Chapter 5: Educational Connoisseurship and Educational Criticism
- Eisner proposes that we improve education through an artistic paradigm. We need to become education connoisseurs and critics.
- Teachers and others engaged in education need to improve their ability to see and think about what they do
- Education connoisseurship means that you become aware of education’s characteristics and qualities. Eisner compares this to being a wine connoisseur.
- Education criticism describes what is going on in the educational setting
- Education criticism is more than describing behaviour
- Aim for thick description rather than thin description. A thin description is “the eyelid closed at a rate of two closures per second” A thick description would describe the closure as a wink to someone of the opposite sex. In your description you are trying to pick up the story, the significance and the meaning.
- You should aim to use language artfully and fluidly, but more important than language is to be able to get at the history and values beneath the practices.
- When observing someone’s practice, the education critic needs to be able to say what values are present, and which values have been rejected
How should you/ can you study a classroom?
1) Even though the classroom is ever changing, watch for enduring qualities. Visit the classroom persistently.
2) Capture the classroom, and hold episodes of classroom life for critical examination. To do this, you should videotape classrooms
3) We need to explore how fine art criticisms could be applied to classroom settings
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
September 29th Class: FRAME FACTORS
September 29th Class
Summary (201-215)
This section analyzes the impact of frame factors on the curriculum. Analyzing frame factors helps us to understand what resources are available to help us implement curricular change, and what barriers exist to prevent implementation.
- Some people believe that when they modify frame factors that they are modifying the curriculum
- However, moving a wall, ordering a new textbook; these things may facilitate curriculum change, but they are not curriculum modifications
- You have to alter the interactions between teachers, students and subject matter to evoke curriculum change
- Frame factors can act as facilitators or barriers to curriculum change
- Some frame factors are:
o Temporal- time, scheduling
o Physical- the physical environment, building, equipment
o Political- state and federal mandates
o Organizational- administrative factors
o Personal- backgrounds abilities, interests of students
o Economic- cost and benefits
o Cultural- values and beliefs of the school and community
-
How Frame Factors work in Different Contexts
Traditional
- Focus on a single-subject matter
- Teacher-centered instruction
- Textbooks and worksheets emphasized
- Regular assessments with written tests
- Emphasis on grades
- The strength of this approach is content coverage and management
- It also provides for a system of accountability as the assessment methods also provide the teacher with more control
- Not compatible with early elementary grades
Experiential
- Crosses subject-matter lines
- Relies more on the community as a resource than on textbooks
- Requires student-centered classrooms emphasizing small group, cooperative rather than whole-group competitive work
- Depends on a teacher who acts more as a facilitator
- Evaluation is directed at competence in real-world tasks
- Drawback- content coverage is significantly reduced
- State-mandated test scores could be compromised
Structure of the Disciplines Approach
- Confined to a single discipline within a single subject
- Focuses on a small set of themes
- Requires extensive use of primary source material
- Utilizes written tests that require problem solving
- Requires a teacher who models inquiry int he discipline rather than acts as a source of information
- Drawbacks: time pressures, does not fit well in the elementary classroom, content reduction, requires more professional development to train teachers, classroom management can be problematic
Behavioural
- Discrete performance objectives aligned with evaluation methods
- Ample opportunities to practice explicitly taught skills
- Criterion-referenced evaluation methods
- Reward system for successful performance and appropriate behaviour
- Relies on the philosophy that all children can succeed and that IQ is not an innate quality.
- Strengths: mastery of skills, classroom management
Constructivist
- Treat topics in great depth
- Teach skills and concepts only in the context of students’ background experience
- Rely on intrinsic motivation
- Prefer clinical interviews and observations to standardized tests
- Classroom management problems- teacher is vulnerable to students who do not find the work intrinsically rewarding
- Adds more ambiguity to the classroom
- Students respond by negotiating with the teacher to lower the risk, which may reduce critical thinking
- May lead to slower paced instruction
The Meaning-Oriented Curriculum
- Sacrifice breadth for increased depth
- This becomes problematic because of the accountability pressures from the community and politicians
- Increased management demands because it is not teacher centered
- In order for more radical initiatives to take place in our schools- then we need to engage in frame factor analysis and identify school reform measures
- Some things that were identifies were: time factors, environmental factors, poor working conditions, lack of respect for the craft of teaching.
