I found this weeks readings to be very thought provoking. I was initially only going to write about the History of Curriculum by Thomas Popkewitz but then I could just not comment on Perspectives of Four Curriculum Traditions by William Schubert as well and felt that they actually went well together. Instantly a quote from Popkewitz jumped out at me. “Schooling is designed to act on the spirit and the body of the children and the young.” This quote spoke to me because I believe this is so much what school should be about but what has been lost somewhere about the time school being taught by subjects came to be. Take this in the context of the four curriculum traditions. Intellectual traditionalist have sucked the ability to ignite the spark and spirit in children. By focusing so much on reading, lecture and memorization of facts the ability of students to pursue their own interests, to experience things and develop lifelong skills they need has been taken away. When I look at the 4 curriculum traditions I firmly believe they all have a place but some should take center stage more than others. Social Behaviorist and Experimental Traditionalist need to be on that center stage. The social behaviorist are needed to teach the behaviors that help students become more successful like problem solving. To ignite a passion for learning students need to have some say in what they want to learn and this is why experimental traditionalist are important. If students can have a say in what they want to learn and to actually gain experiences rather than be lectured at or memorizing facts they are more likely to retain and gain knowledge. This is where teachers are instituting a genius hour component into their classrooms. During genius hour students get to select a topic they want to study, explore it and design a project based upon those interests. I do think there are times when the intellectual traditionalist is necessary but for many teachers this is their method of teaching which leads to low levels of rigor and disengaged students. Critical re-constructionist is needed but not exactly like that mentioned. All students in today's times need to go on for further education so education is not sorting them for that purpose but rather by ability and knowledge so that we can make sure they are prepared for the next level of educations and for also finding out their passions so the next step in their education journey is in the right directions. Therefore I believe that all four traditions have a place in education.
Hello Melissa. I found the “Genius Hour” to be very intriguing. I have never heard of this before and I know that although many teachers want to incorporate assignments and items that interest the students, it is often hard to do this while meeting the requirements of the class. But I felt that this activity meets many requirements and can be something that is implemented once a week or during centers that stretch throughout the week. I found myself connecting with each theorist in different ways. Like you, I agree with certain aspects and felt that they all had a “place in education” but I didn’t agree entirely to anything or anyone “whole” thinker but I think that is why the quote in “The Child and the Curriculum”, Dewey stated that the educator “determines the environment of the child” (p.123). Depending on the beliefs of the teacher will determine what is taught and deemed most important. “It is he and not the “subject-matter which determines the quality and quantity”” of a given subject and is decided on what the educator feels is needed to ensure the health and prosperity for the individual (Dewey, p.108). Do you feel that depending on the student’s culture, background, or environment in which they live is a factor or should determine what style of teaching or which theory should be implemented to assure student success? Or do you feel that all students no matter their background need the different levels of education that was introduced in “Perspectives on four curriculum traditions” by William Schubert?
ReplyDeleteHi Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts this week. I agree with you that curriculum should not center around the intellectual traditionalist perspective. There is not enough diversity in the work, the parameters of the Cannon are too narrow (relative to culture), and some of the work is simply irrelevant to students today. I will say that perhaps courses based off such works are good options for electives though.
While I am in accord with you on intellectual traditionalism, I differ from you on social behaviorism. The concept of reconstructing curriculum to meet future needs sounds great (especially in this ever-changing digital age), but I simply do not agree with social behaviorism’s vision of construction. According to Schubert (1996), social behaviorists “re-make curriculum in every generation by asking what successful people do” (p. 172) and teaching these habits to kids. So, who are these successful people and how do we measure their success? I assume that success in the workings of our free enterprise is determined by wealth. Therefore, when promoting such a curriculum, what values are being promoted with it? Furthermore, there is not much diversity in the ranks of the wealthy (or at least not the diversity reflected across the population). Thus, the message about what it takes to be successful is a dangerous one. With this in mind, I have to admit that I am not for the social behaviorist model, but am a proponent of experientialist and critical reconstructionist.
Sincerely,
Edward Nelson
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts here. I find the connection between Popkewitz's comment about schooling "acting on the spirit" of the young and your movement through Schubert's traditions compelling. I suppose one could think about the differences in traditions as approaching that action in different ways or for different purposes. As such, it seems to me that you can parse out which traditions provide an external action on student's spirits and which traditions provide a spark for internal action from within students. I agree with Edward, above, when he cautions us to think very hard about who gets to determine what behaviors/ways of being in the world are the most optimal that we will seek to push children to emulate. In a society as heterogeneous as ours, this can be highly problematic.
I think your intuitions about seeking ways to begin with children's lived experiences are productive. If a student understands that their "real life" matters and is connected to the curriculum in some way, schooling becomes something different, doesn't it? So, how do we do this? How do we transform school curriculum in such a way that we can take into account the diversity of student experiences in an age of standardization? What does/can that look like in your classroom?
Best,
amanda