Just a few random thoughts that I've been tinkering with as of late, or that I've been tinkering with for a while.
Curriculum as student: students define their curriculum because of who they are today, not because of what they should be. Who does curriculum think you are? Recall Ellsworth's paper.
21st century learning: learning communities whose individuals have differentiated skills, or should everyone have to know the same thing? See a paper by Katerine Bielaczyc and Allan Collins, Learning Communities in Classrooms: Advancing Knowledge for a Lifetime, in the NASSP Bulletin, Febraury 1999.
Justice in education: what's right? Career education first? Maybe show career paths to with detailed presentations of the skills, not just the courses to take, to get there.
A just society, what should it look like? Pierre Trudeau had a vision of one. Did Canada become a better place after Trudeau?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Class 12: April 7, 2008
Closure
What a way to end: art deconstruction. I wasn't sure tonight if I had learned more about being an art critic or a curriculum designer! Both works were quite thought provoking. I haven't been to the WAG in years... many years. Maybe its time for a trip.
One of the sharp sticking points for me in this course was the concept of deconstruction. It's not as if I have not deconstructed anything in my life. I, and all of us, have been deconstructing all kinds of things since birth (though not necessarily consciously). During this course, however, the term took on a new meaning. So, I read a little bit about Derrida. It was worth it.
Marshall McLuhan was a great deconstructor. Recall from McLuhan's Wake that is was said that Marshall needed to get right to the bottom of things. I found a kindred spirit in McLuhan in that way. I am notorious for wanting to prove everything at an axiomatic level. Once I can't dig any deeper, it is then that I think I've achieved necessary understanding. With curriculum and education, the exercise it is quite interesting. We really need to become philosphers and ask the big questions, like, "What's the point of it all?" Who does education serve? Curriculum really is a tool in the social construction process, no? We shape out tools, then they shape us? I think so. Yet, it's not something totally unnatural. I am not necessarily a Darwinian evolutionist, but I believe in evolution nonetheless. I think of the neanderthal with the bone in the Space Odyssey clip. Discovery is natural, and how much by accident? And, once we discover how to think, the eureka moments just keep coming. We even learn to consciously deconstruct the reality that shapes us. What a life! There is so much to learn. What is possible? What can we know? If I'm going on a tangent, well, I'll forgive myself. I must make that trip to the WAG.
I'm still thinking about those paintings. With Rockwell, if the man's head is at the center, then perhaps with the suggestion of the cosmos in the colour painting, it means that there is one mind at the center of the universe, reality, reason, truth. Who's the author of truth? Maybe some guy in a grey suit who walks with an umbrella, even on sunny days. You think that guy ever rode a horse? It looks more to me like he's dressed to ride on a train. I just went back to look at the Colville painting in Google images (see the course blog for the link) and considered this idea. There is a single light on the train (if someone said this in class, I didn't hear it well). Might the horse be drawn to the light? What if the horse went into the light? Perhaps then a transformation occurred: the old horse died... the horse changed, saw things differently, changed direction, and became the light itself. At one time, neanderthal man was wild and free, but one day, became aware of the light of reason, and voila... progress. With reason, neanderthals could light their own way, construct their own reality... change the direction of their lives. Who knows... it's a painting! Must go the WAG.
What a way to end: art deconstruction. I wasn't sure tonight if I had learned more about being an art critic or a curriculum designer! Both works were quite thought provoking. I haven't been to the WAG in years... many years. Maybe its time for a trip.
One of the sharp sticking points for me in this course was the concept of deconstruction. It's not as if I have not deconstructed anything in my life. I, and all of us, have been deconstructing all kinds of things since birth (though not necessarily consciously). During this course, however, the term took on a new meaning. So, I read a little bit about Derrida. It was worth it.
Marshall McLuhan was a great deconstructor. Recall from McLuhan's Wake that is was said that Marshall needed to get right to the bottom of things. I found a kindred spirit in McLuhan in that way. I am notorious for wanting to prove everything at an axiomatic level. Once I can't dig any deeper, it is then that I think I've achieved necessary understanding. With curriculum and education, the exercise it is quite interesting. We really need to become philosphers and ask the big questions, like, "What's the point of it all?" Who does education serve? Curriculum really is a tool in the social construction process, no? We shape out tools, then they shape us? I think so. Yet, it's not something totally unnatural. I am not necessarily a Darwinian evolutionist, but I believe in evolution nonetheless. I think of the neanderthal with the bone in the Space Odyssey clip. Discovery is natural, and how much by accident? And, once we discover how to think, the eureka moments just keep coming. We even learn to consciously deconstruct the reality that shapes us. What a life! There is so much to learn. What is possible? What can we know? If I'm going on a tangent, well, I'll forgive myself. I must make that trip to the WAG.
I'm still thinking about those paintings. With Rockwell, if the man's head is at the center, then perhaps with the suggestion of the cosmos in the colour painting, it means that there is one mind at the center of the universe, reality, reason, truth. Who's the author of truth? Maybe some guy in a grey suit who walks with an umbrella, even on sunny days. You think that guy ever rode a horse? It looks more to me like he's dressed to ride on a train. I just went back to look at the Colville painting in Google images (see the course blog for the link) and considered this idea. There is a single light on the train (if someone said this in class, I didn't hear it well). Might the horse be drawn to the light? What if the horse went into the light? Perhaps then a transformation occurred: the old horse died... the horse changed, saw things differently, changed direction, and became the light itself. At one time, neanderthal man was wild and free, but one day, became aware of the light of reason, and voila... progress. With reason, neanderthals could light their own way, construct their own reality... change the direction of their lives. Who knows... it's a painting! Must go the WAG.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Class 11: March 24, 2008
Second to last class! This has been a great course. Denis' leadership and the contributions from everyone has made for a very rich experience. Thanks to you all!
Deconstruction
An interesting exercise with the poem. To me, the definition of the word deconstruction was straight forward. If construction meant to assemble, then deconstruction simply meant to disassemble. However, as we learned, the key in the deconstructive disassemblage is to have the words speak as they are. This is curious. How do words speak without a meaning assigned through everyday use? Is not language socially constructed? What can words mean when strung together? We have talked about authorship and that it is the author who can really clarify the intention of his/her text, be it poetry or prose. But, as we again discussed tonight, texts can take on multiple meanings independent of any intention. As words stand alone or in combination without an authority to explain their intention, they present different meanings for their readers, meanings derived from the frames of reference of the readers. The simplicity of this at its root is beautiful... a little like math! Deconstruction: yet another critical modality (see http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html).
Sidebar Thoughts
Language as a communication technology - it seems so. Language as medium - it seems so. Langauge as message - yes, but which one? One medium, many messages. Social control through language? Why not? Which language: English, French? How about music? Maybe art? Is Curriculum a language? Sure.
This is fun. Yet, after an analysis of what curriculum could be, especially in light of text deconstruction, it seems clear that curriculum is for sure but one thing: a word. And if a word, then how about just a brick!
Goodyear
The reasons why the word curriculum was chosen to describe plans of designated study is irrelevant, but at an atomic level, it is interesting to consider linguistics and how certain combinations of symbols were assigned particular meanings. The Curriculum Design course could be analyzed the same way. The concepts presented came in a particular order, as did the readings/presentations.
As we moved through the course, it became clear that there were significant relationships amongst the readings. There was a grand plan being discovered at the same time as it was being followed. Though in the course a formula for how to design a curriculum was not explicitly stated, the readings shed light on the fundamental elements to be considered when desigining one: philosophy, context, content, organization.
Goodyear's framework includes fundamental elements that interact when a curriculum is being created. For me, the most significant is the pedagogic philosophy, yet environment can dictate a philosophic stance taken. The cyclic orientation of the framework is strong because curriculum needs to be open-ended, always ready to change with the wind. This is postmodern and allows becoming, as Baudrillard would say. A 21st century design should be guided by such a framework.
Deconstruction
An interesting exercise with the poem. To me, the definition of the word deconstruction was straight forward. If construction meant to assemble, then deconstruction simply meant to disassemble. However, as we learned, the key in the deconstructive disassemblage is to have the words speak as they are. This is curious. How do words speak without a meaning assigned through everyday use? Is not language socially constructed? What can words mean when strung together? We have talked about authorship and that it is the author who can really clarify the intention of his/her text, be it poetry or prose. But, as we again discussed tonight, texts can take on multiple meanings independent of any intention. As words stand alone or in combination without an authority to explain their intention, they present different meanings for their readers, meanings derived from the frames of reference of the readers. The simplicity of this at its root is beautiful... a little like math! Deconstruction: yet another critical modality (see http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html).
Sidebar Thoughts
Language as a communication technology - it seems so. Language as medium - it seems so. Langauge as message - yes, but which one? One medium, many messages. Social control through language? Why not? Which language: English, French? How about music? Maybe art? Is Curriculum a language? Sure.
This is fun. Yet, after an analysis of what curriculum could be, especially in light of text deconstruction, it seems clear that curriculum is for sure but one thing: a word. And if a word, then how about just a brick!
Goodyear
The reasons why the word curriculum was chosen to describe plans of designated study is irrelevant, but at an atomic level, it is interesting to consider linguistics and how certain combinations of symbols were assigned particular meanings. The Curriculum Design course could be analyzed the same way. The concepts presented came in a particular order, as did the readings/presentations.
