When analyzing
curriculum we first looked at the sole purpose of curriculum. Many thoughts were developed and I still find
myself pondering concepts I discovered.
Now we dive into the question of what should the content of curriculum
be? I found a quote while reading from
Hirsch that depicted my thought process of our last topic as well as the
current one. Hirsch stated that he
believes the role of school is to be a system of preparing children for broader
activities of society and train them in literature public culture. These words made me realize that I want to
better my ideas from the last cycle and implement them into this one. So let us continue our journey of curriculum
by talking about the content and what that should entail.
What
I love about education is that there are many leaders that have given us their
own personal thoughts as to pedagogy, philosophy, psychology, and method of
curriculum. One in particular was John Dewey.
I remember first hearing about him in my undergrad courses and thinking
to myself what a genius he was. My 19-year-old
self fell in love with his romantic ideas of progressive education. After reading some of his ideas about the
content of curriculum I found there were ideas I would like to modify to fit my
idea of content. Dewey’s approach was
that curriculum should be child centered.
Each child has his/her own experiences in which to develop on and adhere
to with its education. The curriculum
should center on the differences of its students. The truths of the child are moving and fluent
verses stagnant. Our role as the teacher
is to provide direct information in an indirect way and allow the child to make
connections and personal experiences from that medium. We need to provide medium but make sure not
to take away from a child’s ability to develop his/her own ideas. To me the concept as a whole should be
adjusted. I feel students do have
differences. I have a student who moved
from Texas with his mother who is currently in law school. He had two brothers living with him that were
very domineering as his dad is out of the picture. Both brothers are very smart and moved out
attending highly accredited colleges in other states. Marcos who is the youngest and now left with
a busy mother is struggling in school.
He is adapting to the current environment he is in. As of now school is the last place he wants
to be. So yes, he is different from the
boy next to him who was born and raised in Lansing. He has
two married parents and a very close family all at which that live
together. Allen is getting all A’s and
constantly pushes himself to do better, while Marcos could care less. Allen’s parents challenge him and have time
to do so. Marcos’ mother doesn’t have
the time to make sure his homework is being done, or that his personal best is
showing at school. These boys are very
different and Dewey does have a point that it is my job to differentiate in
order to create connections for these boys, which are completely
different. However, Hirsch’s point that
students should all learn the traditional materials lies true as well.
From
Dewey I learned to make sure my students are connecting to what they learn and
this concept is close to Hirsch’s theory because he too stated that this part
of the intensive portion of curriculum is necessary. From Hirsch I discovered that it is not neither
fair, nor just to just accept that certain kids will know less than
others. No, I want all students to
receive the same highly traditional educations.
In this way they will receive the same opportunities and make their own
choices later in life based on those opportunities. A student from poverty and a student from
privilege should receive mathematics, Latin, English, sciences, and social
studies because it will prepare them for the broader activities of society as
mentioned earlier. Is this core list
of knowledge that all Americans need to know attainable? Of course it is. I remember making copies in the workroom 4
years ago and seeing a sign that simply stated your classroom is the
environment you choose. It made me see
that my kids will behave the way I demand of them, they will learn as much as I
teach them, and will reach as high as I push them. So not only is it attainable, but it is
desirable because every student should receive the best education and one with
a curriculum that is enriching. This
ideal content would have ideals from Dewey of differentiating your instruction
to engage all learners, but to also teach the needed traditional materials to
produce the literate students once created in the late 1800’s.
In
conclusion, the content of curriculum should be one with a balance of
differentiated methods of delivery but that focuses on the traditional to
produce a literate future. I had a
student today tell me that she now gets where the word hemisphere comes from
because she learned Greek and Latin root words.
This is traditional teachings but is creating meaning to her on a personal
level. A balance.
Resources
Websites:
This site is an excellent source to find out more about what
Hirsch referred to as core knowledge. It is a foundation built on those
principals with curriculum, schools, and how to get involved.
This site was helpful for me because it encloses websites
with core knowledge curriculum to help me get a better understanding of how it
looks. It also includes articles
discussing the core knowledge idea.
Articles:
This article was helpful to me because it demonstrated that
the common core includes teaching how and not just the what. It talked about a school which will be
implementing Core Knowledge next year.
Blooms Taxonomy will be used and their goal is to develop innovative
thinkers in their students.
This article was about a man who helps students in poor
environments of a minority race, excel
and perform at their best abilities. He is
compared to Dewey in his methods. I
appreciated this article because it reminded me that in my reflection I made
appoint to note that in our delivery as teachers, it is very important to teach
to our students’ needs. They have so
much going on and learn in different ways.
