My "ism"

So about time to tackle what my "ism" would look like. I purposefully waited until after my paper as I was still searching for what it would look like. I think my "ism" [represented by the bold lettering] would look like the following:

Description:

• If you asked me at the beginning of my masters I would have said a 75% realism and 25% neo-thomism. However as this course has progressed my "ism" has shifted to pragmatism. Why? Through my own experiences through Action Research and what I have learned about myself due to this course I have greatly seen a change in me as I need to learn through experiential learning. This has revolutionized the way I thought about myself and how I learned, and I seek to capture that energy within the classroom by allowing students to experience. I realize that I need to develop yet. So as of right now here is what my "ism" would l be described as:
• 50% Pragmatism/25% Realism/25% Neo-Thomism

Key Theorists:

• Dewey has been the most influential on me as this course grows, but I cannot simply deny my past influence of Plato and Socrates.

Epistemology:

• As I described above the empirical method has been growing within myself and the classroom. However being in the social sciences it is hard not to occassionally fall back into the transmission mode. There are just sometimes where you have to talk and desiminate information.

Ontology:

• Self. Perhaps above all I think self exploration is key for anyone, myself included, to truly learn. In many of my classes, especially Psych 20, I state that if you take anything from this class take what you have learned about yourself. To me that is a mark of a great educator.

Role of Teacher:

• The main belief of my "ism" is the teacher as a facilitator. To assist the students in their own learning by helping them, by guiding, learn the best way that they can for themselves. However, occassionally authoritative and interpreter come into play. I would endeavour to say percent wise it would fall like this: 50% facilitator, 25% authoritative and 25% interpreter.

Role of Student:

• I see the most growth of my own teaching style here as my views on students change. I currently would see students as investigator and colleague. By becoming a learner with them and listening to their needs and interests I have moved away as seeing them as empty vessels. I see them as partners in education with both of us learning from one another and together.

Situatedness of the Curriculum:

• With my views on students changing my focus here has shifted from knowledge based to one that embraces observation and milieu. With different students and learning styles I have been adapting much more in the last year than ever before.
  

Visual Metaphor:

• Jedi Acadmey/Force. I know that this is somewhat recycled from a previous assignment but I think the basic tenets still hold. Padawans/Jedi learn through both transmission of info but also learn by doing. The skills learned vary with the situation as the milieu and their observations change. They investigate the world around them as well as the world within themselves. Jedi Masters guide them [padawans] in their learning, morfe often through experiences.

Been a while...

So I took a break from my blog to focus on my paper and I think it was a good break for me as I think I am ready to try to tackle a couple of questions that Steve asked at the beginning of the semester.

The first one I want to try and tackle is what knowledge is worth knowing. Since the beginning of this course I have been more aware of the decisions I make within the classroom. Most importantly though I have been wondering for whom am I making these decisions. Is it for my best interest, in order to plan, or for the students?

This weekend's presentations caused me to reflect on what is it that is worth knowing. I have to agree with Meagan that I think the most basic skills, that are definitely worth knowing are the three "R"s. Reading, writing and arithmetic. These skills transend most courses and definitely impact upon a student's success in these courses. But what else? Is the knowledge from my History 30 class worth knowing? Law 30? Econ 30? Will the students even remember the specifics that I "taught" them.

The answer is most obviously no (at least for many of them). I am sure that some students will hang onto some of the information for whatever reason. Fun moment, links to them, etc. When I look at the various courses I teach there is a recurring thread that is present in them all. Perhaps this is what I value as the knowledge most worth knowing.

What is it you may ask? Critical thinking and exercising their own opinions. This is something that in all classes I take the time to develop in them. I make it clear at the start of the term that I want to hear about their values and beliefs. Often times they have their opinions but they do not clearly explain them. This is something that has always bothered me. But am I making a judgement? Is this something that they need to know? I think the answer is yes! Basic communication skills are a must: literacy and writing. I believe that this is just an obvious extension of that subject material.