As we moved through the course, it became clear that there were significant relationships amongst the readings. There was a grand plan being discovered at the same time as it was being followed. Though in the course a formula for how to design a curriculum was not explicitly stated, the readings shed light on the fundamental elements to be considered when desigining one: philosophy, context, content, organization.
Goodyear's framework includes fundamental elements that interact when a curriculum is being created. For me, the most significant is the pedagogic philosophy, yet environment can dictate a philosophic stance taken. The cyclic orientation of the framework is strong because curriculum needs to be open-ended, always ready to change with the wind. This is postmodern and allows becoming, as Baudrillard would say. A 21st century design should be guided by such a framework.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Class 10: March 17, 2008
Marsh
First, thanks to Kala for bringing the Samosas and Timbits... and the sauce. Very well enjoyed.
Marsh for me read pretty straight forward. It would be a good paper for those in a pre-service program to read, to give an overview of the issues surrounding curriculum development.
My favourite part of the paper was the curriculum game section on the last page. I liked it because it calls us to play the philosophical game called Curriculum. For me, it is actually an invitation to consider both curriculum design and the purpose of education. Having said that, I can invoke my partiality to chaos theory and ask these questions: 1) Why should one be educated and by whom? and 2) Why should anyone care to educate another; that is, what's in it for the educator to educate anyone?
If we consider societies like those tribal we saw in the Space Odyssey clip in class one, we can imagine that among those people there will be some who will be touched by different experiences, external and internal. Today, we may call such people gifted in a particular area. No society is homogeneous: there will always be those clever and cunning, able to discern truths that live amongst the group, and those not so perceptive. Those wise, gifted in the discernment of truth, don't have to share what they know, the truths they have discovered. Why should they? Sharing knowledge means sharing the power to survive.
So, why educate? Is it a moral good to do so? Perhaps. Is there a fortune to be made? Maybe. The easy thing to do is play the curriculum game with the pieces offered by Marsh. The more difficult task is to define the role of education in society. It may be obvious: enact a (someone's) vision, or develop individuals, or support social emancipation (as Freire might say). But, it may be that at a very basic level, curriculum is just a weapon in the human drama of good vs. evil. It's fun to consider such ideas... it really is like a game.
Cyber-bullying
Like Dianne said in class, it all begins with a person's moral disposition. If a person knows it is wrong to defame someone, then even in a cyberworld, that person will not commit defamation. I am of the pursuasion that parents have a lot to do with the moral development of their children, and that they are the ones who should monitor their childrens' internet or cellphone use. I don't think it's an option for parents to claim ignorance about technology, perhaps saying that "the kids know more than I do." Parents have the inherent responsibility to know about the world with which their children interact. As Denis had said in class and on CJOB Thursday morning (March 20th - I didn't hear it, just heard about it), kids are travelling the globe before being able to cross the street. If parents want their kids to be able to criss-cross the globe, they had better first teach them to look all ways before they cross a street!
Plagiarism
Here's a new definition for plagiarism, which so far as I know is original: postmodern academic disease. Here's another one: cut and paste syndrome. The last one is not so original.
Plagiarism has been made easier thanks to technology. Years ago, to plagiarise, someone would need to write out the text, or type it, thereby expending some real energy. Having said that, a problem with plagiarism at the school level may just be ignorance; that is, students may have never been taught about it. So, should parents have a responsibility here too? At the university level, there is no excuse.
The music examples were funny. The Twinkle Twinkle Little Star melody sure has made its mark. I wonder about Row Row Row Your Boat! Something about rowing a boat... people need to row their own boat (an excerpt from a recorded work by Dr. Wayne Dyer).
First, thanks to Kala for bringing the Samosas and Timbits... and the sauce. Very well enjoyed.
Marsh for me read pretty straight forward. It would be a good paper for those in a pre-service program to read, to give an overview of the issues surrounding curriculum development.
My favourite part of the paper was the curriculum game section on the last page. I liked it because it calls us to play the philosophical game called Curriculum. For me, it is actually an invitation to consider both curriculum design and the purpose of education. Having said that, I can invoke my partiality to chaos theory and ask these questions: 1) Why should one be educated and by whom? and 2) Why should anyone care to educate another; that is, what's in it for the educator to educate anyone?
If we consider societies like those tribal we saw in the Space Odyssey clip in class one, we can imagine that among those people there will be some who will be touched by different experiences, external and internal. Today, we may call such people gifted in a particular area. No society is homogeneous: there will always be those clever and cunning, able to discern truths that live amongst the group, and those not so perceptive. Those wise, gifted in the discernment of truth, don't have to share what they know, the truths they have discovered. Why should they? Sharing knowledge means sharing the power to survive.
So, why educate? Is it a moral good to do so? Perhaps. Is there a fortune to be made? Maybe. The easy thing to do is play the curriculum game with the pieces offered by Marsh. The more difficult task is to define the role of education in society. It may be obvious: enact a (someone's) vision, or develop individuals, or support social emancipation (as Freire might say). But, it may be that at a very basic level, curriculum is just a weapon in the human drama of good vs. evil. It's fun to consider such ideas... it really is like a game.
Cyber-bullying
Like Dianne said in class, it all begins with a person's moral disposition. If a person knows it is wrong to defame someone, then even in a cyberworld, that person will not commit defamation. I am of the pursuasion that parents have a lot to do with the moral development of their children, and that they are the ones who should monitor their childrens' internet or cellphone use. I don't think it's an option for parents to claim ignorance about technology, perhaps saying that "the kids know more than I do." Parents have the inherent responsibility to know about the world with which their children interact. As Denis had said in class and on CJOB Thursday morning (March 20th - I didn't hear it, just heard about it), kids are travelling the globe before being able to cross the street. If parents want their kids to be able to criss-cross the globe, they had better first teach them to look all ways before they cross a street!
Plagiarism
Here's a new definition for plagiarism, which so far as I know is original: postmodern academic disease. Here's another one: cut and paste syndrome. The last one is not so original.
Plagiarism has been made easier thanks to technology. Years ago, to plagiarise, someone would need to write out the text, or type it, thereby expending some real energy. Having said that, a problem with plagiarism at the school level may just be ignorance; that is, students may have never been taught about it. So, should parents have a responsibility here too? At the university level, there is no excuse.
The music examples were funny. The Twinkle Twinkle Little Star melody sure has made its mark. I wonder about Row Row Row Your Boat! Something about rowing a boat... people need to row their own boat (an excerpt from a recorded work by Dr. Wayne Dyer).
Monday, March 10, 2008
Class 9: March 10, 2008
Ornstein
The medical perspective Francis brought to Ornstein was revealing about medical school and was overall good food for thought. Last week, Francis told about the artificial bodies that will be used for medical education, citing them as simulacra. This week, he posed some very key questions about how to teach the "soft" skills of medicine: sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow.
Angela also mentioned last week that patients are now more reluctant to have medical students involved in their diagnosis and treatment, which consequently has led the medical profession to adopt the artificial patient as an education solution. Now, I commented tonight that sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow can't be taught, but come about by direct experience. Actually, as Angela called them tonight, "those unassessable skills", might be able to be taught through narratives, as Francis pointed out. In a large degree, however, I think those skills are learned through experiences as we mature, but the experiences we have that develop them need not be traumatic. The simple win/lose outcome of a hockey game can teach about sorrow, and enduring the frustration of a math problem with a friend can invoke sympathy. It is significant to note here that what is common to these situations is real people. Those soft skills are learned with other human beings, not with robots. How can upcoming doctors learn the soft skills if they are not interacting with human patients?
The design models discussed in the article have, of course, educational philosophies behind them. It seems that it was no coincidence that Denis had us look at Goodyear's work prior to class and then have us engage in a curriculum framework activity. Ornstein's article was all about framework.
The construct of a curriculum framework is abstract and leads to the idea of universality, something we talked about more when Brad presented the Chambers article. My play on universality is this: can there be a universal curriculum model sufficiently abstract to absorb all possible instances of specifically tailored curricula? In the computer science world, it is possible. Such an abstraction is called a class, in particular, an abstract class. These terms come from the world of object-oriented programming, which is a way to program computers so that data and procedure code are grouped together into "objects", which are nothing but instantiated classes which have been defined to do specific things. An example of such objects are textboxes and labels that are available for PowerPoint (or Visual Basic, if you are a programmer). Both can perform specific tasks and store basic data. One, however, is not able to receive input, while the other can. These specifically designed tools are built from a common abstract class, perhaps called DATA. To create the abstract class DATA, the designer would include a data area that would store the text input in a textbox or displayed via a label. And in the abstract class, that item could just be called TEXT. But now, what could be done with TEXT? It could be copied, cut, pasted, printed. These actions on the text could be, in the abstract class, defined by an item called ACTION, and multiple actions could be defined in a specifically defined class based on the abstract class, say a class called TEXTBOX. The textbox class would inherit all the properties of the abstract class, but redefine them to fit its specific purpose. Basically, what is written in Ornstein can be mapped to each level identified in Goodyear's framework, which is the same type of construction as an object-oriented abstract class. For example, Ornstein's Society as Source might be the Philosophy in Goodyear's framework. Broad Fields Design could be the High Level Pedagogy, and the Pedagogic Strategy could be a Thematic Unit. You can fill in for the Pedagogic Tactics.
