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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
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:
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.
Though basic, the definition of curriculum that I wrote in Turtleford was:
- Curriculum is the knowledge that is imparted to students.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
