Category: edci532 (page 1 of 1)

Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash

My earlier post, Fanning the Flame, presented the metaphor of a campfire to describe the learning process. The wood of the campfire is the curriculum. It is required for the fire, but on its own emits little energy. The flames represent the learning that occurs when the interaction between student and curriculum begins. The wind and the oxygen that it carries are like the influence of the teacher on the learning and the learner. I conclude my post by stating that the curriculum is only the starting point that should be used to spark interest, curiosity and wonder. Now, if I look back to my metaphor of a fire, it is challenging for me to limit curriculum to the wood. It is more like the collective of the wood, fire, air and my updated metaphor also includes details of how the campfire is situated, perceived and experienced in its environment.

My understanding of curriculum still rests on the foundation of a traditional definition of “curriculum”, one that is deeply rooted in political purpose(s). For me, curriculum has always been the document presented by the government of BC, which serves as a type of contract outlining the job requirements for educators. The ‘old’ curriculum was presented in 1989 and drew from the Sullivan Commission (a 1988 document titled “A Legacy for Learners: Report of the Royal Commission on Education”, organizing prescribed learning outcomes in integrated resource packages). The new curriculum rolled out in 2016 and focuses on personalized learning using a concept-based competency-driven framework, including ‘Big Ideas’, ‘Curricular Competency Learning Standards’ and ‘Content Learning Standards’. Two valuable resources I found are 5 Key Changes in BC’s New K-12 Curriculum: What are the Implications for Post Secondary? which outlines the changes of the new curriculum and Curriculum Timeline: BC’s “new” curriculum which reviews curriculum changes in BC over the past 90 years. I found the latter document particularly interesting when I remembered that Tyler’s rationale was introduced in 1949, and yet clear objectives were evident in curriculum from the 30’s.

Two questions were posed early in our study of curriculum in EDCI 532: “Is curriculum an object, an intention, or an action?” and “should curriculum be about self, society, diversity, sustainability, or something else?” Questions such as these started to challenge my thinking of curriculum as document, which restricts the curriculum to what is taught. I have to admit I experienced a certain level of frustration as dismissing this understanding appeared to serve no purpose. The BC Curriculum will not change its language to conform to my philosophical meanderings. And besides, teachers already understand and acknowledge the limitations of the word when we discuss the hidden curriculum or the omitted curriculum. I particularly appreciated Lawrence Weston’s statement: “What kids take away is their own personal curriculum,” and then there is Dave Cournier’s statement: “Community is Curriculum.” Cournier states his goal for each student is

to be able to become a member of a community of knowing in the subject. Can you pass? Can you engage? Do you know how to ask questions? Do you speak the language? Can you help? We learn to become members in a community of knowing by practicing and learning together. When the community is the curriculum. (March 1, 2018)

I was relieved to learn of Ted Aoki’s perspective on curriculum and how he recognizes the tension between the lived curriculum and the planned curriculum. Fuchs (2019) summarizes Aoki nicely here:

he (Aoki) teaches us not to be drawn to either of those curriculum worlds in their extreme. Rather, by dwelling between the two curriculum worlds, educators will be able to provide the best support for their students.

Educators understand that how curriculum is put into practice is everything, and most will acknowledge that curriculum is experienced differently by every student. And so, I am challenged to defend my original metaphor restricting curriculum to the wood of the campfire. Rather, now I am considering how the campfire is situated in its environment. What is impacting it and how is it impacting the environment? Ultimately, it is the experienced and observant educator that can read the learner and the learning environment and weave the curriculum into an enjoyable and enriching experience.

I could be intentional about accepting the more traditional definition of curriculum as content, or I could choose to rest in the ambiguity of Aoki, who suggests that we live in between a lived and planned curriculum. Unfortunately, I find both of these options unsettling as neither is universally accepted. Is it the planned curriculum or the lived curriculum? Curriculum as community or the personal curriculum? The intended curriculum, the hidden curriculum, or the omitted curriculum?  Or is it the curriculum as presented in the provincial document?