So, where does postmodernism and the likes of the authors we've read thus far fit into a framework design? I suggest that Baudrillard's point-of-view would be influential in determining the philosophical dimension of a curriculum design. "What are the outcomes desired by those who engage the curriculum?" might be the guiding philosphical question, which is consistent with Tyler's first question, "What are the purposes of the school?" From here, the other layers of the design can be addressed, but interestingly, the design process probably wouldn't be linear. We all know what it is like to plan a unit or lesson. We go back and forth, from goal to activity and back, hashing and rehashing our ideas until we are satisfied that the students will get the best we have to offer them. We need to look at designs from the top down, but too from the bottom up.
Regarding a postmodern curriculum, it needs to be flexible to accomodate postmodern phenomena. Maybe a better term to describe such a curriculum is fluid. Assessment rules are currently being rewritten and will need to continue to be to realize fully postmodern curricula. The concept of PLAR (prior learning assessment and recognition) speaks to the idea of flexibility in assessment. My thoughts on reform in this direction include flexible deadlines for course completion, and my position on this has been strengthened by my experience teaching in a Hutterite community. The Hutterian culture sometimes requires that students miss classes and miss deadline dates for assignments. At the high school level at least, is there anything wrong with allowing a credit to be picked up on a student's own time, so long as the coursework is completed satisfactorily? Philosophically, such an idea is learner-centered, and should work. In fact, many high school courses in Manitoba are offered by distance delivery and WebCT, but the period of course completion from the date of registration is one year. That timeline seems reasonable, but why not make it negotiable? After all, postmodernism is about removing barriers, not maintaining or erecting them.
The medical perspective Francis brought to Ornstein was revealing about medical school and was overall good food for thought. Last week, Francis told about the artificial bodies that will be used for medical education, citing them as simulacra. This week, he posed some very key questions about how to teach the "soft" skills of medicine: sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow.
Angela also mentioned last week that patients are now more reluctant to have medical students involved in their diagnosis and treatment, which consequently has led the medical profession to adopt the artificial patient as an education solution. Now, I commented tonight that sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow can't be taught, but come about by direct experience. Actually, as Angela called them tonight, "those unassessable skills", might be able to be taught through narratives, as Francis pointed out. In a large degree, however, I think those skills are learned through experiences as we mature, but the experiences we have that develop them need not be traumatic. The simple win/lose outcome of a hockey game can teach about sorrow, and enduring the frustration of a math problem with a friend can invoke sympathy. It is significant to note here that what is common to these situations is real people. Those soft skills are learned with other human beings, not with robots. How can upcoming doctors learn the soft skills if they are not interacting with human patients?
The design models discussed in the article have, of course, educational philosophies behind them. It seems that it was no coincidence that Denis had us look at Goodyear's work prior to class and then have us engage in a curriculum framework activity. Ornstein's article was all about framework.
The construct of a curriculum framework is abstract and leads to the idea of universality, something we talked about more when Brad presented the Chambers article. My play on universality is this: can there be a universal curriculum model sufficiently abstract to absorb all possible instances of specifically tailored curricula? In the computer science world, it is possible. Such an abstraction is called a class, in particular, an abstract class. These terms come from the world of object-oriented programming, which is a way to program computers so that data and procedure code are grouped together into "objects", which are nothing but instantiated classes which have been defined to do specific things. An example of such objects are textboxes and labels that are available for PowerPoint (or Visual Basic, if you are a programmer). Both can perform specific tasks and store basic data. One, however, is not able to receive input, while the other can. These specifically designed tools are built from a common abstract class, perhaps called DATA. To create the abstract class DATA, the designer would include a data area that would store the text input in a textbox or displayed via a label. And in the abstract class, that item could just be called TEXT. But now, what could be done with TEXT? It could be copied, cut, pasted, printed. These actions on the text could be, in the abstract class, defined by an item called ACTION, and multiple actions could be defined in a specifically defined class based on the abstract class, say a class called TEXTBOX. The textbox class would inherit all the properties of the abstract class, but redefine them to fit its specific purpose. Basically, what is written in Ornstein can be mapped to each level identified in Goodyear's framework, which is the same type of construction as an object-oriented abstract class. For example, Ornstein's Society as Source might be the Philosophy in Goodyear's framework. Broad Fields Design could be the High Level Pedagogy, and the Pedagogic Strategy could be a Thematic Unit. You can fill in for the Pedagogic Tactics.
So, where does postmodernism and the likes of the authors we've read thus far fit into a framework design? I suggest that Baudrillard's point-of-view would be influential in determining the philosophical dimension of a curriculum design. "What are the outcomes desired by those who engage the curriculum?" might be the guiding philosphical question, which is consistent with Tyler's first question, "What are the purposes of the school?" From here, the other layers of the design can be addressed, but interestingly, the design process probably wouldn't be linear. We all know what it is like to plan a unit or lesson. We go back and forth, from goal to activity and back, hashing and rehashing our ideas until we are satisfied that the students will get the best we have to offer them. We need to look at designs from the top down, but too from the bottom up.
Regarding a postmodern curriculum, it needs to be flexible to accomodate postmodern phenomena. Maybe a better term to describe such a curriculum is fluid. Assessment rules are currently being rewritten and will need to continue to be to realize fully postmodern curricula. The concept of PLAR (prior learning assessment and recognition) speaks to the idea of flexibility in assessment. My thoughts on reform in this direction include flexible deadlines for course completion, and my position on this has been strengthened by my experience teaching in a Hutterite community. The Hutterian culture sometimes requires that students miss classes and miss deadline dates for assignments. At the high school level at least, is there anything wrong with allowing a credit to be picked up on a student's own time, so long as the coursework is completed satisfactorily? Philosophically, such an idea is learner-centered, and should work. In fact, many high school courses in Manitoba are offered by distance delivery and WebCT, but the period of course completion from the date of registration is one year. That timeline seems reasonable, but why not make it negotiable? After all, postmodernism is about removing barriers, not maintaining or erecting them.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Postblog: March 8, 2008
Just a note on where we are at. Baudrillard's article brought together the threads being woven through the course thus far: the canon, metaphor, simultaneous occurrence, gaps, centrality, difference, social domination, eclecticism, critial theory and simulation. All sounds pretty postmodern to me.
Thought: at a basic level, curriculum is a canon, a set of basis vectors (to use a math term) from which all vectors in a defined space can be constructed. In the case of curriculum, the basis vectors are not specifics, but general lessons. What is common to humanity? Certainly not a common codification scheme (language). Yet, in today's world, we all need to be able to read and write - perhaps the better way to say it is, to be able to construct real meanings with symbols and logic. Basic numerical and combinatorial understandings, and problem solving skills are also important. And, so too are classification skills: behaviour (pattern) recognition. Regardless what is included in the canon, it should address the ability for one to survive in society.
Note: it is possible to change the basis of a vector space, but there is only one absolute basis for any vector space. Many truths vs. absolute truth, again. For a discussion of vector spaces and their bases, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceBasis.html.
Thought: at a basic level, curriculum is a canon, a set of basis vectors (to use a math term) from which all vectors in a defined space can be constructed. In the case of curriculum, the basis vectors are not specifics, but general lessons. What is common to humanity? Certainly not a common codification scheme (language). Yet, in today's world, we all need to be able to read and write - perhaps the better way to say it is, to be able to construct real meanings with symbols and logic. Basic numerical and combinatorial understandings, and problem solving skills are also important. And, so too are classification skills: behaviour (pattern) recognition. Regardless what is included in the canon, it should address the ability for one to survive in society.
Note: it is possible to change the basis of a vector space, but there is only one absolute basis for any vector space. Many truths vs. absolute truth, again. For a discussion of vector spaces and their bases, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceBasis.html.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Class 8: March 3, 2008
Postmodern, Post-Slattery, Post-Baudrillard: Where to Next?
Something we didn't talk about in all the celebration of Slattery and Baudrillard and postmodernism was if postmodernism is here to stay. Might it wither away like modernity? Might modernity return after a postmodern implosion? Who's to say? People could, after the exponential information dissemination of the late 20th century that continues now, define more aggressive social interests, possibly rendering highly polarized and internally aligned social castes. Ingested information (education) creates personal independence and, in the mind of the right individual, considerable power. Just think of the Watergate scandal. Baudrillard said it wasn't a scandal until Nixon's enemies got hold of the information and spun it to make it appear like a scandal. Also, consider the those who learned, in the US, how to fly the planes that brought down the Twin Towers.
Knowledge about the power that information can create isn't 21st century wisdom. I like the biblical proverb that says, "Get the truth, and sell it not - wisdom, instruction and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23). The gospel of Matthew also says (7:6), "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." These days, information isn't even being bought and sold (yes it is , but), it's free, all thanks to the internet. Should there be univerally tighter controls over information and regulation of internet content? We regulate content availability in schools. However, regulation takes us back to modernity, doesn't it?
Slattery
On p18 of his article, Slattery points out that "postmodern educators are committed to a new concept of curriculum development that will complement the social and cultural milieu of [the postmodern] era of human history." Are we? We are all postmodern educators because we are all teaching in postmodern times. But do we believe that the curriculum we create complements the present social and cultural milieu? We need to really be in touch with the milieu before we can begin, so should we all own a cell phone or an iPod? I have neither, but have been considering a cell phone because it is cheaper than my OnStar subscription and car phone. Also, with the increasing use of podcasting to deliver programs that actually interest me, it might do me well to succumb to some kind of iPod technology. This is Baudrillard's object domination of the subject.