Frame Factors: A Multicultural View
- Students from different social, economic and cultural backgrounds learn best when teachers use strategies compatible with their backgrounds
- Relationships with teachers determine how students will learn
- Hale (1982) black students are accustomed to frequent personal interaction at home learn best when there is a consistent interaction between teacher and student
- Women learn best in an environment of acceptance and encouragement (Belenky)
- Class has a factor- parents who are more affluent and familiar with the system are more apt to advocate for their children than less affluent families
- Physical arrangements of schools can impact learning; making the learning environment more like “home” will help to facilitate learning
Technology and Frame Factors
- Online and distance learning can erase time frame factors
- Technology can help to replace parent expertise for those who do not have “expert” parents
Making Some Personal Reflections
I was a little disturbed by this reading. I was bothered by the quote, “To try and implement an experiential, structure-of-the-disciplines or constructivist curriculum while coping with the temporal, organizational and personal facts that frame the task of teaching is likely to result in disappointment or even disaster” I completely disagree.
As a teacher, my most successful lessons are those based on constructivist or experiential approaches. Classroom management is stated as a huge problem in these models throughout this reading, but I do not follow this belief. I have more trouble with classroom management when I am using a traditional structure. When students are not responsible, and inactive and passive, this is when behavioural problems come to the surface. In contrast, when I use learning style surveys, and find out what students know in advance of the lesson, and plan accordingly- things are always more exciting, engaging and smooth.
Again, I did enjoy the commentary on multicultural perspectives. These ideas are aligned nicely with the constructivist framework. If we provide students with conditions and experiences that they are already familiar with and build from there, it makes sense that we will meet with successful outcomes.
In addition, it is true that technology can help to erase many frame-factor barriers. I had the opportunity to work as an e-learning teacher last year, and taught many at-risk students. Having the time to think about responses and post to discussion boards led to greater participation and engagement in many circumstances. Likewise, I am much more "participative" myself on a blog/discussion board setting than I am in class.
Questions:
1. What changes have you wanted to make, but have been restricted by frame factors?
2. The author states that the traditional approach does not work in elementary classrooms, but does not explain why this is the case. What are your thoughts?
3. Why is there ambiguity issues in the constructivist model? The lessons are based on the student's background knowledge and skills; would this not pave the way for less ambiguity?
Summary (201-215)
This section analyzes the impact of frame factors on the curriculum. Analyzing frame factors helps us to understand what resources are available to help us implement curricular change, and what barriers exist to prevent implementation.
- Some people believe that when they modify frame factors that they are modifying the curriculum
- However, moving a wall, ordering a new textbook; these things may facilitate curriculum change, but they are not curriculum modifications
- You have to alter the interactions between teachers, students and subject matter to evoke curriculum change
- Frame factors can act as facilitators or barriers to curriculum change
- Some frame factors are:
o Temporal- time, scheduling
o Physical- the physical environment, building, equipment
o Political- state and federal mandates
o Organizational- administrative factors
o Personal- backgrounds abilities, interests of students
o Economic- cost and benefits
o Cultural- values and beliefs of the school and community
-
How Frame Factors work in Different Contexts
Traditional
- Focus on a single-subject matter
- Teacher-centered instruction
- Textbooks and worksheets emphasized
- Regular assessments with written tests
- Emphasis on grades
- The strength of this approach is content coverage and management
- It also provides for a system of accountability as the assessment methods also provide the teacher with more control
- Not compatible with early elementary grades
Experiential
- Crosses subject-matter lines
- Relies more on the community as a resource than on textbooks
- Requires student-centered classrooms emphasizing small group, cooperative rather than whole-group competitive work
- Depends on a teacher who acts more as a facilitator
- Evaluation is directed at competence in real-world tasks
- Drawback- content coverage is significantly reduced
- State-mandated test scores could be compromised
Structure of the Disciplines Approach
- Confined to a single discipline within a single subject
- Focuses on a small set of themes
- Requires extensive use of primary source material
- Utilizes written tests that require problem solving
- Requires a teacher who models inquiry int he discipline rather than acts as a source of information
- Drawbacks: time pressures, does not fit well in the elementary classroom, content reduction, requires more professional development to train teachers, classroom management can be problematic
Behavioural
- Discrete performance objectives aligned with evaluation methods
- Ample opportunities to practice explicitly taught skills
- Criterion-referenced evaluation methods
- Reward system for successful performance and appropriate behaviour
- Relies on the philosophy that all children can succeed and that IQ is not an innate quality.
