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.
Monday, February 25, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)