Throughout the term we work on being able to clearly state their opinions and then have the ability to back them up. We work with dialectical essays that exercise their critical thinking skills to see others opinions. This is an ongoing process that takes time and if in all the courses in which I teach this is the only skill/knowledge they came out with I think I have succeeded in helping them.

So what knowledge do I think is worth knowing? In my beliefs it is helping the students find their voice. A voice that can clearly explain their beliefs and values, while backing those beliefs up.

A quote from another...

I find in amusing as we go through our Masters degree the extent to which we take things for granted and how with each class my eyes are opened up to see things in a new light. I can remember becoming a parent and seeing for the "first" time how many mini-vans are out there. Experiences such as this shape how we see things...either for the first time or just changes our perceptions to see things in another light.

I was flipping through a book that my wife borrowed from the library (and if you are not a library member you should be) about 100 Best Worldwide Vacations to Enrich Your Life. A quote from Miriam Beard, an American writer and traveler, spoke to me. Change a key word and could we not be talking about curriculum. With a nod to Miriam Beard the quote would read as such..."Curriculum is more than the written goals and outlines; it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent." Within this statement are many different layers.

Firstly that curriculum can be both explicit and implicit. What is taught in class does not necessarily have to be what the students learn. I cannot really recall any student thaanking me for teaching a specific piece of knowledge. However students have thanked me for teaching them other "unplanned" lessons about life.

Secondly is that curriculum can be both negative and positive. We like to think that we always create a positive change but as in life there can be a "dark side" to curriculum (implicitly or explicitly). Is everything that is modelled within a curriculum a positive change? Perhaps an innocent comment taken wrong can undue positive change. I seem to recall many of us arguing something similar when talking about the roles of homes in a child's life and how what is taught within the hours of 9-3:30 can be gratly undone by the influence of their homelife.

Finally the deep and permanance of the curriculum. Do we really know how deeply we might change and alter a student's life/perceptions/etc? Though not an example from school it is something that happened to me and my parents. When I was a child I ate everything in sight. However upon a visit to our family doctor he said that vegetables weren't all that important. As an impressionable young child I took it literally and refused to eat veggies again. My mother could have killed him. This innocent comment greatly effected my outlook towards veggies that has lasted til this very day. Could a lesson do this? Can we as teachers do this? Yes if we are not careful.

I have to be careful what books I pick up...who thought a travel book could evoke a thought about curriculum?

Been thinking...

I have been thinking about Nutana's change in policy about not awarding F's to students. I realize as John said in class that a rose is rose by any other name...but I think that this is a step foward. Words and what is uaually associated with them can often hurt and demoralize a person moreso than any other form of abuse. I think F is one of these and the schemas that go along with it. If you get an F you are a failure, clear as can be. Sure we think that this might lose meaning to people and they simply don't care, but have we asked them about how they "truly" feel about getting an F? Is this not contradictory to the Ministry's effort to build lifelong learners? By giving them in incomplete it does not indicate that they are failures, it indicates hope and that they just came up short. Often with these students hope is a much better way of appraoching them to succeed than failure. Without the negative stereotype of being seen as a failure these students might come back to finish what they started. If one of our main jobs is to help build character and perservence does not an incomplete work towards that goal of lifelong learners rather than an F?

Trying to find something else...

I found this video on YouTube while searching for something else. I think this individual makes some valid points regarding teaching/learning within the "product" model. He does compare students to "little robots" that work on the assembly line, working for society and the economy. Are we simply creating students that repeat what we want them to think? I can recall many "high end" students at Carpenter picking my brain on how I wanted to see an assignment done. I know and understand that they are just trying to improve their grades, but are they not just leaning on me as a crutch? Am I helping them to succeed? I think in a world that trains students to be little automatons yes. But I want more. I want to challenge them to think outside of the box. To get them to think for themselves, not simply for someone else. Is that wrong? Does this individual hit the button for so many students and how they feel that schools are restricting them?

Struggling...

