Hello all! This week's readings left me feeling confident that our texts will balance each other nicely this semester. The questions that developed in one source, were addressed or at least hinted at in another. Regardless, I am looking forward to continuing to read from all 3!
As I read the first chapters, as well as the Anyon article, I found myself noticing the subtle differences in the ways in which they define "curriculum." Not only do I find these differences intriguing, but it got me wondering how each of the four ideologies might define curriculum, and if there would be significant or subtle differences, or no differences at all?
So, without knowing where each of you fall with regards to "preferred" ideology, and without pushing forward into future chapters, what are your thoughts? Did any of the provided definitions resonate with you more than another? Did any of them leave you feeling a little restless or uncomfortable?
On a different path, Schiro introduces the various workers who engage with curriculum across the spectrum (p.7-8). He mentions that this book will focus primarily on the ideologies of those whom are engaged in developing curriculum.
Walker & Soltis focus Chapter 1 entirely on the role of the Teacher with regards to the curriculum.
Noddings also touches on the relationship between teacher and curriculum, but also other stakeholders and curriculum.
This week in class we will be discussing who should participate in curriculum development. This is definitely one of those questions that has no right or wrong answers, however I am wondering if any of these authors struck a chord with you or if you strongly agree or disagree with their perspectives?
Lastly, because we read 2 different articles, it would be helpful if you could bullet a few main points from the article that you read, as well as any ideas that you felt were important (i.e. Why would Dr. Beach have us read "this" article of all the articles available out there?) and your reaction/response to those ideas.
*I will post my article "response" in a separate post below.
Have a great week!
- Mackinley
Mackinley, thanks for leading our very first week discussion with thought-provoking questions. To answer your first question, I would carefully place myself somewhere between the Learner Centered and Social Reconstruction. I asked this question to Dr. Beach last Thursday, asking, "for our curriculum making project, should we choose only one ideology? or can we combine two (or more)?" I felt that this was an immature question, and Dr. Beach advised us that we will see (so I am very curious about how my perspective goes on/evolves through this semester).
ReplyDeleteHowever, for now, still I see that Social Reconstruction ideology seems embracing the assumptions of Learner Centered to some degree, but definitely it goes beyond. "They believe that truth and knowledge are based in and defined by cultural assumptions" (Schiro, p. 6). This line seems in the section of Learner Centered, or Bruner's book, but Schiro places this line in the Social Reconstruction section. Thus I would see the overlapping or embracing relationship between the two ideologies, which is why I asked the question last class and still keep thinking about the possibility of combining the two when I design my curriculum.
I personally prefer both ideologies (Learner Centered and Social Reconstruction) to the others, as my teaching philosophy goes with their assumptions and faith, learning's uniqueness, leaner's agentness, social injustice, and the necessity of taking action for more just society. (However, I still see that the first two branches have legitimacies as well, but my gut and philosophy go more with the later two). At this point, responding to Mackinley's question, I would like to ask your, all my group members', thoughts on this idea. Do you think can we combine two or more ideologies when we design a curriculum?
Hi everyone,
DeleteTo respond to your question, John, regarding the combination of ideologies, I would say "yes", according to Prakash and Waks. They mention that all ideologies have value, but they sometimes are incompatible (p.90), which is something Dr. Beach also mentioned in class. The article presents the four conceptions as embracing a larger community, or a larger "we" (technical<rational<personal<social are the unfolded series of conceptions). For example, I situate myself between the learner-centered -aka individual self-actualization- and social reconstruction -aka social responsibility- for now, and if I fall ideologically more in this cluster, my practice does not always follow. To tie this to the article, the four ideologies/conceptions "include [or reinterprets] the values of the preceding ones while excluding their limitations" (p.93), and therefore extend the social aspect of education, making social responsibility through self-actualization the central goal of education. This ideology is, by the way, the one Prakash and Waks advocate.
- When you (not just John) get a chance to read this article, could someone explain to me what the authors mean by "self-actualization"? It reminds me the Confucian conception of the individual, where one is supposed to chop chop chop himself up, to carve what has been buried under culture to find our true integrity, honesty, etc. Do they mean we are finite in a way, at birth, and we need to actualize ourselves, to reverse a process in order to find something what has been covered up?