- Strengths: mastery of skills, classroom management
Constructivist
- Treat topics in great depth
- Teach skills and concepts only in the context of students’ background experience
- Rely on intrinsic motivation
- Prefer clinical interviews and observations to standardized tests
- Classroom management problems- teacher is vulnerable to students who do not find the work intrinsically rewarding
- Adds more ambiguity to the classroom
- Students respond by negotiating with the teacher to lower the risk, which may reduce critical thinking
- May lead to slower paced instruction
The Meaning-Oriented Curriculum
- Sacrifice breadth for increased depth
- This becomes problematic because of the accountability pressures from the community and politicians
- Increased management demands because it is not teacher centered
- In order for more radical initiatives to take place in our schools- then we need to engage in frame factor analysis and identify school reform measures
- Some things that were identifies were: time factors, environmental factors, poor working conditions, lack of respect for the craft of teaching.
Frame Factors: A Multicultural View
- Students from different social, economic and cultural backgrounds learn best when teachers use strategies compatible with their backgrounds
- Relationships with teachers determine how students will learn
- Hale (1982) black students are accustomed to frequent personal interaction at home learn best when there is a consistent interaction between teacher and student
- Women learn best in an environment of acceptance and encouragement (Belenky)
- Class has a factor- parents who are more affluent and familiar with the system are more apt to advocate for their children than less affluent families
- Physical arrangements of schools can impact learning; making the learning environment more like “home” will help to facilitate learning
Technology and Frame Factors
- Online and distance learning can erase time frame factors
- Technology can help to replace parent expertise for those who do not have “expert” parents
Making Some Personal Reflections
I was a little disturbed by this reading. I was bothered by the quote, “To try and implement an experiential, structure-of-the-disciplines or constructivist curriculum while coping with the temporal, organizational and personal facts that frame the task of teaching is likely to result in disappointment or even disaster” I completely disagree.
As a teacher, my most successful lessons are those based on constructivist or experiential approaches. Classroom management is stated as a huge problem in these models throughout this reading, but I do not follow this belief. I have more trouble with classroom management when I am using a traditional structure. When students are not responsible, and inactive and passive, this is when behavioural problems come to the surface. In contrast, when I use learning style surveys, and find out what students know in advance of the lesson, and plan accordingly- things are always more exciting, engaging and smooth.
Again, I did enjoy the commentary on multicultural perspectives. These ideas are aligned nicely with the constructivist framework. If we provide students with conditions and experiences that they are already familiar with and build from there, it makes sense that we will meet with successful outcomes.
In addition, it is true that technology can help to erase many frame-factor barriers. I had the opportunity to work as an e-learning teacher last year, and taught many at-risk students. Having the time to think about responses and post to discussion boards led to greater participation and engagement in many circumstances. Likewise, I am much more "participative" myself on a blog/discussion board setting than I am in class.
Questions:
1. What changes have you wanted to make, but have been restricted by frame factors?
2. The author states that the traditional approach does not work in elementary classrooms, but does not explain why this is the case. What are your thoughts?
3. Why is there ambiguity issues in the constructivist model? The lessons are based on the student's background knowledge and skills; would this not pave the way for less ambiguity?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Curriculum Content - Week 2 (Pages 82-91)
Summary
Curriculum Content
When it comes to curriculum content, psychologists have typically focussed on the type of objective rather than on the "stuff" that teachers teach. Bloom, Hastings and Madaus (1971) changed this by showing how to examine behaviour and content dimensions of learning synonymously.
In Bloom, Hasting and Madaus's model the curriculum analyst identifies a type of objective according to a classification scheme. Then, the analyst consults a content specialist. Then these dimensions are pulled together in a behaviour/content matrix.
On pages 84-87 of our reader, there is a chart showing an example of a content/behaviour matrix. If you look at the charts you can see that the x axis represents content goals and the y axis represents desired behaviour. The numbers entered at each intersection in the matrix represent how much emphasis should be placed on each content/behaviour strand. This model shows us one way that curriculum content can be created and organized.
Content from a Pedagogical View
1) Knowledge can be organized in a variety of ways. So, curriculum really represents a deliberate conception of the subject-matter. For example, your definition of biology will distinguish your biology curriculum from someone else's curriculum in biology.