I am not saying Slattery is wrong about the commitment of postmodern educators, but agree with his implication suggesting that before a postmodern educator embodies a postmodern spirit. I also agree with him when on p20 he says that "postmodernism offers the best theoretical paradigm for exploring curriculum development." This implies eclecticism, an operative mode that makes good pedagogical sense.
A section of Slattery's paper that demonstrates a problematic with postmodernism is found on on p30. There, Slattery says that Pattie Lather and other feminist researchers would argue that David Griffin is an ultramodernist because he attempts to reconstruct a worldview that includes truth and God. What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Is there no room for God and an idea of absolute truth in a postmodern reality? Yes, postmodernism acknowledges many truths, but within those many is the possibility of one absolute. There is something common to all in the human condition, and that is the capacity to experience truth, even if it is personal. Perhaps this common experience could be considered an absolute truth if one founded upon a deity can not.
In class, I summed up Slattery's article with what at the bottom of p31 he quotes Henry Giroux as saying: "Giroux's inclusive political theory affirms the democratic, eclectic, and empowerment dimensions of postmodern thought." And, as it says a few lines above that quote, traversing "subject-area disciplinary boundaries" demonstrates a commitment to postmodern reform. Therefore, math can be taught with science, and ELA with social studies. Great news. Yet, has that not always been known?
Baudrillard
Drumroll please. "Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Yes, I quoted the wrong verse in class (I said 11:1, then 1:11), but at least my quote is in Ecclesiastes.
The simulacrum. I took for granted that everyone would have understood the word to mean simulation, an artificial reality, so I didn't define it. It may have been worthwhile to, however. Also, though I discussed it in my handout, I didn't address in the presentation the flip of the Borges map. I looked up Borges in my preparation for the presentation and read the fable, but made no mention of it. Regardless though of my significant omissions, I think I satisfactorily discussed Baudrillard's ideas of simulated reality.
The questions I had posed for reflection (see http://www.forrm.ca/edub7560/PresenterSheets.pdf) were intended to foster dialogue on the simulacra that exist within society and in particular education. Curriculum, though it is guided by "reality", can be seen as a pure simulacrum. Curriculum is the map which preceeds the territory: teachers teach and the world is shaped by the teaching, which in turn informs curricularists, who inform teachers, who again teach, and the cycle repeats itself. It is an endless trade in codes (values), models (identity) and signs (signifiers of values and identity), which Baudrillard says is the mark of pure simulacra. This implies that reality is just one big simulation that is conceived within peoples minds and enacted by their bodies. Shakespeare said "all the world's a stage, and we are all mere players on it" (maybe not a perfect quote, but it's off the cuff). The global village has become a Disneyland, and we are all actors in a world of our own creation, which scarcely resembles the natural... the real. This may be true, but the reality principle, that natural law which governs the cosmos and protects metaphysics, can never be overtaken by the world of simulation. The true reality principle is not connected to capital, as Baudrillard might have us believe, but to nature, the order of existence. And though the signs of a simulated bank robbery might be the same as those of one real, making them equivalent at a sign level, there is still a distinction between the two at the level of intention, which is of the real order of things and not simulation.
Intention, as we have discussed in class, is one of those things that in the classroom, gets flipped around. What my intentions are for a math lesson may actually have the reverse effect, depending on the variables at play. So, Baudrillard's reversal idea makes sense. Yet, when the map can't scribe out the reality, it is the map which changes to adjust to the reality. How many of us have had to create a lesson on the fly because the students directed it so? Reality principle to the rescue! Also, grades are the common currency of education, signs that open doors to scholarships and advancement. The problem with grades, as we all know, is that an 80% from Teacher A may be equivalent to a 90% from Teacher B. Where's the truth? Who would really deserve the scholarship? At one level, the signs are equivalent. Is standardized testing the only mechanism we have to build justice into the system? What about a homogeneous delivery where every teacher teaches the same lesson for the same amount of time, using the same assignments and assessment tools? Justice? Truth? Jusuth? Truice? ?!? Post-reality?
Last comment. My play on tautologies to deny Baudrillard's claim of the truth of the simulacrum didn't actually prove the simulacrum false, but just cast Baudrillard's claim into doubt. The laws of logic definitely state that a true statement can not imply a false one. However, the T --> ~T statement actually had nothing to do with the assertion that the simulacrum was true. The claim that the simulacrum was true was just a claim Baudrillard had made, without proof. The thing was, he lied. So, the sumulacrum is as much false as it is true, which makes it meaningless. Vanity of vanities!
Something we didn't talk about in all the celebration of Slattery and Baudrillard and postmodernism was if postmodernism is here to stay. Might it wither away like modernity? Might modernity return after a postmodern implosion? Who's to say? People could, after the exponential information dissemination of the late 20th century that continues now, define more aggressive social interests, possibly rendering highly polarized and internally aligned social castes. Ingested information (education) creates personal independence and, in the mind of the right individual, considerable power. Just think of the Watergate scandal. Baudrillard said it wasn't a scandal until Nixon's enemies got hold of the information and spun it to make it appear like a scandal. Also, consider the those who learned, in the US, how to fly the planes that brought down the Twin Towers.
Knowledge about the power that information can create isn't 21st century wisdom. I like the biblical proverb that says, "Get the truth, and sell it not - wisdom, instruction and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23). The gospel of Matthew also says (7:6), "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." These days, information isn't even being bought and sold (yes it is , but), it's free, all thanks to the internet. Should there be univerally tighter controls over information and regulation of internet content? We regulate content availability in schools. However, regulation takes us back to modernity, doesn't it?
Slattery
On p18 of his article, Slattery points out that "postmodern educators are committed to a new concept of curriculum development that will complement the social and cultural milieu of [the postmodern] era of human history." Are we? We are all postmodern educators because we are all teaching in postmodern times. But do we believe that the curriculum we create complements the present social and cultural milieu? We need to really be in touch with the milieu before we can begin, so should we all own a cell phone or an iPod? I have neither, but have been considering a cell phone because it is cheaper than my OnStar subscription and car phone. Also, with the increasing use of podcasting to deliver programs that actually interest me, it might do me well to succumb to some kind of iPod technology. This is Baudrillard's object domination of the subject.
I am not saying Slattery is wrong about the commitment of postmodern educators, but agree with his implication suggesting that before a postmodern educator embodies a postmodern spirit. I also agree with him when on p20 he says that "postmodernism offers the best theoretical paradigm for exploring curriculum development." This implies eclecticism, an operative mode that makes good pedagogical sense.
A section of Slattery's paper that demonstrates a problematic with postmodernism is found on on p30. There, Slattery says that Pattie Lather and other feminist researchers would argue that David Griffin is an ultramodernist because he attempts to reconstruct a worldview that includes truth and God. What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Is there no room for God and an idea of absolute truth in a postmodern reality? Yes, postmodernism acknowledges many truths, but within those many is the possibility of one absolute. There is something common to all in the human condition, and that is the capacity to experience truth, even if it is personal. Perhaps this common experience could be considered an absolute truth if one founded upon a deity can not.
In class, I summed up Slattery's article with what at the bottom of p31 he quotes Henry Giroux as saying: "Giroux's inclusive political theory affirms the democratic, eclectic, and empowerment dimensions of postmodern thought." And, as it says a few lines above that quote, traversing "subject-area disciplinary boundaries" demonstrates a commitment to postmodern reform. Therefore, math can be taught with science, and ELA with social studies. Great news. Yet, has that not always been known?
Baudrillard
Drumroll please. "Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Yes, I quoted the wrong verse in class (I said 11:1, then 1:11), but at least my quote is in Ecclesiastes.
The simulacrum. I took for granted that everyone would have understood the word to mean simulation, an artificial reality, so I didn't define it. It may have been worthwhile to, however. Also, though I discussed it in my handout, I didn't address in the presentation the flip of the Borges map. I looked up Borges in my preparation for the presentation and read the fable, but made no mention of it. Regardless though of my significant omissions, I think I satisfactorily discussed Baudrillard's ideas of simulated reality.
The questions I had posed for reflection (see http://www.forrm.ca/edub7560/PresenterSheets.pdf) were intended to foster dialogue on the simulacra that exist within society and in particular education. Curriculum, though it is guided by "reality", can be seen as a pure simulacrum. Curriculum is the map which preceeds the territory: teachers teach and the world is shaped by the teaching, which in turn informs curricularists, who inform teachers, who again teach, and the cycle repeats itself. It is an endless trade in codes (values), models (identity) and signs (signifiers of values and identity), which Baudrillard says is the mark of pure simulacra. This implies that reality is just one big simulation that is conceived within peoples minds and enacted by their bodies. Shakespeare said "all the world's a stage, and we are all mere players on it" (maybe not a perfect quote, but it's off the cuff). The global village has become a Disneyland, and we are all actors in a world of our own creation, which scarcely resembles the natural... the real. This may be true, but the reality principle, that natural law which governs the cosmos and protects metaphysics, can never be overtaken by the world of simulation. The true reality principle is not connected to capital, as Baudrillard might have us believe, but to nature, the order of existence. And though the signs of a simulated bank robbery might be the same as those of one real, making them equivalent at a sign level, there is still a distinction between the two at the level of intention, which is of the real order of things and not simulation.
