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).