2) Content also includes the form of representation of the ideas. How you represent ideas directly impacts what content is taught and how well it is taught. So, a math teacher who sees numbers as discrete entities will have a different curriculum than one who sees numbers as a continuing natural phenemonen.
Content from a Multicultural View
Historical Approaches:
1) Assimilation- This is the earliest model. Aboriginal students were expected to adopt European traditions
2) Class model- Immigrant children were placed in vocational/agricultural tracks and affluent children were placed in academic spheres.
3) Traditional Model- This model is heavily promoted by E.D Hirsch. Hirsch believes that we should ignore diversity in the curriculum. He thinks American culture is already too fragmented as it stands. He does not believe in presenting diverse literature and advocates for children to read Shakespeare and the Constitution. He wrote in 1987.
4) Diversity Education- Many educators in the 1990s began to see the value in introducing diverse cultural traditions into their classrooms. For example, a "culture" day or a novel study on Aboriginal literature may place a role in these classes.
5) Restructuring the Cultural Curriculum- James Banks argues that "school curricula and staff must reflect the country's ethnic diversity, that minority students must be allowed to look at how they have been victimized, and that multiethnic educations are for every student" He believes in complete restructuring and integration. For example, resources, assessments and cafeteria menus would all reflect cultural diversity.
6) Social Reconstructionist View- This view is posited by Friere, Fiore, Elsasser. They explore ways to make deep-seeded changes in individuals. They want curricula to force individuals to think critically about socio-economic conditions and issues. For example, students may be asked how to attract businesses to poorer areas, or identify personally oppressive situations and "be the change"
Discussion Topics
Curriculum Content Question
1. The matrixes in our book were created by Purves (1971) They contain numerical values to identify how much emphasis should be placed on each objective. Currently, our system is moving away from placing more weight on some expectations than on others. Is this movement a good thing, or is Purves' model more effective? Should course expectations be weighted?
Pedagogical View Question
2. The Pedagogical view section of our reading explains how curriculum will differ depending on the views and concept definitions that are held by the teacher. Knowing that this is true, is it problematic for the government to expect us to teach a "common curriculum"?
Multicultural Questions
3. Which model do you feel most connected to, and why?
4. James Banks is critiqued in the reading for not being able to put theory into practice. Are his ideas achievable? What barriers exist?
5. Friere, Fiore and Elsasser present interesting suggestions for curricular projects. How could programs like these work in our schools?
Personal Commentary
After I moved beyond studying the matrices in my reading, I enjoyed the reading a great deal especially the multicultural content. I was thinking a lot about Friere, Fiore and Elsasser's ideas and connected this with the movie Freedom Writers. These students identify their oppressive environments through reflective journalling. Inspired by the movie, I began a journalling project with students at my school last year. It was so beautiful to watch students make realizations about their lives, and come up with strategies for success on their own. I think Friere, Fiore and Elsasser have identified an important growth opportunity for students. I am always thinking about ways that I can apply their philosophies further in my classroom.
Curriculum Content
When it comes to curriculum content, psychologists have typically focussed on the type of objective rather than on the "stuff" that teachers teach. Bloom, Hastings and Madaus (1971) changed this by showing how to examine behaviour and content dimensions of learning synonymously.
In Bloom, Hasting and Madaus's model the curriculum analyst identifies a type of objective according to a classification scheme. Then, the analyst consults a content specialist. Then these dimensions are pulled together in a behaviour/content matrix.
On pages 84-87 of our reader, there is a chart showing an example of a content/behaviour matrix. If you look at the charts you can see that the x axis represents content goals and the y axis represents desired behaviour. The numbers entered at each intersection in the matrix represent how much emphasis should be placed on each content/behaviour strand. This model shows us one way that curriculum content can be created and organized.
Content from a Pedagogical View
1) Knowledge can be organized in a variety of ways. So, curriculum really represents a deliberate conception of the subject-matter. For example, your definition of biology will distinguish your biology curriculum from someone else's curriculum in biology.
2) Content also includes the form of representation of the ideas. How you represent ideas directly impacts what content is taught and how well it is taught. So, a math teacher who sees numbers as discrete entities will have a different curriculum than one who sees numbers as a continuing natural phenemonen.
Content from a Multicultural View
Historical Approaches:
1) Assimilation- This is the earliest model. Aboriginal students were expected to adopt European traditions
2) Class model- Immigrant children were placed in vocational/agricultural tracks and affluent children were placed in academic spheres.