I have over the the past couple of months been struggling with this course in terms of defining what I believe about curriculum and what it means to me. Where I began with my rather simplistic definition of curriculum and where I am now is different, but I have yet to conclusively state what it is I currently define curriculum as.

This has become a little clearer to me as I tackle my final paper for this class. I originally was going to question curriculum along students perceptions and feelings about what they are/were taught. I thought before asking my current students their feelings upon the subject of curriculum I would refine my questioning with former students via emails/social networking sites (such as Facebook). The answers I received were not that surprising. However what i also did was send similar questions to former colleagues of mine across Canada to gauge their feelings about curriculum.

This afterthought of mine sopke closer to me as I saw that not only myself, but others, were struggling with idea of what curriculum is. The variety of answers and interpretations came back as startling. As I began to sift through the responses (about 20 in total) I started to understand a little more of what wehave talked about in class (process, product & praxis). By sifting through the responses I challenged myself to group them into the three "P"s. This hands-on work clarified much of what was challenging me.

However I was still struggling with my own personal "ism" of what defines me and my beliefs about curriculum. Through analysis of colleagues' remarks and our chart on "isms" that we developed in class I can tell you what I don't believe in. Hopefully as my paper emerges a clearer belief of curriculum will emerge for me.

Students' knowledge...

I have often heard the old addage that children are smarter than we sometimes take them to be. Knowledge, at times, can be hidden from view (due to their abilities/desires or ours). I see our jobs as educators to get to know our students well, and find ways to encourage their abilities and give them credit for what they know, not what they don't know. Do we know our students solely based upon their performance within school based upon grades on assignments, tests and exams?

Onoe of the "isms" sees children as empty buckets and that it is the job of the teacher to fill that bucket. However students come into our classrooms with knowledge that might not be readily apparent to us at first. Teaching and curriculums does not mean filling an empty mind. This knowledge, buried or not readily apparent, that children bring into the classroom is huge. We just have to delve deep to find it.

Over the past year I have worked on my observational skills and listening skills to enhance this searching analysis. These courses have taught me that through observation and listening to students, as partners in education, we can see what they know and determine, through their guidance, where our teaching needs to go next. I find that curriculum at times ties our hands in our ability to do this. I understand the need for accountability, but at times does it run contradictory to students' needs?

Quote from a genius...

"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn."

— Albert Einstein

This quote that I found to me speaks largely about the post-modern educational movement. To me this is what I wish to strive for. To me what is not said is as important as what is said. This quote infers to me that pupils (students) and teachers come together to learn from one another. The teacher is the facilitator, guiding rather than [Socratic] teaching.

Transforming Education in the 21st Centruy? NOT!

As I was surfing Youtube I came across this video on Transforming Education in the 21st Century. It sounded interesting and I thought I would give it a try. After about 28 seconds of it I realized that it was totally "product" oriented gearing children to be nothing but workers in a new global economy. Is this really transforming education? No. It is simply taking the chalk and blackboards from years ago and replacing them with new technologies with [ultimately] the same goal of producing people for the workforce then and now.

Just watch the first 28 seconds and you will see.

What goes around comes around...

In reading many of the articles in our Curriculum Reader I am struck with the similarities that are found in the writings. What strikes me is that many of the issues and arguments are the exact same even though many of the artciles come from different eras. In our classroom talks we seem to echo some of the concerns that have been within the field of curriculum for the last one hundred years. Do things change or are we just spinning our tires?

I found this video while surfing YouTube and it sums up some of the same feelings I see above. Does it take a new breed of teacher to make this change? Will society be in favour of some of these radical changes?

Parent Teacher

It's been about a week since we had Parent Teacher interviews and with regards to the outlines of this class (Product/Process/Praxis) it was interesting talking with parents and seeing what they focused on.

The parents clearly fell within the Product paradigm clearly just wanting to know how their child did compared to others. As outlined on the note posted by Steve, from the NB class, parents were clearly focused how to achieve higher marks and their perceived short comings of the children. Unlike any other school or school division I have taught in there is such an emphasis on averages. Parents seem to need to measure their child against another and to prepare them for life after school. This to mean screams product based education.

