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).
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)