Intention, as we have discussed in class, is one of those things that in the classroom, gets flipped around. What my intentions are for a math lesson may actually have the reverse effect, depending on the variables at play. So, Baudrillard's reversal idea makes sense. Yet, when the map can't scribe out the reality, it is the map which changes to adjust to the reality. How many of us have had to create a lesson on the fly because the students directed it so? Reality principle to the rescue! Also, grades are the common currency of education, signs that open doors to scholarships and advancement. The problem with grades, as we all know, is that an 80% from Teacher A may be equivalent to a 90% from Teacher B. Where's the truth? Who would really deserve the scholarship? At one level, the signs are equivalent. Is standardized testing the only mechanism we have to build justice into the system? What about a homogeneous delivery where every teacher teaches the same lesson for the same amount of time, using the same assignments and assessment tools? Justice? Truth? Jusuth? Truice? ?!? Post-reality?
Last comment. My play on tautologies to deny Baudrillard's claim of the truth of the simulacrum didn't actually prove the simulacrum false, but just cast Baudrillard's claim into doubt. The laws of logic definitely state that a true statement can not imply a false one. However, the T --> ~T statement actually had nothing to do with the assertion that the simulacrum was true. The claim that the simulacrum was true was just a claim Baudrillard had made, without proof. The thing was, he lied. So, the sumulacrum is as much false as it is true, which makes it meaningless. Vanity of vanities!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Class 7: February 25, 2008
I have really only one thing to say... wow! However, for the sake of my grade, I will continue. Vallance, Toepfer and Chambers, all on the same night, with a final course (dessert!) of the textbook review. The last activity tied together all the readings: aesthetically (as a work of art), the book was dead; there was a unifying center in the book - stupidity (92 bandaids, 14 fish in a bag, curriculum outcomes listed with the content); and, the book was devoid of Canadian content. What more could one ask of a proposed Canadian textbook? I must remember, we live in a postmodern, postnational society. Hence, I ask, "What is a nation understood to be today?" Might it be be membership with Facebook or Secondlife? What about a continous querying of the oracle Google, dispenser of all truth to the global village?
The Readings
Vallance's article was striking because of the critical theory it presented. By this I mean that looking at curriculum as a work of art involves a way of being critical of what is being observed; the concept of connoisseurship. What the article tells me is that as a teacher, I need to consider students as individuals, viewing the artifacts they produce - their works of art - as unique to them. It is here where I think about assessment and evaluation, and why I commented on it. How can we expect someone to produce works in paint, just becuase that is what the curriculum demands, when he/she is a gifted sculpt- or/ress? It is a problem when conforming to a mandated curriculum is outside the scope of one's natural talents. And such a problem is exacerbated by teachers who continue agree with the curriculum police about the necessity to put gasoline into the tank of a vehicle that is designed to run on diesel fuel. How's my technique, Dianne?
Toepfer's conclusion underscores the student as individual. To plan with the audience in mind is essential. Jaime's animal video clip was heart wrenching and speaks to the idea of a unique curriculum for everyone. Granted, the resources required to fund an education system that would allow the enactment of such a philosophy are great, so we do our best to, in words that Jason spoke to me one day, hit the middle of classes we teach.
Chambers' article is poignant for Canadian curricularlists, calling into question the concept of universality, a workable public education system and curriculum for everyone. Can one be constructed? Some may think so, but I think the concept of universality is akin to the bell curve: it will work for the 68% in the middle, but not so such for the extremes. It's worth noting that satisfying the middle 68% would do well for any politician, but to draw tax dollars from the full 100% to satsify the 68% is problematic - just look at the way the system works today.
I think a national education office in Canada, similar to the US department of Education, could do us good. It would homogenize the basics. It is arguable that this flies in the face of postmodern theory and multiple voicing, but regardless of who speaks, at a conceptual level, it's pretty tough to get more than one colour juice from a box of standard oranges. 1 is 1 is understood by everyone; symbols don't change conceptual meanings. There's a lot of curricula that's already pretty homogeneous across Canada - like math (the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol [WNCP] and Ontario are quite similar), which makes it esay to teach math in different provinces. This, however, isn't the greatest reason to have a national education office. Like Denis said in class, think of the moeny that could be saved if education were managed nationally. Make 13 offices into one. Why not? This could be a serious election issue; but, Quebec might balk.
The Readings
Vallance's article was striking because of the critical theory it presented. By this I mean that looking at curriculum as a work of art involves a way of being critical of what is being observed; the concept of connoisseurship. What the article tells me is that as a teacher, I need to consider students as individuals, viewing the artifacts they produce - their works of art - as unique to them. It is here where I think about assessment and evaluation, and why I commented on it. How can we expect someone to produce works in paint, just becuase that is what the curriculum demands, when he/she is a gifted sculpt- or/ress? It is a problem when conforming to a mandated curriculum is outside the scope of one's natural talents. And such a problem is exacerbated by teachers who continue agree with the curriculum police about the necessity to put gasoline into the tank of a vehicle that is designed to run on diesel fuel. How's my technique, Dianne?
Toepfer's conclusion underscores the student as individual. To plan with the audience in mind is essential. Jaime's animal video clip was heart wrenching and speaks to the idea of a unique curriculum for everyone. Granted, the resources required to fund an education system that would allow the enactment of such a philosophy are great, so we do our best to, in words that Jason spoke to me one day, hit the middle of classes we teach.
Chambers' article is poignant for Canadian curricularlists, calling into question the concept of universality, a workable public education system and curriculum for everyone. Can one be constructed? Some may think so, but I think the concept of universality is akin to the bell curve: it will work for the 68% in the middle, but not so such for the extremes. It's worth noting that satisfying the middle 68% would do well for any politician, but to draw tax dollars from the full 100% to satsify the 68% is problematic - just look at the way the system works today.
I think a national education office in Canada, similar to the US department of Education, could do us good. It would homogenize the basics. It is arguable that this flies in the face of postmodern theory and multiple voicing, but regardless of who speaks, at a conceptual level, it's pretty tough to get more than one colour juice from a box of standard oranges. 1 is 1 is understood by everyone; symbols don't change conceptual meanings. There's a lot of curricula that's already pretty homogeneous across Canada - like math (the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol [WNCP] and Ontario are quite similar), which makes it esay to teach math in different provinces. This, however, isn't the greatest reason to have a national education office. Like Denis said in class, think of the moeny that could be saved if education were managed nationally. Make 13 offices into one. Why not? This could be a serious election issue; but, Quebec might balk.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Class 6: February 11, 2008
Some fine discussion tonight, as usual. Of the two articles, Goodson resonated with me more, and that's because of the strong social agenda of a private school. As we discussed, and as was written in the article, private schools can be a rite of passage for a privileged class. That being said, I'll pull a quote from McNeil, "... in the hands of a good teacher, nearly any center can lead to powerful ideas." This, of course, referred to an instructional focus. But in another context, perhaps it can mean that great things can be possible with any student population, so long as there is an effective teacher at the helm. Teachers need to know what to act on, but as or more importantly, they need to know when and when not to act to promote student learning.
I wanted to let my Tylerian views be heard, especially after what I posted last week and because of the Goodson article. We all know that curriculum design is big picture stuff, and I think Tyler's four questions are fundamental. This is not to say other approaches to design aren't credible; in fact, they are necessary. The best approch to curriculum design is agruably an ecletic mix of different approaches - kind of a postmodern juxtaposition of techniques - to serve the needs of diverse student populations.
Denis' work, (Six Postmodernisms in Search of an Author, and Postmodern Educational Technology) presents ideas that need to be seriously considered when looking at the big picture. To get a handle on Denis' ideas, one needs to become a little like McLuhan and think right down to the bottom. "In the beginning..." there was Curriculum, and It was good! I have stated in class and here on the blog that curriculum is purposeful, and in a postmodern binary and simultaneous sense, this means that its purpose is intended and chosen; it is sent and received, and what is sent and what is received is measurable by Ellsworth's gap. Obviously, what is received is subject to the values of the receiver more than those of the sender. If the sender is broadcasting classical music but the receiver prefers to tune into rock, then the gap is big. If the sender broadcasts cartoons and the receiver can't get enough of them, then the gap will be non-existent. Having said that though, how did the interest in rock or cartoons come to be? In what environment were the preferences sown and/or grow?
If the classroom environment is the soil for the seeds to grow (coming back to my identification with the Kliebard gardener metaphor), then the environment - space, content and teacher - is the curriculum. This is made clear through Goodson, and reflects the old saying "children learn what they live." And, don't we all?
I wanted to let my Tylerian views be heard, especially after what I posted last week and because of the Goodson article. We all know that curriculum design is big picture stuff, and I think Tyler's four questions are fundamental. This is not to say other approaches to design aren't credible; in fact, they are necessary. The best approch to curriculum design is agruably an ecletic mix of different approaches - kind of a postmodern juxtaposition of techniques - to serve the needs of diverse student populations.
Denis' work, (Six Postmodernisms in Search of an Author, and Postmodern Educational Technology) presents ideas that need to be seriously considered when looking at the big picture. To get a handle on Denis' ideas, one needs to become a little like McLuhan and think right down to the bottom. "In the beginning..." there was Curriculum, and It was good! I have stated in class and here on the blog that curriculum is purposeful, and in a postmodern binary and simultaneous sense, this means that its purpose is intended and chosen; it is sent and received, and what is sent and what is received is measurable by Ellsworth's gap. Obviously, what is received is subject to the values of the receiver more than those of the sender. If the sender is broadcasting classical music but the receiver prefers to tune into rock, then the gap is big. If the sender broadcasts cartoons and the receiver can't get enough of them, then the gap will be non-existent. Having said that though, how did the interest in rock or cartoons come to be? In what environment were the preferences sown and/or grow?