No parent asked me about process and certainly not praxis. I find myself wondering that if we were to begin to reform education along process/praxis how supportive would parents be? I tend to be pessismistic in nature but I just don't see parents being supportive to these changes.

Other sources...

Since the beginning of this course it has really caused me to reflect upon where and for whom is the curriculum comes from and for who. In past posts I have clearly stated that early on in my career the answer to both was myself. Perhaps it was "new" teacher survival mode in trying to stay ahead of students while learning and adapting a new curriculum.

However over the past year I believe there has been a fundamental change in myself as I am beginning to open up to having students chart the course of the curriculum with me. Since my first AR project on the use of video to enhance my History 30 course I have seen the power of engaging students within the planning stage for course work. Their insights have caused me to question and engage the materials in new ways as they become more interested in directing themselves within the course materials. My role has changed to a facilitator of education, guiding students with their ideas within the curriculum trying to balance their interests with the accountability of government mandated curriculum.

As I have been developing my final AR project in embedding community resources within the Law 30 curriculum students have been paramount in assisting me in the planning process. Their insights into what the would like to learn has opened up some new challenges for me. One of these has been new technologies that I have to learn before I share with them. This growth for them is causing me to grow in new and exciting ways. Perhaps instead of a classroom in which the students are the only learners, a newer classroom where everyone is learning is the most obvious goal.

A conversation...

I had an interesting conversation with my intern, that I am sharing with Jim. He is teaching a social science and it has been an eye opening experience for him. It's like a tale of two worlds from the hard core sciences (Chem & Bio) and the students that are found there, compared with the diachotomy of an open social science class that is an elective. With getting ready for upcoming report cards he found it hard to believe that students fail.

But I digress and am getting away from the conversation. The conversation stemmed around his "surviving" his workload. He has found the curriculum guide essential in helping him plan for the course in question, relying on it as a crutch to support him in as he transitions from teaching three courses to four.

The insight that I found incredibly insightful was his take on the person that wrote the curriculum. He stated that he felt that the person who wrote the curriculum just simply picked ideas that they seemed to enjoy with very little experience in the actual field. "It's like he sat down and picked what he/she wanted to learn and wrote the curriculum for themselves."

Is this the trap for any curriculum writer? For a beginning teacher to realize this and make this statement I think is very profound (in my belief).

Quote

Here is another quote that I found the other day by Cornbleth (1990) that speaks to me about the nature of curriculum.

• "Curriculum construction is an ongoing social activity that is shaped by various contextual influences within and beyond the classroom and accomplished interactively, primarily be teachers and students. The curriculum is not a tangible product but the actual, day-to-day interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu."

This speaks to me as many sources act and interact to create the curriculum. The interactions are the key and I see this as a natural development of myself as a teacher. Though I never saw myself as a true authoritarian teacher at the front of a classroom I think I had that belief. However over the past few years I see myself building relations between parties involved in education as my interaction with students come more and more frequent. This partnership is directing the activities of the classroom away from an established curriculum set down from on high by the powers that be in Regina. Also the mix of students directs where the courses go and how it develops.

To me the curriculum is becoming a living breathing entity that is guided by many forces.

A thing that has always bothered me...

One thing that has always bothered me about seeing the child as an empty vessel (as in realism) to be filled with knowledge is how can anyone be seen as empty. No one can be entirely empty...life is filled with experiences that shape and direct a person to be who they are. As the child grows and develops life shapes experiences in their psyche shaping the child and their future behaviour.

I have this picture in my head about the concept of realism. If the teacher is the jug to fill the student (the cup) eventually waste will happen. The student is not empty...life fills students...so as more and more knowledge is poured into the student the student begins to fill and fill. Eventually as more and more knowledge is imparted to the student the cup will fill and where is the knowledge? On the floor wasted!