Blogs:
I discovered this blog when researching different curriculum
sites. It is an edweek blog that
contains multimedia, discussions, article postings, etc. all on curriculum
topics. I can see this blog helping me
in future reflections as it entails so much with curriculum.
Hello Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved your classroom pictures posted on your blog. Your room looks fun, organized, and very green! I am also an MSU fan, but instead attended Hope College, but I have a driver education school called Spartan Driving School, thus I do love MSU!!
I first read your cycle 1 comment on curriculum. Your writing style was inquisitive and thought provoking. You asked some really good questions at the beginning and showed a glimpse into the attitude of a real teacher’s opinion about curriculum. Basically, what teacher has time to analyze and define curriculum during the course of the year. I suppose that is why we are taking this class, to slow down and take a careful look at what we and others do. I was impressed how you tried to incorporate real world skills and knowledge with the curriculum you are covering in your fourth grade class. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves why it is we are teaching what we teach. Also I resonated with your story of having to slice some of the objectives off your European history curriculum. I teach 5 sections of world history and 1 section of U.S. History. I find that reaching the objectives of U.S. History to be simple; 1 country over a 250 year time period, not too daunting. With world history it is 6,000 years of civilizations spanning the entire globe, very daunting and practically impossible to adequately learn every civilization and culture. Thus, I sometimes take more of thematic approach and as you do terrifically, try to make the curriculum as relevant to skills needed of the 21st century student, or as you put it, applicable to the “real world.”
....Continued from above on Feb 6th:
ReplyDeleteYour second cycle seemed to tie in well with your first cycle philosophy and experience. You strike me as a teacher that views both sides of opposing or varying theories and tries to strike a balance. And finally when you have absorbed all this new knowledge, you successfully own it and develop it carefully to the needs of your students and your particular skills as a teacher. You closed your cycle 2 response by saying “the content of curriculum should be one with a balance of differentiated methods of delivery but that focuses on the traditional to produce a literate future.” With this balance you have both agreed with Dewey and Hirsch, but also developed a new type of content by taking those varying content aspects that draw your interest and molding them to fit your desired instructional model.
I can also decipher you strive for fairness in content, philosophy, and educating our youth. You agreed with Hirsch and his inability to accept that certain students know less or more than others. You want every student to receive the best education and “one with a curriculum that is enriching.” I agree with philosophy of course and was captured by your “enriching” theme. I would be interested to see the entire class or even every teacher in America to define what enriching is in today’s education content. I suppose they might have a wide variety of answers. Some would argue literature and philosophy and others science, math and technology for the 21st century. Who defines enrichment and is it closer to the European Renaissance idealism or the current global world technological society? Thus, can we sometimes disagree on what is (not a Bill Clinton impersonation) content in curriculum and what shouldn’t be taught? My questions are largely rhetorical and admittedly dry and boring, but honestly I would like to have seen the contrast of the two philosophies and what teachers don’t like about them.
My point is, can we sometimes agree with so many varying theories of content curriculum that we somehow water down our own educational standards. Statistics of late maybe prove this is true, with the United States no longer leading in educational testing statistics. Not to say we should stick with a rigid curriculum approach or go for one curriculum theory entirely over another. Instead, we should look at varying curriculum approaches, but be willing to make the tough decision and choose both a format and mission statement that fit the desired goal. You can always revisit and tweak the chosen curriculum stance, but it is difficult to build a structure without a strong foundation.
I feel like I have gone on too long and would like to mention your additional resources. I really like how you built a thematic approach to your sources, essentially asking what is core curriculum? For example, one article was from the Wilkes Journal Patriot that gave Essential Standards for students to know while also leaning on the well known Bloom’s taxonomy. I like how the taxonomy has adapted over years just as we teachers must adapt to the times.
Jessica, I really enjoyed reading your blog and your ability to use terms such as balance and core curriculum throughout your writing. You showed passion in your philosophy and attitude towards teaching by caring. My one note would be to maybe find something you didn’t like from the readings and take a stand on your position.
Great job and go State,
(The MSU game was great yesterday!!)
Ross
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteIt's really enjoyable to read your blog, which is fluently written and well organized.
At the beginning, you give us a comprehensive interpretation of Dewey's view/approach on how to determine the content of curriculum. Since each child has different interest and life experience, teachers are supposed to provide platform/medium for children to connect their minds and materials. And later, you pointed out that “the concept as a whole should be adjusted" to fit your idea. But I couldn't really tell your modification. The comparison of two of your students is a good example to support that children do have differences in academic performance due to their family background. I think you should also give us an example to show the hazard of not respecting children’s personal interest and pre-existing value. This is a pretty common issue in the teaching process and also an obstacle of education reform all over the world. Since it is teachers’ responsibility to differentiate and “create connections for these boys”, as you concerned, how we can achieve that needs further explanation. And I think the explanation is your view on whether Dewey’s approach is sound and viable, which you didn’t respond directly in your blog. And the end of this paragraph, I suggest you analyze more on why you agree traditional materials are required by all students. We educate students for change, for inheriting literate culture, not just for job-hunting. Teachers must prepare children for broader activities; that’s the goal of education.