- In the syllabus, Dewey is associated with ______________, whereas in Prakash and Waks, he is side by side with Freire in the social conception. What are your thoughts on this? Does it reveal that these categories are subjective or at least fluid, or perhaps embrace one moment/set of articles in the life of these theorists?
- p.94: The authors mention that "advocates of the social responsibility conception thus reject (...) the university graduate departments [among others] as appropriate models for public education." What does this evoke in you? Do you agree that graduate departments are incompatible with social responsibility? Why?
I guess this is all for now. I am about to embark! Have a lovely week everyone! I look forward to reading/discussing with you!
Dewey is listed as a "learner-centered" theorist, not "___________". I apologize for not pulling out my syllabus on time...
DeleteHi Emma, thanks for saying "yes" to my question. :) Schiro also seems to tell us that the combination of ideologies is possible, actually he seems to advocate the importance of going across the 4 ideologies for us. Critiquing certain cultures allowing only one ideology to dominate others, the author pointed out that "other cultures have found a way to get the ideologies to cooperate rather than complete with each other" (p. 9). Also, the figure 1.1 b on page 12 seems to tell us the broad or overarching "clustered characteristics" of the four archetypes (ideologies) when considering curriculum workers.
DeleteThis notion reminds me of Davis' "bifurcation" notion across the different branches. Although the term "ideology" implies the distintioness among their different kinds, we may see the deep root shared there. I assume that the 4 ideologies have emerged/evolved by comparing, critiquing, and contrasting each other in the history. What do you think? :)
For your question about "self-actualization", I have found that the table in Schiro's book page 11 has the same term, under Eisner (1974). It seems that self-actualization could be interpreted as another term referring to "learner centered" based on Schiro's comparison and classification schemes, but not 100% sure. I'll get back to you after reading/thinking more.
DeleteBTW, I really like your example of "chop chop chop" oneself here for self-actialization. This reminds me of the term "nervana." And your idea seems to explain the meaning of the term, self-actualization.
In this domain (curriculum-wise), however, the chopping concept seems too deep maybe. :) I see that one of the focuses of learner centered was about the unique meaning-making of individuals (that's probably why one another term referring to it was constructivism). With that in mind, I assume that self-actualization means helping one's actual (max, 100%, or to the maximum (or beyond) degree of one's unique meaning-making span) learning. What do you think? :)
John and Emma- Yes and Yes. While educators across our nation may be at odds trying to determine which ideology is superior to the others, I have yet to encounter any institution (or even just a single curriculum) that operates solely under the influence of one ideology alone. So, while it may feel a little awkward at this point to think about "splitting", I think that it happens naturally and frequently, and across the field. I could be wrong, but what do you think?
DeleteMackinley, I am also with you - the four ideologies seem to be mixed to some degree at institutions. However, it is also not difficult to see an institute too much relying on one ideology, of course based on various reasons.
DeleteIn addition to my and Emma's examples, Anyon's working class school setting might be a good example as well, they seemed to focus on Scholar Academic ideology as they (teachers/students) regard the knowledge is out there, subject to be transmitted, and they rarely go beyond learning facts.
Again I do agree with you but, still we see some cases in which one ideology seems dominant than others. I know that you have taught more than 10 years; have you had any experiences where one ideology was at the center of their curriculum?
John- It is interesting that you viewed the working class school setting as an example of Scholar Academic ideology, as I did not perceive it that way at all. Looking at the "big picture" (p.7)... the school is described as a "tough" school. The principal stated that it was a bonus if the kids learned to add and subtract, or learn at all.
DeleteWhen asked what knowledge was most appropriate for the children in their classes, their responses favored basic skills.
I interpret these statements more as a judgement of student capability (which in this case is heavily influenced by the situation/ context) than a reflection of the teacher's ideology. I feel this was implied again on p.8 when it is stated that the SS "texts chosen by the teachers in the working-class schools contained less information, fewer inquiry or independent research activities, and more of an emphasis on facts to be remembered."
I believe that these are common expectations for students in "tough schools" across the country, and definitely something that affects how curriculum is implemented (and thus should be considered when being designed as well).
If you take on the role of the Devil's Advocate and rephrase the question(s) Anyon asked of the teachers to be "What knowledge is most appropriate for a student in _____ grade?" or "What is the purpose of school?", I wonder if the answers would reflect their ideologies or behaviors as educators?