In this day and age with students coming with more and more baggage and more complex life experiences the concept of jug and cup no longer applies unless we can empty some of the previous "water" (knowledge/life experiences) from them. Only then can we fill their minds with new experiences without wasting it.

I remember...

I remember one of my first years here I went to a Social Science Special Subject Council. As I was new to the province I was still a little lost on the use of curriculum guides (see my post on my experience in Nova Scotia for more on this). I remember going to one on Psych 20 and talking with various teachers about using the Psych 20 curriculum.

We sat together with about 5 of us in a group and shared with one another assignments and what we did in class. I was shocked by the number of teachers that literally took the curriculum as the "bible". They simply photocopied the notes or ran them off into an overhead and went step by step through the guide. They did nothing to adapt it for their own needs and I was told by two...why do the work when it is done for you. These were not just beginning teachers, but those in many years of service. I can remember thinking how sorry I felt for their students to be put through this "torture" of re-writing the curriculum.

I rely on the guide as a guide but adapt it to the needs and interests of that particular classroom. I argued that it was merely a map of where we can start and end. I argued that I could let it show me a way but how I chose to get there, with students as my co-pilots, was our decision. I was actually ridiculed and told that I would lose my job if they caught me doing that. This scared me a little but I still believe that it is merely a guide. Not the definitive end all to be all. I go where the students take me. I see myself as a guide within a museum...sharing info when asked or when interest is shown by the visitors.

I'm Back...

Well it's been a long week as I was in PEI for the National Student Leadership Conference. Amidst the chaos, the excitement, and the occasional down time I couldn't help but think about curricular issues. I felt myself drawn to the idea of extra-curricular as a title for those events we advise or coach. Why is it extra? Is it because it is done during after traditional school time?

I believe that events such as sports, drama, music, SRC are all very important and often times this is where some students excel and live for, not school. I have known two students over the last couple of years that have lived for their "extra" curricular. To the point that one of them basically comes for just that reason and then when the season was over left or dropped out.

I like the idea of co-curricular instead running alongside the tradiational curricular subjects. For some students this hands on living experience is more powerful and more life altering than subject areas. I am sure in a lot of "extra" curricular events one can incorporate real world experiences from subject matter within the event. In drama we look at values and morals to help define character roles. Math is used in construction. Etc. SRC has much of this moreso ingrained in this.

I believe that by calling it "extra" curricular is doing it a diservice. Co-curricular encompassing curricular ideas and subjects would be more proper.

This idea began as we finished that chart in class about the various types of "isms". I find myself following around with Dewey and the idea of experiential learning being the best and most productive and this reminded me of the "extra" curricular events.

Captures My Feelings....

I came across this quote earlier tonight as I was looking for something else and it really spoke to me as I reflect upon curriculum development and myself.

"How we conceive of curriculum and curriculum making is important because our conceptions and ways of reasoning about curriculum reflect and shape how we see, think and talk about, study and act on the education made available to students. Our curriculum conceptions, ways of reasoning and practice cannot be value free or neutral. They necessarily reflect our assumptions about the world, even if those assumptions remain implicit and unexamined. Further, concern with conceptions is not "merely theoretical". Conceptions emerge from and enter into practice." Cornbleth (1990).

The fact that it speaks of ourselves as part of the curriculum is so true. I know as I develop I like to think of myself as totally impartial, but I am sure that at times my own biases creep in. After writing my entry on the lack of curriculum (formalized) in Nova Scotia it really bothered me that those three years might have just been for myself and not students.

Since the first AR project that we did in this Masters course I have seen the value (no pun intended) in embracing and recognizing my biases and working with them. A little of me goes into each lesson and that is why if one bombs I take it a little personally. I ask myself usually "What did I do wrong?" Not what went wrong. What did I do or "What can I do to make it better?" I am putting myself into what I am teaching. Therefore I am becoming part of the curriculum.

Nova Scotia

My experience before coming to Saskatchewan was teaching for 3.5 years for the Cape Breton Victoria Regional School Board. Until Turtleford it did not dawn on me that I DID NOT deal with curriculum (that is formalized curriculum handed down by the department of education).