3) Traditional Model- This model is heavily promoted by E.D Hirsch. Hirsch believes that we should ignore diversity in the curriculum. He thinks American culture is already too fragmented as it stands. He does not believe in presenting diverse literature and advocates for children to read Shakespeare and the Constitution. He wrote in 1987.
4) Diversity Education- Many educators in the 1990s began to see the value in introducing diverse cultural traditions into their classrooms. For example, a "culture" day or a novel study on Aboriginal literature may place a role in these classes.
5) Restructuring the Cultural Curriculum- James Banks argues that "school curricula and staff must reflect the country's ethnic diversity, that minority students must be allowed to look at how they have been victimized, and that multiethnic educations are for every student" He believes in complete restructuring and integration. For example, resources, assessments and cafeteria menus would all reflect cultural diversity.
6) Social Reconstructionist View- This view is posited by Friere, Fiore, Elsasser. They explore ways to make deep-seeded changes in individuals. They want curricula to force individuals to think critically about socio-economic conditions and issues. For example, students may be asked how to attract businesses to poorer areas, or identify personally oppressive situations and "be the change"
Discussion Topics
Curriculum Content Question
1. The matrixes in our book were created by Purves (1971) They contain numerical values to identify how much emphasis should be placed on each objective. Currently, our system is moving away from placing more weight on some expectations than on others. Is this movement a good thing, or is Purves' model more effective? Should course expectations be weighted?
Pedagogical View Question
2. The Pedagogical view section of our reading explains how curriculum will differ depending on the views and concept definitions that are held by the teacher. Knowing that this is true, is it problematic for the government to expect us to teach a "common curriculum"?
Multicultural Questions
3. Which model do you feel most connected to, and why?
4. James Banks is critiqued in the reading for not being able to put theory into practice. Are his ideas achievable? What barriers exist?
5. Friere, Fiore and Elsasser present interesting suggestions for curricular projects. How could programs like these work in our schools?
Personal Commentary
After I moved beyond studying the matrices in my reading, I enjoyed the reading a great deal especially the multicultural content. I was thinking a lot about Friere, Fiore and Elsasser's ideas and connected this with the movie Freedom Writers. These students identify their oppressive environments through reflective journalling. Inspired by the movie, I began a journalling project with students at my school last year. It was so beautiful to watch students make realizations about their lives, and come up with strategies for success on their own. I think Friere, Fiore and Elsasser have identified an important growth opportunity for students. I am always thinking about ways that I can apply their philosophies further in my classroom.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Analyzing the Curriculum (Pages 12-23)
Summary
5 Concurrent Curricula
i) Official Curriculum- Includes guides, standards, lists of objectives (like our ministry curriculum documents). Its purpose is two-fold. Teachers can plan and evaluate learning using this document as a guideline, while administrators can use these documents to hold teachers accountable.
ii) Operational Curriculum- Comprised of the “taught” curriculum and the “tested” curriculum. Teachers select the “essential” content to focus on. Students influence this process and can bargain way content with teachers. The author warns that this often leads to devaluing the curriculum as teachers will tell students what to memorize for a test.
iii) Hidden Curriculum- Contains messages about such things as race, gender, class and authority roles.
iv) Null Curriculum- What is not taught, and what is ignored
v) Extra Curriculum- Planned experiences outside of school subjects. Example- lessons about character education
A Curriculum Framework: The Tyler Rationale
4 Questions to Consider When Planning Curriculum
i) What educational purpose should the school wish to attain?
-> Study learners and society, and consult with SMEs to determine plan
-> Align research with school philosophy to determine objectives
ii) Determine what experiences will promote these objectives
iii) How can we organize these experiences?
a. SEQUENCING
b. INTEGRATION
iv) How can we be sure that we met our objectives?
a. What evaluative methods will be used to ensure our system is working?
The Technical Production Framework
- The most dominant curriculum framework- heavily researched-based, and high reliance on “experts”
- Curriculum decision makers have technical expertise in method and content
- An attempt is made to make curriculum value-free
- The purpose for curriculum is based on studies of learning
Author’s Views
- The author’s propose an expanded analysis model
- When we analyze the curriculum we should also look at political and ideological perspectives to tease out hidden agendas in our curriculum
- We need to move beyond the technical approach as no approach can be completely value-free.
