Thursday, February 10, 2011

Cycle 2: What should the content of curriculum be?


I’d first like to say that I have really enjoyed that our reading has been a mix of philosophical / scholarly work coupled with at least one article that brings the guiding questions back into the reality in which many of us work.  The Donovan article during Cycle One and the Quest to Learn article this week have really allowed me to consider my own teaching experiences and how they relate to each topic.

As we’ve just begun to consider what curriculum is, it is undoubtedly important to think and consider what the content of curriculum should be.  What should we be teaching our students? Should we determine specific skills at each grade level? Should these skills be standardized, locally, statewide, or nationally? How should we go about teaching the curriculum? I think these are already questions that good educators think about, but reading this week’s articles encouraged me to look at the content of curriculum in a new light.

It seems like we read about two different extremes in curriculum and education overall. E.D. Hirsch’s ideas concern me in many ways. Although I think there are basic skills, ideas, and concepts that students should know, I am not sure that books like What Your ____ Needs to Know can articulate all of those things in effective ways. Does every child, regardless of their cultural background or community need to learn the same things? I looked into E.D. Hirsch more after reading the chapter from his book and quickly found that he seems to be a strong proponent of initiatives to create common core standards based on his development of The Core Knowledge Foundation .  While I think that initiatives like this have good intentions, I worry that they promote a “one-size fits all” mentality when it comes to education. That being said, I do applaud Hirsch for stating that he felt like, although there should be common goals, there should be differences in the ways in which we meet those goals.

With that idea in mind, it seemed to me that based on the NY Times article, Quest to Learn is on the opposite end of the spectrum. The curriculum that the school uses seems to be based on methods that indulge the interests of the students regardless of whether that is the most effective and/or appropriate way of educating students. Hirsch’s ideas concern me because I am not sure that anyone or any group of people could determine what every child in America needs to know and whether all knowledge is relevant to every community throughout the country. However, the concept of a school like Quest to Learn concerns me because I believe that as much as we want our students to enjoy school and love learning, there are times when they will be accountable for tasks and assignments that are not based on games or things they like to do.

Everyone has a favorite subject and frequently a least favorite subject. Unfortunately, you often have do things you don’t enjoy, in order to be able to continue to do the things you do enjoy. School athletics is a perfect example. There are plenty of high school students that love sports over math, science, social studies, English, etc. but those students can’t just say, I think I’ll go to my football practice but not to my chemistry class. Those students must show some degree of proficiency in their academics in order to play extracurricular sports. Is Quest to Learn really teaching their students how to navigate these challenges or are they instead showing their students how to avoid these challenges?

As I said before, as an educator, I want my students to love school, love learning, and be engaged in their learning. However, I recognize that there will be times in their lives when they might not get to select the type of project they will complete, and I want them to be adequately prepared in such situations. As I read the NY Times article, I questioned, Is writing a video review of your classmates game design the best opportunity to teach children how to write? I think schools like Quest to Learn are so focused on engaging students in activities that they enjoy that students are not learning about how to be successful in environments that don’t cater to their every whim.

I am certainly not saying that I am completely opposed to using game based play in order to engage my students in learning goals. I just question if there is a better, more appropriate form of technology integration that could meet the same goals in a more effective and appropriate way than video games?

For me, John Dewey, seems to encourage finding a balance between the two aforementioned extremes. I think Dewey wants children to learn in a way that allows them to relate their knowledge to the real world and I agree with Dewey: children must have content presented in ways that allow them to relate to the topic. As a first grade teacher, I find incredible joy in those moments when my students say things like, “Mrs. Robertson, this book reminds me of a time when I was playing out in the snow just like Peter is playing in the snow during The Snowy Day. When I was playing in the snow I made a snow angel. Maybe Peter will make a snow angel too!Those moments show me that my students are seeing the parallels between what they are learning and their world outside of the classroom. In reading, these parallels allow them to make predictions, connections, inferences, and so much more.

The bottom-line is that Dewey, Hirsch and Quest to Learn all have pros and cons. How can we ensure that students are mastering basic skills, while still letting them be active members in their learning all the while having fun? As educators, I think we must find a balance between engaging our students in their learning of the content while at the same time preparing them for the world. I am not sure that Dewey, Hirsch, or the faculty at Quest to Learn would agree, but my ultimate goal as an educator is to prepare my students not only for the next grade, but for the world in which we all live. I personally think this is done in environments where students are actively involved in their learning, learning about things that interest them, and sometimes learning how to successfully cope with learning content that may not be a easy or enjoyable for them.