This caused me to wonder what was I teaching toward. Without a formalized guide I guess I was just going on the experience of colleagues and what they taught toward, but even this I did very little as we did not have department meetings. So what did I do?

I have to believe that I just taught out of the textbooks that were available to me. I know that during my internship when I taught European history I had a debate on whether or not to teach the Communist Revolution. I argued for it while my mentor insisted as communism failed it was pointless to teach it. This clearly shows to me how an individual teacher adapts the curriculum to them for their benefit. Within Economics I taught with an eye to the textbook and followed it fairly closely. Math I did the same thing. PAL/CLM I wonder how I taught it as there were no resources available for it at all.

So who was I teaching for? Was it the students? Was it for me to make my life easier? I can no longer recall. Though I have had some bad experiences with curriculum out here, I find it essential in assisting me to develop the courses I teach. I do not use it as a crutch, but as a guide post pointing me in directions. I, with students' input, decide whether or not to follow it.

My Sask Experience

Unlike some found within this grad course I have had the experience of teaching in two radically diverse provinces when it comes to curriculum.

Upon my arrival here is Saskatchewan it was readily apparent the heavy push on curriculum reform. I was introduced to the new Psych 20 curriculum by Steve, and later that year the new Law 30 curriculum. Both guides made a new teacher such as myself very comfortable with what was expected of me and what I was expected to teach. However both introductions made it clear that it was simply a guide to be used to give focus to a common direction for all. This built in option of using the curriculum as a guide, rather than law, allows personal freedom to explore topics that students and their questions might take courses. These experiences have generally been positive as it allows this flexibility to adapt to students' interests, allowing the courses to be a little different everytime.

A negative experience within the Evergreen curriculum has been in the History 30 curricululm. This curriculum is monstrous with expectations and goals that are impossible to meet. In my eight years here I have been improving each year by getting further and further within the course. Because of the weight and the sheer amount of information that must be covered the fun of the course is often times lost as you teach toward the curriculum goals. This limits what can and cannot be done within the course. I love history and believe it to be very important for students' (and all people for that matter) to study; hence its core curriculum status. This [curriculum] limits my interest within the course and I am sure that it comes across to students. The most important thing I learned during my first year here was not to teach to the curriculum in History 30. I was told to teach the first three units in history, skip four and then teach five. This caused me to skip both world wars, the great depression, and the beginning of the cold war (all interesting topics). Lo and behold on the final departmental exam there were no questions on the fourth unit. I was told by senior social science teachers that SaskEd was trying to catch teachers who taught in a linear fashion, knowing full well that no one (or virtually no one) could make it through the curriculum. Needless to say I was relieved to find out that departmentals were scrapped the next year.

If this was true or not I cannot say. Since then I have still endeavoured to maintain the spirit of curriculum within History 30 much to my chargrin. Being a core course I feel that I need to maintain these standards handed down. This lack of flexibility I think haunts this course turning it into a course that has potential to be great but gets bogged down with disinterest.

In the beginning...

I chose the title above for two reasons: that this is the beginning of my blog posts and [with it's biblical sort of reference] that my definition of curriculum will morph and evolve over the next few months into a finalized [world]vision.

Though basic, the definition of curriculum that I wrote in Turtleford was:

• Curriculum is the knowledge that is imparted to students.

Within this vague definition there are issues of course such as what knowledge is to be imparted and not only how is it imparted but how can it be measured as imparted. This is something that until my employment here is Saskatchewan I did not really struggle with. Since my arrival here I have had both positive and negative experiences with [the confines of] curriculum. These themes I will explore in subsequent posts to this beginning (have to leave you hanging and wanting more).

Like much of my graduate experience so far I have enjoyed the thoughts and passion that this course has awakened in me. As I delve into the curriculum I know I will learn not only about educational issues, but myself as well. This sort of self-reflection and growth will hopefully further enable me to grow into the best educator that I can be.