Education\u2019s Curious Fascination With Uniformity<\/strong><\/a>, reader James Foss left a useful comment that had within it an interesting concept\u2013the \u201cpurpose of knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cIs it the standards that dictate curriculum or assessment practices that dictate pedagogy?<\/p>\n
It is possible the current standardized model might be a new and improved model over the disparate standards educators have historically developed in their respective communities, at least, as it concerns rigor and the ability to compare each school\u2019s progress (from a certain orientation). However, it is important to underscore Mr. Heick\u2019s point that uniform standards don\u2019t get at the degree of localization that vibrant communities are inclined to favor.<\/p>\n
The flavor of \u2018local\u2019 found in our curriculum can be enhanced through the composition of the ideas that shape our communities, the personal educational values of teachers and administrators who make curriculum, and through dialogue of how pedagogy can be developed through questioning the nature, sources, and purposes of knowledge.<\/strong><\/p>\nLately, the bullhorn of curriculum reform is being dominated by the big kids on the playground. Mr. Wiggins\u2019 comment on the lack of imagination might be reframed into a question of who controls reform. There is evidence that individuals, including teachers and school administration, can exercise great imagination when empowered.\u201d<\/p>\n
Well said.<\/p>\n
An idea worth tattooing on foreheads or spray painting on the walls of our school hallways is the need for defining\u2013first and foremost\u2013the purpose of education. What are we trying to do, and why? Without having a clear goal, there is never progress, only movement. Progress is relative, as in it moves towards something. We can\u2019t know \u201chow we\u2019re doing\u201d until we know where we\u2019re going, and what we\u2019re losing by not already being there.<\/p>\n
And mere curriculum\u2013and mastery of said curriculum\u2013isn\u2019t an answer.<\/p>\n
Curriculum As A Construct<\/strong><\/p>\nLet\u2019s agree that a curriculum is that which is to be studied\u2013a set of planned learning experiences to promote mastery of knowledge and skills.<\/p>\n
That knowledge and those skills are carefully delineated into academic standards. In that way, the standards are like the ingredients; the curriculum\u00a0prepared using those ingredients is the product of the packaging of those ingredients (in the form of units, lessons, and activities).<\/p>\n
(This is also useful in helping see how students think of standards\u2013no one wants to eat ingredients; students don\u2019t want to eat flour and salt and baking chocolate, but they will eat brownies.)<\/p>\n
Curriculum is an institutional construct\u2013something conjured by people. We have learned for millennia without curriculum; it\u2019s not necessary to learn, but it is necessary once the learning becomes systematic\u2013once it moves from a personal act to a planned product.<\/p>\n
That doesn\u2019t make curriculum\u00a0bad.\u00a0<\/em>The goal of curriculum is to provide a kind of gathering point for everything else. It provides a mutual language to understand and communicate knowledge, and functions as a kind of shared understanding. This is what we\u2019re all here for,<\/em> in the same way a crowd at a concert all share the music\u2013and the expectation for the music\u2013in common.<\/p>\nCurriculum As A Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\nSo curriculum, then, is a learning strategy\u2013it\u2019s a tool used to promote learning.\u00a0And as a learning strategy (and, frankly, a relic of pedagogy), has a lot going on that, when misunderstood, make it woefully inefficient.<\/p>\n
The parts in any given \u2018curriculum\u2019 vary from topics to ways of thinking about those topics to skills. The standards seek to take something intangible (e.g., literacy) and make it tangible (standards). So then, if curriculum is content to be studied and learned (which is then distributed by teaching and learning strategies, the success of which is then measured by assessment), that gives us a purpose. A function.<\/p>\n
And from a perspective of function, it\u2019s the primal cause of schooling. Curriculum packages content and its intended output is knowledge.<\/p>\n
The Leap From Curriculum To Knowledge<\/strong><\/p>\nBut what about that knowledge? Is knowledge a certainty if the curriculum is mastered?\u00a0And what is the purpose of knowledge? What should we do with it? A<\/p>\n
And not some vague we<\/em>, but this<\/em> 9-year-old boy and that<\/em> 14-year-old girl and that<\/em> small group of high school seniors in that rural district? What should they\u00a0<\/em>do?<\/p>\nThe curriculum decides for us what knowledge<\/em>, but doesn\u2019t answer why knowledge. <\/em>This kind of talk is usually reserved for epistemology and philosophy, but that\u2019s the problem. These are forehead-slappingly obvious concerns that we leap right over in a self-righteous, we know what\u2019s best<\/em> for everyone kind of way. This is a matter of concern for every educator, school, and district.<\/p>\nWhat do we do with what we know?<\/p>\n
These are matters of both practice and fundamental human expression\u2013curriculum, and the needs of those that study it.<\/p>\n
Making the leap from curriculum to knowledge, then, may be a matter of design\u2013seeking a curriculum that doesn\u2019t seek to produce students with knowledge, but rather those that reject it until it\u2019s packaged in a way that fits in their pockets, and on their phones, and in their own crackling imagination.<\/p>\n
Until they know where it\u2019s coming from, and where it might take them.<\/p>\n
Curriculum That Questions The Purpose Of Knowledge; adapted image attribution flickr user tulanepublicrelations<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n[ad_2]
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"[ad_1] by Terry Heick In our recent post, Education\u2019s Curious Fascination With Uniformity, reader James Foss left a useful comment that had within it an<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":348056,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[173],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348055"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=348055"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348055\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/348056"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=348055"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=348055"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=348055"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"create](\"https:\/\/www.teachthought.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Create-A-curriculum.jpg\")