important for curriculum consumers. Just because a curriculum has been successful in one environment, does not mean that school divisions or people with purchasing power should drop everything to buy that curriculum. I can recall a time when I was considering accepting a position at a new school in Liberia. The Canadian organization sponsoring the school's development decided that the organization was going to spend thousands of dollars on purchasing textbooks from Ohio (designed for American students). The head of the organization explained that he had heard about students in a different African country yielding very "successful" results with these materials and therefore, without looking into the content of the curriculum, had decided to purchase it. We had several discussions in which I tried to express that just because the curriculum was successful with one group of learners did not guarantee a good fit with the students in Liberia. I suggested showing the curriculum to the local teachers to ask if they thought it would be appropriate, or if it aligned with the curriculum from the Liberian Ministry of Education - however, the purchase order for the Ohio textboks had already been put through. Ultimately, this became one of the reasons I did not accept this position - because I could not rationalize the expense of so much of the project's funds (and people's donations) for a curriculm that was purchased without the learners in mind, especially in light of the primary needs such as school strutures, teacher training, and sanitation that were still unmet.
ReplyDeleteI liked your analogy of teachers modifying concepts so they are appropriate for learners, otherwise it would be like "trying to stick a square peg in a round hole." To further your analogy, perhaps when individuals in authority are considering which curriculum to implement, they need to remember that "holes" come in a variety of shapes. Maybe the round peg that fit well in the round hole in one context, doesn't work out so hot if the hole is a triangle in another context.
hey ash...thanks for the comment on my blog...probably the one big thing that didn't get taught and would have been invaluable was a study of being human (communication, grieving, understanding death, etc)...the reality here though is very few professionals come anywhere close to being able to even broach these subjects...those that can also be very dangerous...p.s i feel sorry for you right handers...having to be taught creativ ity must be a pain...right brain joke!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletenow to your blog...exactemento on the basic needs thing...couldn't agree with you more...also your point about the curriculum makers and your reality in the classroom...right on...so what is most important i think is that you show up in these young people's lives...that's it!!!...pure and simple...show up with a willing heart and remember the parable of the sower of seeds...that's what we do!!!
On a larger scale I am going to recommend that you spend whatever is left of your spare time checking out URIE BRONFENBRENNER'S work on ecological psychology...my sense is that we will have limited to no success with certain elements of our school system unless and until we are able to engage all of the shareholders of the process...raising a child being the responsibility of the village etc...currently much of this is left up to one aspect of the village...US...once you are done with bronfenbrenner let me know and I will show you the goldmine!!!!!