After learning about Marshall McLuhans-tetrad (1), I wanted to write that I believe the word ‘curriculum’ has become obsolete. Without further elaboration, the word has lost its meaning. However, such a conclusion might be the easy way out. The discussion around and about curriculum is what is most important. It is this process of exploring and questioning where meaning is made and where learning occurs. If I think too long, it still makes me a little uncomfortable accepting that there is not a universal definition of curriculum, but then I remember that learning is an experience and not a destination. This is the curriculum I will bring with me to the classroom.

References

Aoki, T. (1986). Teaching as Indwelling Between Two Curriculum Worlds. The B.C. Teacher, 65 (3), April/May.

Cournier, D. (2018, March 1) Supporting Digital Practice – Making time-for-learning. [Blog post] Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/

Fuchs, T. (2019)Dwelling between curriculum-as-planned and curriculum-as-lived in science class Canadian Teacher. Retrieved from https://canadianteachermagazine.com/2019/01/19/dwelling-between-curriculum-as-planned-and-curriculum-as-lived-in-science-class/

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.

The saying “Seeing the Forest Through the Trees” means to be overwhelmed by detail to the point where it obscures the overall situation –wiktionary

Photo by SteveMcc2 

Seeing the forest through the trees in public education seems to be a constant struggle, perhaps even an ongoing theme for my teaching career. With respect to the Old BC Curriculum, it was challenging to get beyond checking off the Learning Outcomes in order to provide a personalized learning experience that is relevant and responsive to each individual student. With the New BC Curriculum personalized learning has taken center stage with the Core Competencies, however achieving this expectation is restricted by our Western-European Education System and its foundational bureaucracy. In fact, I often feel that personalize learning is an act of resistance against the institution, even though it is a goal of BC’s curriculum.

It seems we have gotten lost in education somewhere between 2 opposing philosophies introduced in the early 20th century. Franklin Bobbitt emphasized “what” should be taught as he believed that an industrialized education system would prepare students for the workforce, whereas John Dewey and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were primarily concerned with the individual learner and the “how”. Rousseau and Dewey’s perspective were summarized nicely by Kieran Egan:

the belief that children are naturally good, and will naturally incline to the good if not prevented by social and institutional constraints, leads one to believe that educational methods which allow the freedom to attain this goodness will by definition be beneficial. (2003 p. 13)

The social and institutional constraints on educators are formidable, but if we are used to them they may go unquestioned. How can we teach indigenous content within the political construct of an industrialized education system? How can we effectively educate the student that works until 11pm on weeknights when their class starts at 8:30 am? How can we invite community experts to provide place-based learning opportunities when there is so much red tape around leaving the school building, and how can we involve students in global conversations when our technology use is significantly restricted by school districts? Whether learning restrictions come in the form of bell schedules, attendance practices, policy, the architecture of the building or even the hiring practices of educators we have significant hurdles to overcome in order to provide the student centered learning experiences that foster personal and social development mandated by the BC Curriculum.

An example of an educational experience that can provide valuable learning experiences are fieldtrips. I teach Environmental Science 11 and aim to take my students out of the classroom on field trips at least once a week. This may involve learning in our indigenous garden or in our more traditional school vegetable garden, walking down to nearby Colquitz Creek to check water samples for oxygen saturation, pollution, and salmon populations, or pulling invasive species at a local Garry Oak ecosystem. This past year we also had opportunities (that unfortunately did not actualize due to Covid-19) to explore Goldstream Provincial Park, monitor the effects of local development at Hospital creek,  help preserve the beach from erosion at Portage Inlet in collaboration with Peninsula Streams, and visit the Pacific Forestry Centre.

The Greater Victoria School Districts’ Policy 3545.2 states that

The Board of Education recognizes the educational value of a wide variety and diversity of learning experiences for students, through field trips.

The Board directs that activities, undertaken by school personnel, are purposeful,
planned, organized, and conducted safely.