My quick question to ponder with you together is inspired by the green book (Walker & Soltis), which emphasized the importance of "practical" discussions and debate.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever experienced any disputes with your colleagues, administrators, students, or even with their parents regarding to curriculum (not only the written lists, but the inclusive/comprehensive practices or principles in schools/classes)? I assume so, because all of you are truly professional educators :). If so, could you share your most dramatic episode please (might be the most frustrating/fulfilling one maybe)?
We may see the disputes with the lenses of the differences of four ideologies. So excited to discuss with you! :)
Regarding differing views, I too, was reminded of a story where a school with a very high Hispanic population decided to hold two meetings to address curriculum. One meeting would be for the Hispanic parents (in Spanish), the other for the Anglo parents (in English). The Anglo parents were indifferent, questioning everything, nitpicking everything, demanding this, demanding that, and very negative. On the other hand, the Hispanic parents were exceptionally cooperative, wanted to learn all they could to help their children, and since this meeting was in their native language, their social capital was raised to a much higher degree. In considering the contrasting reactions, I realize that groups of marginalized people have been conditioned not to question anything. And that is a topic for another day. But the principal was deeply appreciative of the Hispanic population’s respect and cooperation. And the parents at the other meeting had no problem whatsoever questioning any tiny detail regarding their children’s education.
DeleteOn another note, along the same lines, I recall parents being upset with the teaching of critical thinking skills. I like to think that a teacher’s goal is to teach children how to think, not “what” to think. Yet the opposition to this from many of the parental perspectives is that critical thinking skills were leading to unruly children who did not “mind” them. However, it is my belief that children can learn to think critically without being unruly or disrespectful.
Thanks for sharing your great example Tina. It was noticeable to see the different responses from the two different parent groups. I was just wondering about the principal's reaction to the Anglo parent groups; did the principal appreciate the parents' "active" involvement on their curriculum? Or, did the principal take it as a negative aspect?
DeleteRegarding your critical thinking example, I do see your point and agree with you. We know critical thinking is pivotal in one's learning. The presents' worrying about leading to "unruly children" is quite mind-blowing to me. This reminds me of a working class parent's comment in Anyon's article, he goes, (not exact wording), "I am a plumber, and learning academic or critical thinking type of subjects are not useful to become a plumber for my son." And, he seemed to want to leave his son alone, just get the diploma.
This discussion leads me to think that parents do influence "curriculum" probably much more than we think. What do you think? :)
I have a particular example in mind. When I was teaching French, I always put culture at the center, and explored French-speaking populations in the world to question why the textbook focused mainly on Parisian French. My views on what I considered central, which was to provide an opportunity to reflect on language, culture and power and therefore on the diversity of French speaking cultures, were not appreciated, because the curriculum I had to follow at the time was grammar-focused, emphasizing writing and reading rather than speaking and listening skills. Often, language departments focus on very academic and literary topics, as if students taking language classes wanted to be able to read classic 18th century French, but disregard what students actually want to learn and the reasons they want to learn. I strongly believe that higher education looses sight of the goal-orientation and visions of L2 selves of individuals.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your story Emma. I think that you wrote this on the airplane to Vienna! :)
DeleteAmong my many stories, your story reminds me of one ESL setting I taught a few years ago. In that school, one session was 4-week long, in which teachers have to give 4 quizzes, 1 midterm, and 1 final. This means that the real "teaching time" was only about 10-12 days for a session, because the school runs only Monday to Thursday. I struggled to incorporate performance/task-based activities in the curriculum, because I believe that those kinds are more effective and better serve for my students' learning. I tried to have more grading weights on the hands-on activities than the paper-based tests, but the director denied my idea, by saying that, "No, John. You must follow this teaching guideline, 4 quiz days, 1 midterm, 1 final, and there is a corporate level advancement test as well. Make your students be ready for the tests and meet the objectives."
Now I see that the school's curriculum may have mainly followed the Scholar Academic ideology as they have objectives (written on a piece of paper), plans to accomplish them, but rarely focused on what learners really need to do for authentic meaning-making on the L2 knowledge. Thus, the Social Reconstruction aspects were hard to be embedded in the curriculum either. What do you (of course you "all") think about this case? Any thoughts, comments? :)
I'm in Charlotte, NC right now... Your example reminds me of a similar experience I had when I was teaching an Intro to US civilization course in Paris. I was given a very strict syllabus, very much focused on vocab rather than concepts. We had to teach the test, basically, not asking students to reflect on what they were learning and what they thought, but rather evaluate how good they were at swallowing vocabulary lists and definitions. Similar to your story, this was very focused on the accumulation of knowledge for the sake of "knowing"; a scholar ideology. I ended up receiving my letter from OU and leaving this University!