If the classroom environment is the soil for the seeds to grow (coming back to my identification with the Kliebard gardener metaphor), then the environment - space, content and teacher - is the curriculum. This is made clear through Goodson, and reflects the old saying "children learn what they live." And, don't we all?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Class 5: February 4, 2008
Aoki
We briefly discussed the Critical Analysis model of curriculum evaluation Aoki presented in his paper, but I think we could have talked about it more. One of the reasons why is because the Technical-Rational model is a product of a political will that is derivative of a critical approach, a critical approach that looks at our society and its place within the world's politcal and economic system. We all know that there is more to designing a curriculum than just looking at whether or not little Johnny or Susie will have a good time and have their self-esteem preserved. Unfortunately, it seems that some in our noble profession really blow that trumpet hard, and, they are heard. Hearing them is the politcally correct thing to do, sometimes. But though it may be a nice thing to do, preserving self-esteem at all costs can ultimately hurt our country's economy. All we need is the house being run by a bunch of people who have been conferred with an artificially high self-esteem but can't write a logical sentence or compute 2 + 3 without a calculator. Maybe they could all buy an MBA. Standards? Who needs them! It's self-expression that's important, right? Imperialism might have a place after all, not necessarily from the colonization point-of-view, but the standards one. What might life be like without standards? Consider the label "CSA approved." Without the Canadian Standards Association, there could be a death every time someone plugs in a toaster. Quality control is important for products and services we use, so why not for education? Outcomes are an important part of a curriculum design, as they are for product testing. Would you use a product that failed a standards test for safety? When was the last time someone's flawed product design was ignored by the CSA because the designer's self-esteem was at stake? Yet, I've heard that teachers accept poor work from students all the time. It has come to the point where students entering university can't write a quality sentence, never mind an essay. If the critical approach to curriculum evaluation and design will work, those who employ it need to acknowledge that standards are critical to the well being of the "system."
McLuhan
Following my last class entry, I’ll attempt to answer the questions “What does curriculum retrieve?” and “What does curriculum reverse.”
There is a possibility that McLuhan’s laws don’t work well outside the context of electronic media (see the DVD Verdict review). What does curriculum retrieve, if anything? If curriculum has always existed in some form or another, then it really retrieves nothing, even if it is grounded in some purpose. What it reverses into, however, can be defined. Pushed to its limit, curriculum may revert into anarchy in the sense of everyone pursuing his/her own curriculum, just like it was before formal curricula were developed.
We briefly discussed the Critical Analysis model of curriculum evaluation Aoki presented in his paper, but I think we could have talked about it more. One of the reasons why is because the Technical-Rational model is a product of a political will that is derivative of a critical approach, a critical approach that looks at our society and its place within the world's politcal and economic system. We all know that there is more to designing a curriculum than just looking at whether or not little Johnny or Susie will have a good time and have their self-esteem preserved. Unfortunately, it seems that some in our noble profession really blow that trumpet hard, and, they are heard. Hearing them is the politcally correct thing to do, sometimes. But though it may be a nice thing to do, preserving self-esteem at all costs can ultimately hurt our country's economy. All we need is the house being run by a bunch of people who have been conferred with an artificially high self-esteem but can't write a logical sentence or compute 2 + 3 without a calculator. Maybe they could all buy an MBA. Standards? Who needs them! It's self-expression that's important, right? Imperialism might have a place after all, not necessarily from the colonization point-of-view, but the standards one. What might life be like without standards? Consider the label "CSA approved." Without the Canadian Standards Association, there could be a death every time someone plugs in a toaster. Quality control is important for products and services we use, so why not for education? Outcomes are an important part of a curriculum design, as they are for product testing. Would you use a product that failed a standards test for safety? When was the last time someone's flawed product design was ignored by the CSA because the designer's self-esteem was at stake? Yet, I've heard that teachers accept poor work from students all the time. It has come to the point where students entering university can't write a quality sentence, never mind an essay. If the critical approach to curriculum evaluation and design will work, those who employ it need to acknowledge that standards are critical to the well being of the "system."
McLuhan
Following my last class entry, I’ll attempt to answer the questions “What does curriculum retrieve?” and “What does curriculum reverse.”
There is a possibility that McLuhan’s laws don’t work well outside the context of electronic media (see the DVD Verdict review). What does curriculum retrieve, if anything? If curriculum has always existed in some form or another, then it really retrieves nothing, even if it is grounded in some purpose. What it reverses into, however, can be defined. Pushed to its limit, curriculum may revert into anarchy in the sense of everyone pursuing his/her own curriculum, just like it was before formal curricula were developed.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Class 4: January 28, 2008
Applebee & Ellesworth
The presentations given by Angela and Michelle created the kind of class discussion that makes one appreciate the unique background of the particpants and the fine insights that can emerge when the group's awareness of content is high.
It is interesting to consider my judgement of the class discussion in light of the ideas proposed by Applebee and Ellsworth. Abblebee referred to discussion and conversation as being different, one short-term, the other long-term. Hence, class-by-class we have a discussion, but the converation occurs over the duration of the course. Fine.
Early in his paper (p 52), Applebee quotes H.P. Grice, who said conversations (and for the purpose of the point being made, discussions) are guided by "a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction." Further, Applebee states Grice's Cooperative Principle: "if the conversation is to be effective, all participants must honour a tacit agreement to cooperate in carrying the conversation forward rather than to obstruct or interrupt it."
In our class, the tacit agreement exists – defacto. Yet, Grice’s Principle suggests that if the right conditions for dialogue are not met, then it can fail. Applebee went on to say that there needs to be the right mix of quality, quantity, and relatedness of material, and the appropriate manner of material modulation, if dialogue is to succeed. Fine again.
The right mix of the right factors sounds like a formula for productive education, and Ellsworth should agree. But, the mysterious unknown, the difference, as Ellesworth's paper defined it, between who the curriculum/teacher thinks a student is and who a student really is, may still be a barrier to learning for some dialoguers. Can the difference ever be zero? Not likely, not even in our class. The impossibility of completely closing Elleworth's mode-of-addresss gap is like a calculus limit: you can come very close to the value, but never actually get there. As Ellsworth said, with the help of Donald, there is just too much horror and other “stuff” in people's lives that get in the way of a "perfect" fit between them and a curriculum.
Is such an observation about "fit" a paradox? Maybe, maybe not. Ellsworth's defined difference space is nothing more than a part of the human condition. She makes mention of the fact that teachers are always addressing the difference space when they plan contingencies for those students who may "not get it." What she ignores in her address argument, though she does talk about many characteristics of an audience (p. 45), is a person's will. Are student's willing to work with the material presented? Are they willing to try or allow themselves to change? What do they value? What a person holds dear can indeed influence a will to act. Does an MTV type environment really need to be supplied before students will engage? Apparently not in our class.
It has often been said that attitude is what can make or break one's situation. Are people willing to work with curriculum material "as is?" If a teacher supplies an environment wherein Applebee's four characteristics are well represented, then it is up to a student to make the most of the situation. We choose to value the material presented in our class. But, we also possess attitudes that orient us that way. Perhaps the difference Ellesworth discussed is not an impossible reality, but a simple choice. "To be or not to be, that is the question", said Hamlet.
In any case, what Ellsworth said is interesting. What Applebee said is just common sense.
McLuhan
Continuing with McLuhan got me thinking about the Tetrad and where curriculum might fit. The answer, the following four questions:
What does curriculum enhance?
What does curriculum obsolesce?
What does curriculum retrieve?
What does curriculum reverse?
Is there an easy answer to all four of those questions? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Curriculum can be said to enhance social (societal) control, or freedom. That was, I think, an easy one. Obsolesce? Not so easy. There has always been a curriculum of one form or another. McLuhan, supporting his “medium is the ‘massage’” aphorism would agree, because in his book The Medium is the Massage, he said that our environment shapes us (p. 157). Hence, the environment becomes the curriculum. Environment itself is never obsolesced, but the way it looks always changes. Maybe the environment obsolesces curriculum, if curriculum doesn’t evolve parallel to the environment.
Retrieve and reverse? Next time.
McLuhan's book, The Medium is the Massage, is really about the effects of electronic technology on society. An interesting comment made in the book is about television. McLuhan said that TV really projects it's images onto the screen of humanity, that each of us as we watch TV becomes it's screen (p. 125). In the same way, students are the screen for us teachers and our curriculum. About the book's title, I always thought it was The Medium is the 'Message', not 'Massage.' McLuhan said that the medium massages us; in other words, works us over.
Over the weekend (Feb 1st), I had the opportunity to speak with a TV producer. I asked him if he ever studied Marshall McLuhan when he did his media studies at university. He said McLuhan was for media like the Bible is for churches. I told him that in our class we were looking at McLuhan and curriculum and that I was reading the book The Medium is the Massage. He said that in teaching, the teacher (medium) is the message. He asked me to think back to what I remembered about my days in school, to what I remembered more, the content or the teacher. Interestingly, for me, it is content, but I also remember every teacher I had, and about them, the way they came across. I have to say there is validity in the teacher being the message. Our power to influence is tremendous, but it is also a function of our clientelle. For some, we are the message, but for others, it may be more about the content.
