Written in 2009, Nahachewsky and Slomp’s chapter titled “Sound and Fury” seems to predict the unveiling of the New BC Curriculum. The authors, and the research from which they draw from, are begging for an official transition from the daunting and countless PLO’s in the IRP’s of the old curriculum to the ‘new’ student-centered, conceptual and core competencies-based characteristics of the new curriculum. But it leads me to ask “Is there room for both?”: a combination of old-school thinking and the new-school thinking? Surely both possess strengths and weaknesses. For those of us that were teaching for a significant time during the old curriculum, they are likely both influencing our daily teaching experiences.
What characteristics of the new learner necessitate the change in curriculum? Nahachewsky suggests that “young people’s own fluid, de-territorialized and meaning making afforded by the consumption and, perhaps more importantly, the production of digital texts” (pg. 139) He goes on to identify that “Digital texts, as created by young people become the sites of action and agency” (pg 139). Yes, young people have more opportunities for action and agency in the digital age…but I am struggling to determine exactly how curriculum and teachers can support these skills, and should we attempt to direct those efforts towards a particular outcome. (Oh, oh. “Powers in procedure” and Tyler’s Rational are revealing their influence on me).
I can also see Tyler’s Rationale throughout the process of creating the WNCP ELA framework. In fact, Nahachewsky highlights this fact by listing the purposes of the framework, as described by the framework itself.
Enter stage left: Bruner. ” Bruner believes that much of education has lost this sense of wonder and exploration by merely transmitting culture and knowledge…” (Bruner, 1986 p.123). THESE characteristics (wonder and exploration) are the foundation of my teaching practice. It was not the new curriculum that brought those characteristics to life for me. It makes me wonder if the new curriculum will inspire these attributes in others, or if such traits come from within. Are a deep love for learning and strong sense of wonder innate within us? Hmm. The two examples included in Nahachewsky’s study reveal student-centered qualitites, a love (certainly an appreciation) for learning, and both teachers really seemed to encourage exploration even thought the studies were conducted prior to 1997 (2 decades prior to the new curriculum). So, how much influence does curriculum really have? Was the new curriculum late for the party? Had similar changes and ideologies already infiltrated pedagogy? The answer is yes. Strong educators are responding to the needs of students before research reveals the need, and certainly before curriculum documents are created.
I am left to ponder whether the construct of our current education system could be dismantled and rebuilt based on some of the valued skills in today’s digital world. What if a tech specialist, a learning design specialist, a curriculum specialist, an assessment specialist, a communication specialist and a public relations specialist were all part of the team that supported the teacher. I quickly dismiss this. These tasks all enable me to expression who I am and my intentions to related positively to my students. If I had a huge team behind me and my job was to perhaps answer questions online, or be in the front of the classroom offering help and support, or conducting labs in the classroom, I believe it would result in an enormous loss. By pouring myself into the details of educating I can allow room for the fluid and dynamic nature of the process. Being vulnerable and putting myself out there, failures and all, invites students into the relational aspect of the classroom, one that is a requirement for community, trust and growth. To have a team of experts behind me would distance me from process and restrict me and my students by removing our sense of ownership over our learning environment.
At the conclusion of the reading, the only thought I had was one of homesickness for my classroom. Education and learning is relational and responsive, and that is so much more challenging to do online.
References
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nahachewsky, J. & Slomp, D. (2009). Sound and Fury: Studied response(s) of curriculum and classroom in digital times.