DeleteTo go back to the ESL/French contexts (sorry non second/foreign language people), the contexts in which we taught did not provide space nor time for the social reconstruction. Just like what Walker and Soltis mention, finding time to reflect on curriculum and navigate between what is imposed on us and what we can actually do is sometimes a real challenge!
Great online discussion between states! I really like the way you illustrated the example, "swallowing" vocab lists. One interesting thing to note regarding the huge vocab list teaching "tradition" is the fact that this approach is not only being pushed by co-teachers, but also by students sometimes.
DeleteOne student from middle east Asia one day came to me and complained about the reflective activities designed in my class by saying "teacher, I don't know why I need to do this online discussion and making posters with my classmates. Rather, please give me 500 essential vocabulary list to remember."
It was a very dramatic and eye-opening experience for me; the ideology influences not only teachers but also students, thus the society.
Have you had this type of different ideology-based complaints from your students?
DeleteI am dreaming of having the following type of complaints from my students in the future, "teacher, this vocabulary learning with the 1,000 essential word list does not work. Why don't we have more reflective, engaging, and fun activities instead?"
Emannuelle,
DeleteI fully agree that the issues of power, language, and culture are a huge piece in the teaching of any language. I just wanted to say that to you. Taewoong, your student who came to you and asked for the vocabulary lists was most likely more comfortable with rote memorization than with reflective thinking. I believe that it takes some time. Students who have never experienced a space where dialogue and critical thinking will struggle at first.
That's true Tina. For some students, it will take time. On the other hand, I indeed had many more students who welcome reflective activities than rote memorization work. So I do see a big hope there. :)
DeleteHello everyone! Emannuelle, Taewoong….I see “self-actualization” as being meant to fulfill our talents and potential in completeness, yet within the context of society, for the good of society. Also, regarding overlapping, I am in agreement with combining ideologies. I also am quite fond of Learner-Centered and Social Reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, regarding W & S …. in being an English Language (EL) teacher, my supervisor has explained that there are many strains of complaints from classroom teachers regarding exactly how and/or what it is that an EL teacher is to fulfill in her responsibilities with students. Some, are not supportive of teaching language through art, writing, poetry, political clarity, or history from an ethnic perspective for example. These teachers align with Excellence Proficiency and prefer rote memorization, drills and routines.
Tina, for the examples of EL teachers ended up teaching drills and routines, one of the reasons might be the characteristics of their final (level) testing system. Assessment, and how it is organized and carried out, is also another huge component of curriculum as its effect bounces back to curriculum-in-use. My example of an ESL school was in that case as well; because the final test was a written test for reading, vocab, and listening, teachers naturally needed to focus on helping students prepare for the test (to help them pass). With that in mind, if our standardized or high-stake tests incorporate the art-based, poetry-wise, and history-discussion oriented tasks/questions for EL learners, the practices might also be more authentic as well. In this sense, I think the teachers are also a kind of "victim" in a certain ideology. What do you think?
DeleteOn another note, along the same lines, I recall parents being upset with the teaching of critical thinking skills. I like to think that a teacher’s goal is to teach children how to think, not “what” to think. Yet the opposition to this from many of the parental perspectives was that critical thinking skills were leading to unruly children who did not “mind” them. However, it is my belief that children can learn to think critically without being unruly or disrespectful. Surely there was more to that story.
ReplyDelete~~~I found it quite interesting on pages 2 and 3 (Walker and Soltis) addresses the ambivalent feelings regarding curriculum. For teachers in public schools the truth of the matter could not have resonated any louder. New teachers find comfort if following curriculum. Experienced teachers who spend countless hours attempting to please everyone (that they are held accountable to) with a lesson that simply will never be a success, in general were then mentioned. This entire process is problematic from my view….public school teachers being forced to follow a curriculum that is inadequate, yet being held accountable for the testing results simply makes no sense to me.
