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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
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)