The presentations given by Angela and Michelle created the kind of class discussion that makes one appreciate the unique background of the particpants and the fine insights that can emerge when the group's awareness of content is high.
It is interesting to consider my judgement of the class discussion in light of the ideas proposed by Applebee and Ellsworth. Abblebee referred to discussion and conversation as being different, one short-term, the other long-term. Hence, class-by-class we have a discussion, but the converation occurs over the duration of the course. Fine.
Early in his paper (p 52), Applebee quotes H.P. Grice, who said conversations (and for the purpose of the point being made, discussions) are guided by "a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction." Further, Applebee states Grice's Cooperative Principle: "if the conversation is to be effective, all participants must honour a tacit agreement to cooperate in carrying the conversation forward rather than to obstruct or interrupt it."
In our class, the tacit agreement exists – defacto. Yet, Grice’s Principle suggests that if the right conditions for dialogue are not met, then it can fail. Applebee went on to say that there needs to be the right mix of quality, quantity, and relatedness of material, and the appropriate manner of material modulation, if dialogue is to succeed. Fine again.
The right mix of the right factors sounds like a formula for productive education, and Ellsworth should agree. But, the mysterious unknown, the difference, as Ellesworth's paper defined it, between who the curriculum/teacher thinks a student is and who a student really is, may still be a barrier to learning for some dialoguers. Can the difference ever be zero? Not likely, not even in our class. The impossibility of completely closing Elleworth's mode-of-addresss gap is like a calculus limit: you can come very close to the value, but never actually get there. As Ellsworth said, with the help of Donald, there is just too much horror and other “stuff” in people's lives that get in the way of a "perfect" fit between them and a curriculum.
Is such an observation about "fit" a paradox? Maybe, maybe not. Ellsworth's defined difference space is nothing more than a part of the human condition. She makes mention of the fact that teachers are always addressing the difference space when they plan contingencies for those students who may "not get it." What she ignores in her address argument, though she does talk about many characteristics of an audience (p. 45), is a person's will. Are student's willing to work with the material presented? Are they willing to try or allow themselves to change? What do they value? What a person holds dear can indeed influence a will to act. Does an MTV type environment really need to be supplied before students will engage? Apparently not in our class.
It has often been said that attitude is what can make or break one's situation. Are people willing to work with curriculum material "as is?" If a teacher supplies an environment wherein Applebee's four characteristics are well represented, then it is up to a student to make the most of the situation. We choose to value the material presented in our class. But, we also possess attitudes that orient us that way. Perhaps the difference Ellesworth discussed is not an impossible reality, but a simple choice. "To be or not to be, that is the question", said Hamlet.
In any case, what Ellsworth said is interesting. What Applebee said is just common sense.
McLuhan
Continuing with McLuhan got me thinking about the Tetrad and where curriculum might fit. The answer, the following four questions:
What does curriculum enhance?
What does curriculum obsolesce?
What does curriculum retrieve?
What does curriculum reverse?
Is there an easy answer to all four of those questions? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Curriculum can be said to enhance social (societal) control, or freedom. That was, I think, an easy one. Obsolesce? Not so easy. There has always been a curriculum of one form or another. McLuhan, supporting his “medium is the ‘massage’” aphorism would agree, because in his book The Medium is the Massage, he said that our environment shapes us (p. 157). Hence, the environment becomes the curriculum. Environment itself is never obsolesced, but the way it looks always changes. Maybe the environment obsolesces curriculum, if curriculum doesn’t evolve parallel to the environment.
Retrieve and reverse? Next time.
McLuhan's book, The Medium is the Massage, is really about the effects of electronic technology on society. An interesting comment made in the book is about television. McLuhan said that TV really projects it's images onto the screen of humanity, that each of us as we watch TV becomes it's screen (p. 125). In the same way, students are the screen for us teachers and our curriculum. About the book's title, I always thought it was The Medium is the 'Message', not 'Massage.' McLuhan said that the medium massages us; in other words, works us over.
Over the weekend (Feb 1st), I had the opportunity to speak with a TV producer. I asked him if he ever studied Marshall McLuhan when he did his media studies at university. He said McLuhan was for media like the Bible is for churches. I told him that in our class we were looking at McLuhan and curriculum and that I was reading the book The Medium is the Massage. He said that in teaching, the teacher (medium) is the message. He asked me to think back to what I remembered about my days in school, to what I remembered more, the content or the teacher. Interestingly, for me, it is content, but I also remember every teacher I had, and about them, the way they came across. I have to say there is validity in the teacher being the message. Our power to influence is tremendous, but it is also a function of our clientelle. For some, we are the message, but for others, it may be more about the content.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Class 3: January 21, 2008
It was interesting to discuss different approaches to curriculum after discussing the Kliebard metaphors. The articles by Klein and Prideaux shared multiple curriculum design approaches, the details of some appearing in Olivia’s curriculum development model.
The way to construct a curriculum must be grounded in the purpose for it, a fundamental echoed by Tyler in the first of his four key questions about curriculum design. Purpose may be found, as Olivia’s model shows, in student and social needs. Given that, the question, “Whose need is more important, that of the student or that of society?” naturally arises. Olivia's flowchart suggests that such a question leads to a “philosophy of education, including beliefs about learning.” Did the approaches Klein discussed say in any way if the student or society is more important? Not really. The social reconstructionist or self-actualizationist may argue for the development of society through the humane development of the student, but the measurer may say that it is in the student’s best interest to be trained for the reality of the workforce. Maybe someone would say it should be the other way around and present an argument that would support the claim. Regardless, it’s the philosophy behind the model that signifies the degree of importance of either student or society in a model.
It is apparent that curricularists like the language of metaphor to couch their subject. Yet, regardless of how many metaphors there might be for curriculum, there are essentially only a few realities at work: social (societal) and personal development and well being, and occupational skill. Those categories are broad, but for what else does one need an education? What’s the purpose of acquiring specialized knowledge? Marshall McLuhan might ask the question, “What does education enhance?” and he may extend that question further to ask, “What does curriculum enhance?” The answers to those questions will be at the same time the individual and society. So, the purpose of curriculum comes back to Olivia and specified needs.
People who call themselves citizens of a society have an obligation to ask the question, “Who determines the needs of society and how are they determined?” Is curriculum really just political text, a reflection of the political will of the day? If this is so, then it will also be a reflection of the business interests of the day, since policy makers listen to those who control or influence economic entities. Does society have the collective will to make pubic domain curricula more humanistic, a perspective Paulo Freire espoused? Or is society so consumed with materialism and survival that it ignores a potentially better way to educate? Why is the production model the default? Are the real key players who perpetrate the myth of the production model the universities? It would hardly make sense since universities provide the rich environment for learning and growth. Some would disagree, perhaps saying that researchers care little for the welfare of the students who come to a university earnestly to better themselves so that they may provide a quality life and environment for themselves and maybe a family to grow. What might Marshall McLuhan say?
The McLuhan video was captivating; the idea that the things people create are extensions of themselves is interesting. However, since McLuhan was a catholic religious man, he must have considered what is written in the bible about God giving people the wisdom to accomplish their work. The Bible’s book of Isaiah talks about the wisdom given by God to people to accomplish the work of harvesting (Isaiah 28: 23-29). If, then, to be able to harvest, people made tools, does it mean that the tools were extensions of themselves or of God? Was it not God, through the gift of wisdom, who inspired people to create their tools? God worked through Jesus to bring about salvation. Was, then, Jesus a tool God created to deliver a message to humanity? What might McLuhan say? What might Thomas Aquinas have said?
McLuhan’s idea of people creating tools that in turn shape them is telling. An article in The New York Observer (http://www.observer.com/node/47336) talks about a corollary to the aphorism “the medium is the message”, the corollary being, “the user is the content.” We are, to some degree, shaped by the media which we consume. This need not be a bad thing, but it does support the idea that our tools can shape us.
Last bit. Might there ever be a unified-field theory of curriculum? (See http://www.observer.com/node/47336, unified-field theory of the arts.) To develop such a theory, one may, like McLuhan, go back and look at the primitive structures of society (Space Odyssey, Class 1). What kind of society do we want? Laissez-faire or communism? Why? What kind of system supports the common good? Could there ever be a Camelot of curriculum? What would a "just" curriculum look like?
The way to construct a curriculum must be grounded in the purpose for it, a fundamental echoed by Tyler in the first of his four key questions about curriculum design. Purpose may be found, as Olivia’s model shows, in student and social needs. Given that, the question, “Whose need is more important, that of the student or that of society?” naturally arises. Olivia's flowchart suggests that such a question leads to a “philosophy of education, including beliefs about learning.” Did the approaches Klein discussed say in any way if the student or society is more important? Not really. The social reconstructionist or self-actualizationist may argue for the development of society through the humane development of the student, but the measurer may say that it is in the student’s best interest to be trained for the reality of the workforce. Maybe someone would say it should be the other way around and present an argument that would support the claim. Regardless, it’s the philosophy behind the model that signifies the degree of importance of either student or society in a model.