- Pages 20-22 provide questions to help us effectively analyze the curriculum
- The author cautions us not to take a curriculum developer’s admissions about his/her underlying assumptions at face value; the author argues that many developers are unaware of their values.
Commentary
Theory to Practice
As a student and teacher, I have witnessed many examples of the hidden and null curriculum. One notable example occurred while I was teaching Civics as a new teacher. The textbook contained examples of political scandals, and only showcased Conservative scandals. The text was published after the notorious Liberal party HRDC scandal, so it seemed ridiculous to omit this recent, and highly relevant faux pas.
My Critique of the Reading
I saw this reading as a general introduction to curriculum theory and analysis. However, I took issue with some aspects of the article. The author outlined the importance of unravelling a doctrine’s hidden agenda. I took his advice in my analysis of his work.
When Posner describes the operational curriculum, he only addresses the ways in which the curriculum can be watered down by teachers and rendered incongruent with deep learning. Yet, as teachers we are always encouraged to make our operational curriculum or essential content as relevant and as rich as possible. I would argue that teachers make decisions about essential content based on students’ individual learning needs more often than they water content down to “bargain” with students.
Questions for the Class Discussion
1) In your experience, do teachers water down the curriculum to bargain with students?
2) If not technical experts, then who should be responsible for curriculum development?
3) Is the technicist approach truly the dominant approach in curriculum development?
Summary
5 Concurrent Curricula
i) Official Curriculum- Includes guides, standards, lists of objectives (like our ministry curriculum documents). Its purpose is two-fold. Teachers can plan and evaluate learning using this document as a guideline, while administrators can use these documents to hold teachers accountable.
ii) Operational Curriculum- Comprised of the “taught” curriculum and the “tested” curriculum. Teachers select the “essential” content to focus on. Students influence this process and can bargain way content with teachers. The author warns that this often leads to devaluing the curriculum as teachers will tell students what to memorize for a test.
iii) Hidden Curriculum- Contains messages about such things as race, gender, class and authority roles.
iv) Null Curriculum- What is not taught, and what is ignored
v) Extra Curriculum- Planned experiences outside of school subjects. Example- lessons about character education
A Curriculum Framework: The Tyler Rationale
4 Questions to Consider When Planning Curriculum
i) What educational purpose should the school wish to attain?
-> Study learners and society, and consult with SMEs to determine plan
-> Align research with school philosophy to determine objectives
ii) Determine what experiences will promote these objectives
iii) How can we organize these experiences?
a. SEQUENCING
b. INTEGRATION
iv) How can we be sure that we met our objectives?
a. What evaluative methods will be used to ensure our system is working?
The Technical Production Framework
- The most dominant curriculum framework- heavily researched-based, and high reliance on “experts”
- Curriculum decision makers have technical expertise in method and content
- An attempt is made to make curriculum value-free
- The purpose for curriculum is based on studies of learning
Author’s Views
- The author’s propose an expanded analysis model
- When we analyze the curriculum we should also look at political and ideological perspectives to tease out hidden agendas in our curriculum
- We need to move beyond the technical approach as no approach can be completely value-free.
- Pages 20-22 provide questions to help us effectively analyze the curriculum
- The author cautions us not to take a curriculum developer’s admissions about his/her underlying assumptions at face value; the author argues that many developers are unaware of their values.
Commentary
Theory to Practice
As a student and teacher, I have witnessed many examples of the hidden and null curriculum. One notable example occurred while I was teaching Civics as a new teacher. The textbook contained examples of political scandals, and only showcased Conservative scandals. The text was published after the notorious Liberal party HRDC scandal, so it seemed ridiculous to omit this recent, and highly relevant faux pas.
My Critique of the Reading
I saw this reading as a general introduction to curriculum theory and analysis. However, I took issue with some aspects of the article. The author outlined the importance of unravelling a doctrine’s hidden agenda. I took his advice in my analysis of his work.
When Posner describes the operational curriculum, he only addresses the ways in which the curriculum can be watered down by teachers and rendered incongruent with deep learning. Yet, as teachers we are always encouraged to make our operational curriculum or essential content as relevant and as rich as possible. I would argue that teachers make decisions about essential content based on students’ individual learning needs more often than they water content down to “bargain” with students.
Questions for the Class Discussion
1) In your experience, do teachers water down the curriculum to bargain with students?
2) If not technical experts, then who should be responsible for curriculum development?
3) Is the technicist approach truly the dominant approach in curriculum development?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)