~~~ In response to teachers being held accountable 21st Century shines a light on the frustration with curriculum as well, ”Teachers should not be held accountable, then, for adhering strictly to the prescribed curriculum. Rather, as professionals, they should expect to justify what they do when they depart from it in recognition of their deeper responsibility to students” (Noddings, N. (2013). I was particularly fond of Noddings’ reminder that we are now in the 21st century where we should be thinking on a global perspective rather than a dividing one.
ReplyDeleteTina- Noddings is new to me, and I found her discourse to be uplifting and encouraging in many ways. In the preface she states "Education is a multi-aim enterprise" and that it is time for schools to recognize that fact and capitalize on it, while addressing the needs of students across 3 dimensions: home & family, occupational, and civic (p.viii). Whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement, it is interesting to see how this perspective (as viewed by various stakeholders in education) could easily lead to a less than productive (and divided) environment when ideologies vary even slightly.
DeleteLast… Anyon is a study that shines a light on education being divided up by race and class. This is a study that shows how schools filter our children down their little career paths, where those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are streamed into clerical work or manual labor, while those from higher social status backgrounds are steered into positions of power.
ReplyDeleteAll off this discourse, be it negative or positive is healthy for the field of education. This is how advancements are made. This keeps us all on our feet, thinking.
Hi all. We have yet to discuss the Anyon article on the "Hidden Curriculum" in schools! I apologize in being slow to get my thoughts up on this, but I must be honest and tell you that I thought it was a fantastic read! I'll admit that I was a little skeptical at first, given that it was published 35 years ago, but I believe that it is just as applicable today as it was when it was written.
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't read it, the basic gist of it is that within the schools and curriculums of varying SES student populations, instruction, interaction, and overall experiences can differ greatly. This is due in part to what is known as the "Hidden Curriculum", or the subtle changes that are imposed upon the learner by published curriculum and/or the teachers.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling for Anyon, Mackinley, what a nice summary! :) Yeah, the hidden curriculum notion based on students' SES was honestly somewhat expected concepts, but it was really surprising to see the details of each class vividly in the article. When I read the working class example, I was literally holding my breath because I felt bad when reading the teachers' irresponsible comments and students' reactions on their teachers. I feel better gradually reading up to the affluent class school example, but one more time I feel a bit suffocated when I read about the executive elite school. The theme of "excellence" in the top school seems to have both pros and cons, the students seem not that liberal, but under stress and pressure to be excellent.
DeleteOne quote resonating with me is "No class is certain of victory, and ideological hegemony is not secure" (p. 38). I thought that there might be an ideal school setting among the five schools, but Anyon pointed out that everyone seems to struggle in their class, setting, and situational schools for abundant reasons. Thus, this thought led me to the very first thought of "combining" different notions/ideologies to approach to the "ideal/humane education" as much as we can. Lastly, this point (and all this week's readings) keeps me thinking this question, "now what would the fifth and sixth ideology be in the future?" Considering the continuum of knowledge that evolve over time, I do believe that more ideologies will appear on top of these four ideologies in this book. What would those be? A combined one among the 4? Or, updated version of each in different direction? This question might be one of the major questions I would like to answer over this semester. At this point, Anyon's question to the students resonates in my brain, "Do you think that you can create knowledge?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLastly, this might be off the topic; however, one thing that ponders me when reading this week's readings was how I can project the 4 ideologies with Davis' 8 notions ranging from gnosis to interobjectivity.
ReplyDeleteI do see the somewhat overlapping aspects between Scholar Academic and gnosis, between Social Reconstruction and poststructuralism. To help remind me as well as you, I would be happy to share my prevention slides I made about 18 months ago, which depicted the 8 notions with metaphors of teaching (please click the hyperlink below). On the third slide, I tried to project Schiro's 4 ideologies comparing to Davis' 8 notions.
Although it is hard to draw a clear cut among the concepts, as things are bifurcating, I see that I may project them in this way. Would this make sense to you? Any thoughts, comments, and critique are welcome as always! Thanks! :)
John's Slides <--- Click!!!
John, I built the exam same drawing in my notebook about the integration of the ideologies to Davis' book! Schiro was often very explicit regarding the ideologies and the terminology, like "constructivism" being a synonym of Learner-Centered ideology, and social reconstruction being intersubjective.
Delete