Next, you gave us a brief comparison of views on curriculum from both Dewey and Hirsh. They all agree that individual differences do exist and intensive part of curriculum is necessary, which you are in favor of as well. But in conclusion part, I notice that you actually fully back up Hirsh’s view on what the content of curriculum should be. To me it’s a paradox, since you believe the content of curriculum should both be traditional materials and can help children make connection with their minds. Sometimes, classical subjects such as philosophy, history, Latin and math don’t resonate children’s interest, personal experience or family traditions. It’s kind of a waste of time to work hard in order to master them, since they will forget due to the lack of use. And children’s confidence might be destroyed in learning the knowledge which neither has connection with their previous experience nor will be used in career. That’s my personal view, which you can definitely disagree. I just want to point out the inconsistency in the second half of your blog. Also, I respect your view that it’s not unfair to say “certain kids will know less than others”. And I admire your commitment and sense of responsibility to your students. However, what is the standard of knowing more or knowing less? What is the criterion of success? Can you judge them merely by academic performance? The inequity on various aspects results in the injustice on education. And the content of curriculum is exactly an important factor to narrow the gap. As Dewey claims, how to select “appropriate stimuli for instincts and impulses” and make study a spontaneous and active process is the breakthrough of education and the duty of all educators.
Again, I like you essay. It makes me thinking.
Jiaxun
Jessica, your concluding statement (‘the content of curriculum should be one with a balance of differentiated methods of delivery but that focuses on the traditional to produce a literate future’) immediately brought to my mind the writing of Carl G. Jung: “the really modern man is often to be found among those who call themselves old-fashioned. They do this firstly in order to make amends for their guilty break with tradition by laying all the more emphasis on the past, and secondly in order to avoid the misfortune of being taken for pseudo-moderns.”
ReplyDeleteIn this essay, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man”, Jung is discussing the place human beings have in this thing we call life and insists that humans of today are a new phenomenon – what he calls a modern man. To Jung, a modern man is one “who stands upon a peak, or at the very edge of the world, the abyss of the future before him, above him the heavens, and below him the whole of mankind with a history that disappears in primeval mists. The modern man – or, let us say again, the man of the immediate present- is rarely met with, for he must be conscious to a superlative degree.”
I am curious of the degree to which a curriculum could acknowledge this – that is, each individual novelty – and how well that acknowledgment could be applied in unfolding the stone, so to speak, for each individual student. As Hirsch points out, and as Rousseau lies out, schooling is directed by social aims – developing in students what the society needs. However, what does this do for individual growth when the student requires something the society does not?
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post! What a lot of fascinating conversation and debate you have generated. Thank you so much!
I think all three respondents point to something important for you to continue to work through--it's variously phrased, but I would put it this way: what is the relationship between the individual child and the society.
Hirsch is really concerned about a common culture--as a way to create a stronger society, and as a way to equalize the opportunities for all to compete. It seems like you would share that goal.
I think Dewey is equally concerned, but definitely views it differently. Dewey is much more focused on experience than Hirsch (who seems to always bring it back to declarative knowledge--I know that . . .). Dewey might argue that when our society has progressed enough where we all share some common concerns (such as protecting the Earth, or making sure all children are well fed and cared for), then we might start to have some common experiences, and this might lead to something bigger--what he called "the great community." As you can guess, we are not really close to that time yet.
Dewey does have another nice insight about the relationship between the social and the individual. He reminds us that all knowledge is really someone else's experience. Knowledge is experience, extracted from its context, and rearranged logically (an experience of figuring out a problem, such as how to get this ship across the ocean, or stop pests from eating my crops). In this way, Dewey says, the child and the society can be balanced, by the common denominator of experience.
What might this mean for what you are saying?
Well, traditional content is still the goal, for both Dewey and Hirsch. But the question is how we achieve it, and in what order. Hirsch's core knowledge seems to be organized along logical lines--first this, then this, then that. Dewey says the curriculum, or standards, or there for teachers to use to help them figure out what might be most helpful for students to learn, based upon their own individual trajectories.
So a lot of this comes down to how much we want teachers to make individual decisions about individual children. When teachers are so busy, the push towards standardizing things might make some sense. But others say, "no," we need to let teachers make these curriculum decisions.
Thanks again for your post!
Kyle