It is apparent that curricularists like the language of metaphor to couch their subject. Yet, regardless of how many metaphors there might be for curriculum, there are essentially only a few realities at work: social (societal) and personal development and well being, and occupational skill. Those categories are broad, but for what else does one need an education? What’s the purpose of acquiring specialized knowledge? Marshall McLuhan might ask the question, “What does education enhance?” and he may extend that question further to ask, “What does curriculum enhance?” The answers to those questions will be at the same time the individual and society. So, the purpose of curriculum comes back to Olivia and specified needs.
People who call themselves citizens of a society have an obligation to ask the question, “Who determines the needs of society and how are they determined?” Is curriculum really just political text, a reflection of the political will of the day? If this is so, then it will also be a reflection of the business interests of the day, since policy makers listen to those who control or influence economic entities. Does society have the collective will to make pubic domain curricula more humanistic, a perspective Paulo Freire espoused? Or is society so consumed with materialism and survival that it ignores a potentially better way to educate? Why is the production model the default? Are the real key players who perpetrate the myth of the production model the universities? It would hardly make sense since universities provide the rich environment for learning and growth. Some would disagree, perhaps saying that researchers care little for the welfare of the students who come to a university earnestly to better themselves so that they may provide a quality life and environment for themselves and maybe a family to grow. What might Marshall McLuhan say?
The McLuhan video was captivating; the idea that the things people create are extensions of themselves is interesting. However, since McLuhan was a catholic religious man, he must have considered what is written in the bible about God giving people the wisdom to accomplish their work. The Bible’s book of Isaiah talks about the wisdom given by God to people to accomplish the work of harvesting (Isaiah 28: 23-29). If, then, to be able to harvest, people made tools, does it mean that the tools were extensions of themselves or of God? Was it not God, through the gift of wisdom, who inspired people to create their tools? God worked through Jesus to bring about salvation. Was, then, Jesus a tool God created to deliver a message to humanity? What might McLuhan say? What might Thomas Aquinas have said?
McLuhan’s idea of people creating tools that in turn shape them is telling. An article in The New York Observer (http://www.observer.com/node/47336) talks about a corollary to the aphorism “the medium is the message”, the corollary being, “the user is the content.” We are, to some degree, shaped by the media which we consume. This need not be a bad thing, but it does support the idea that our tools can shape us.
Last bit. Might there ever be a unified-field theory of curriculum? (See http://www.observer.com/node/47336, unified-field theory of the arts.) To develop such a theory, one may, like McLuhan, go back and look at the primitive structures of society (Space Odyssey, Class 1). What kind of society do we want? Laissez-faire or communism? Why? What kind of system supports the common good? Could there ever be a Camelot of curriculum? What would a "just" curriculum look like?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Class 2: January 14, 2008
"What is curriculum?" is a question whose answer can be simple or complex. Curriculum can be said to be "a program of study" developed to have those who follow it interact with its content, for better or worse, depending on the follower. It may also be defined as a person's "self-actualizing path", a walk of life that takes on an existential character, guided by one's personal sense of truth.
The curriculum design metaphors presented by Kliebard are contrasting, but all share a key thread. Students transform, develop or travel “under” the control, care or leadership of “someone in charge” of bringing them to some end. In each case the students are under the charge of someone knowledgeable about their future. The implication, then, is that curriculum is purposeful. However, given the differentiation in the metaphors, it is apparent that curriculum can reflect different philosophical stances of what end to achieve and how to achieve it.
To put the concept of curriculum into its proper perspective, it is necessary to consider the full range of dynamics existing within social systems. In other words, social evolution needs to be understood. It is fact that people have evolved many ways to distinguish and partition themselves: economic – occupational skill, accumulated wealth; political – power, authority, "who's who"; religious – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. Such social constructs, each with an inherent philosophical bias about reality, have come together to form the kind of social structure visible in postmodern society. But in all of it, if curriculum is purposeful, where does curriculum fit?
Society, regardless of whether it is referred to as a small local community or today's global village, inherently contains an educational system. This is not to say that an educational system needs to be a formal structure like the one that existed in the United States for Puritan religious indoctrination, or the ones that exists in North America today; no. Since becoming educated is a naturally occurring process of human development, an education system really is just the environment within which one or more people live. It is here where curriculum fits, because if the education one receives is not by chance, then it is purposeful, and if it is purposeful, it will be designed by one or more people.
A curriculum of studies may be developed and followed by the same person, or it may be developed by someone for someone else. In any case, following a curriculum implies that there is a goal to be reached, that there is a defined need to be met. Thus, a curriculum may look like a production plan, a gardener's manual, or traveler's map. The goal to be reached by whoever follows it may reflect to some degree the philosophical biases of the society.
The curriculum design metaphors presented by Kliebard are contrasting, but all share a key thread. Students transform, develop or travel “under” the control, care or leadership of “someone in charge” of bringing them to some end. In each case the students are under the charge of someone knowledgeable about their future. The implication, then, is that curriculum is purposeful. However, given the differentiation in the metaphors, it is apparent that curriculum can reflect different philosophical stances of what end to achieve and how to achieve it.
To put the concept of curriculum into its proper perspective, it is necessary to consider the full range of dynamics existing within social systems. In other words, social evolution needs to be understood. It is fact that people have evolved many ways to distinguish and partition themselves: economic – occupational skill, accumulated wealth; political – power, authority, "who's who"; religious – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. Such social constructs, each with an inherent philosophical bias about reality, have come together to form the kind of social structure visible in postmodern society. But in all of it, if curriculum is purposeful, where does curriculum fit?
Society, regardless of whether it is referred to as a small local community or today's global village, inherently contains an educational system. This is not to say that an educational system needs to be a formal structure like the one that existed in the United States for Puritan religious indoctrination, or the ones that exists in North America today; no. Since becoming educated is a naturally occurring process of human development, an education system really is just the environment within which one or more people live. It is here where curriculum fits, because if the education one receives is not by chance, then it is purposeful, and if it is purposeful, it will be designed by one or more people.
A curriculum of studies may be developed and followed by the same person, or it may be developed by someone for someone else. In any case, following a curriculum implies that there is a goal to be reached, that there is a defined need to be met. Thus, a curriculum may look like a production plan, a gardener's manual, or traveler's map. The goal to be reached by whoever follows it may reflect to some degree the philosophical biases of the society.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Class 1: January 7, 2008
Listening to a representative musical Christmas canon was an interesting way to begin the course. The activity addressed the idea of constancy versus change, and what should be taught to or learned by everyone.
The different views of Christmas represented in the canon may reflect a capitalist orientation by the musicians to cash-in on a good thing, or they could reflect personal perspectives about it. The big question regarding the representation is, "What is true?" If the songs heard are a part of a canon, they should reveal a truth about the essence of Christmas. What truth did the songs reveal? There were multiple truths revealed, each one representing the point-of-view its author. That being being said, however, there is only one reason for Christmas.
The idea of mulitple truths is about meaning... what an event like Christmas means to an individual, family (group) or a community. The common elements in all of the collected truths of individuals, families or communites would form the canon of meaning for all - the "truth." Related to the class discussion, the overarching narrative could be the canonized truth of all peoples, and the sub-narratives the meanings of the individuals, families and communities.
Such a perspective is linked to the meaning of text determined by its reader - reader response theory. If that is so, then the question, "Does constructivism lead to truth?" is worth answering. If scientific experimentation is a testimony to constructivist activity, then it can be said that constructivism does lead to truth.
It is interesting to think about how a baby communicates its needs and what it learns when its needs or wants are or are not realized. Going back to the very beginning, like the Space Odyssey movie clip at the end of class showed, is essential for an understanding of what is to be required and what may be considered optional in a program of study. To develop a curriculum whose content can be defended, the writers need to be able to see reality from every point on a circle whose center the world. There must be a perspective on reality considered from multiple domains: philosophy, the humanities, engineering, technology, medicine, science, art, business, music, agriculture, and education. In short, there needs to be consideration of the universe as humanity knows it. What is a worthwhile study? Why? There are many issues and perspectives to consider.
The different views of Christmas represented in the canon may reflect a capitalist orientation by the musicians to cash-in on a good thing, or they could reflect personal perspectives about it. The big question regarding the representation is, "What is true?" If the songs heard are a part of a canon, they should reveal a truth about the essence of Christmas. What truth did the songs reveal? There were multiple truths revealed, each one representing the point-of-view its author. That being being said, however, there is only one reason for Christmas.
The idea of mulitple truths is about meaning... what an event like Christmas means to an individual, family (group) or a community. The common elements in all of the collected truths of individuals, families or communites would form the canon of meaning for all - the "truth." Related to the class discussion, the overarching narrative could be the canonized truth of all peoples, and the sub-narratives the meanings of the individuals, families and communities.
Such a perspective is linked to the meaning of text determined by its reader - reader response theory. If that is so, then the question, "Does constructivism lead to truth?" is worth answering. If scientific experimentation is a testimony to constructivist activity, then it can be said that constructivism does lead to truth.
It is interesting to think about how a baby communicates its needs and what it learns when its needs or wants are or are not realized. Going back to the very beginning, like the Space Odyssey movie clip at the end of class showed, is essential for an understanding of what is to be required and what may be considered optional in a program of study. To develop a curriculum whose content can be defended, the writers need to be able to see reality from every point on a circle whose center the world. There must be a perspective on reality considered from multiple domains: philosophy, the humanities, engineering, technology, medicine, science, art, business, music, agriculture, and education. In short, there needs to be consideration of the universe as humanity knows it. What is a worthwhile study? Why? There are many issues and perspectives to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)