Further incentives to take students on field trips are presented in a blog post by Claiborne, Morrell, Bandy and Bruff (2020), which states that the intended educational outcomes of field trips focus on the following five areas (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014; Larsen et al., 2017; Tal & Morag, 2009):

1. Developing social and personal skills
2. Developing observation and perception skills
3. Adding relevance and meaning to learning
4. Providing first-hand real-world experiences
5. Enhancing intrinsic motivation and interest in the subject

However, in order to go on a field trip teachers mush abide by field trip regulations and navigate up to 12 forms, including (but not limited to) driver authorization, field trip request forms, checklists, parental authority, permission, consent, and code of conduct.

In a blog post titled “Why don’t teachers take kids on field trips anymore” the author lists 19 different required forms or items necessary to complete and bring on a field trip to a museum and concludes that more teachers don’t take their students on field trips because it is too much to organize. Melissa Kelly begins her blog post with a question “Are field trips worth all the time and effort required to make them successful? ” (2019). Some of the reasons why Kelly believes field trips may not be worth it include the paperwork, field trip costs, getting and preparing coverage if the teacher will be away from other classes, time, and preparing work for students who (for one reason or another) cannot attend. BBC News education reporter Katherine Sellgren states that “The Association for Science Education (ASE) says too much attention to risk assessment means science field trips are in long-term continuing decline.” (2011) While all of these obstacles appear necessary within the construct of our public education system, would they exist if the system was intended to provide such opportunities? If the system was designed for it? We are trying to fit learning outcomes into a system that was not built with those learning outcomes in mind.

Teachers often wear the burden of ‘not doing enough’ and ‘not providing the authentic learning experiences that we all know are beneficial for students, but such experiences are not conducive to the institution within which we teach.

Field trips are but one example of navigating the bureaucracy of public education. The school building and how classes are organized further restrict opportunities for learning, and technology presents its own hurdles, with each school district endorsing its own Learning Management Systems while strictly forbidding others (For further teacher considerations surrounding technology, see my blog post titled “Digital Citizenship during Covid“).  I regularly wrestle with myself when deciding to include field trips in the curriculum, try new technologies with my students, or plan opportunities for learning that do not happen within our 80 minutes of class-time. I usually return to the fact that the learning experiences, sense of community, and memories that are created are worth the challenges and time investment. That being said, streamlining the process and reducing the red tape are just the beginning of dismantling a system that, in my opinion, restricts opportunities for authentic student-centered learning experiences.

It might be challenging to imaging what the perfect future school might look like, however there are a few innovative schools and educators from which we can learn from such as Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry(PSII), High Tech High in San Diego, Trevor MacKenzie and the approach to education he presents in his book Dive into Inquiry, and our own graduate supervisor, Dr. Valerie Irvine, and her “voice and choice” philosophy. Rather than trying to see the forest through the trees, I think I’ll keep my eyes on front-runners such as these so I don’t get lost.

(To read more on the aforementioned innovative schools and educators, please see my post titled Inquiry, PSII, and Environmental Science – July 2019)

References

Egan, K. (2003). What is Curriculum? JCACS, 1(1), 9-16.

Bobbitt, F. (1918). The Curriculum. School Review, 26(10, 790-791.

What is Curriculum?

“photo (2)” by BookFool.com is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

I am very clear in my understanding of Curriculum: Curriculum = Content.

I think.

A quick look at some definitions of curriculum planted some seeds of doubt in my mind:

Curriculum: the courses offered by an educational institution. –Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program. … An individual teacher’s curriculum, for example, would be the specific learning standards, lessons, assignments, and materials used to organize and teach a particular course. –edglossary.org

There are three basic types of curriculum design—subject-centered, learner-centered, and problem-centered design. Subject-centered curriculum design revolves around a particular subject matter or discipline, such as mathematics, literature or biology. –tophat.com blog

“Sparks” by Kimli is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

References

Williamson, B. (June 28, 2017). What’s the Best Wood to Burn in a Campfire? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ssfirepits.com/whats-the-best-wood-to-burn-in-a-campfire/