3 comments:

  1. Hi Karla,

    Although I teach 7th grade science and don't have any experience teaching elementary students, especially 1st graders (gasp), I can relate to and agree with nearly everything you wrote in this post. To begin, I am also hesitant to comply with a 'one size fits all' curriculum, given the fact that we clearly don't live in that kind of world. Furthermore, I believe that movement leaves our students with muted participation, motivation, and exposure to what they might be inclined to learn, not to mention, what they might be naturally gifted in.

    You're absolutely correct in stating that "as much as we want our students to enjoy school and love learning, there are times when they will be accountable for tasks and assignments that are not based on games or things they like to do." The Quest to Learn school does, indeed, provide us with a model to take pieces from. But that should be the extent of it. Even if we did agree with their entire philosophy, I have rarely seen schools that have the means to host the kinds of specialists and technology needed to pull off that variety of curriculum.


    Do you think we can take the best points from each extreme? Can we guide the students to explore specific material they want to within a broader subject area that's defined by state standards? For instance, if we're studying Acids and Bases and a student really wants to investigate the chemistry of Tums Antacids, can we let him/her, even if it's not in the textbook or the curriculum map? Perhaps a personal learning environment is a good solution and mixture of the two ideas??


    I'm also very intrigued by your link to PBL. I'm taking another class through MSU right now that requires us to engage in this type of learning in teams. It's been very effective. I feel like I'm in control of what I'm learning, but there's also a definite scope and sequence that's provided by the instructor. Seems like a great mix so far.


    Thanks for the post. I'll definitely be back to read more!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Karla, this line made me choose your post to comment upon: "I think schools like Quest to Learn are so focused on engaging students in activities that they enjoy that students are not learning about how to be successful in environments that don’t cater to their every whim."

    It occurs to me that those of us most comfortable with technology, are most hesitant about its applications and use in the classroom. Why is this? Perhaps because we intuitively feel like we're jumping on this train of catering to students every whims. This might be the danger you wrote about regarding Quest to Learn, "The curriculum that the school uses seems to be based on methods that indulge the interests of the students."

    This might be the danger in straying too far from Hirsch: instead of recognizing what has worked, and what has been good historically, we might"indulge" the interests of our students, whether those interests are curious, profound, or petty.

    I like how you wrote that Dewey strikes a middle ground, between catering to student's interests, and providing interesting, appropriate, "psychologized" material. Did you find his use of that word interesting like I did?

    Kaleb, I like your question about possibly allowing a student to investigate the pH of something not in your plan or curriculum. As a science teacher myself, I feel like I get these types of questions constantly. And it isn't a nuisance; it's probably the best part of being a teacher in my content area. On the other hand, I worry about my accountability to the standard course of study I've been assigned to teach. I often start to say, "hold that thought, let's talk about..." but then catch myself. No, what a student says/thinks/feels is more important, I think to myself. Is it?

    Karla, I think I need to be like Dewey, and forge a "psychologized" middle ground, whereby we recognize and are accountable to our curricular standards, but to view them through the lens of Dewey. One of Dewey's lines of writing that had a deep effect on me was near the end of "The Child and Curriculum", where he wrote that the curriculum should stand as a representation of what students are capable of. I like that definition, because it allows us as educators breathing room to individualize and personalize instruction, but still with a guidepost.

    Anyways, I liked the clarity of your writing. Thank you for an insightful post. And Kaleb, thanks for a good comment to lead the way.

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Karla,

    I enjoyed your post as well as the buzz it generated.

    A couple of things you wrote are real challenges to me, so I will think outloud with them. First, I wonder why we as educators (we all do this) say things like "one size fits all won't work" and then we start to criticize schools that are doing something that looks a little too outside the box. I suppose it's because we all get real nervous at the idea of experimenting with children's lives. Geesh, what if these kids at Quest to Learn leave school not knowing the basics, lazy, and expecting everything to be easy.

    That would be bad. Though I have to say many kids currently leave the system totally turned off from learning. So I guess I have to cautiously say: Let's give places like Quest to Learn our cautious, temporary support to try out new things with students who are eager to try them out. (My chair gets mad at me when I take this stance, but I also think: who am I to say this won't work? Do I really have all the answers?)

    I have mixed feelings about saying people will have to do things they won't enjoy in the future, so let's teach them that now. This is the same logic that made the principal at Donovan's school keep switching his paraprofessional aid. That made me so sad. It's true I don't "like" to take out the garbage, but I do like having a clean environment, a clean home, functioning city services. If any of those things were taken away from me, I would very much "miss" taking out the garbage. So maybe we need to teach children not that life is sometimes unpleasant, but that all the world is interconnected, and that very small things support the dignity of all. And if those small things don't support the dignity of all, maybe they are not worth doing.

    Your writing has really challenged me to think. Thanks!

    Kyle

    ReplyDelete