As I read and watched the material for this first
lesson, I was keeping in mind the main questions of what is curriculum and what
is its purpose. As a definite "Type
A" personality I love structure, tradition, and curriculum, but despite my
traditionalist viewpoint I am also an advocate of modern instruction and
classroom teaching that goes beyond the textbook. I often find that these aspects of my normal
personality and the teacher I strive to be are in constant conflict. But is it the field of education itself that
is the conflict or is it me? If asked to
list characteristics that describe who I am as a person you would find the
words traditionalist and realist. These
large pieces of who I am often come into conflict with my profession as an
educator where the words idealism and theory run rampant. I often wonder if I am alone in this constant
tug of war because of my own personality traits or is it the profession itself
that can’t make up its mind.
In the
Otterman article, the question of the purpose of curriculum was brought up with
the issue of severely cognitively impaired students, inclusion, and curriculum. Again, I have conflicting views of this
issue. The educator side of my brain
says that inclusion is an educational method that provides all children equal
opportunities to learn and grow in an educational setting. In theory, ideally, a severely cognitively
impaired student in a general education classroom could still gain valuable
social and functional skills for life beyond school. At the same time, the practical and realist
side of me believes that time may be better spent for a child such as Donovan
from the article in teaching them more functional daily life skills rather than
the causes of the Civil War. Evidence
that Donovan’s inclusion is not working is seen in the fact that the young man has
learned virtually nothing in the 15 years through the public education system;
a fact that is both upsetting but yet not shocking.
The
Ken Robinson video brought up the topic of creativity in schools and in
curriculum. This topic, while it seems
like a no-brainer, is also full of conflicting viewpoints. While most educators understand the
importance of creativity in the classroom and the value of exploration in the arts
in theory, there are real world factors to consider. State mandated curriculum, lack of resources,
as well as a need for structure in the school setting can sometimes stifle creative
freedoms. As a teacher who values moving
beyond the textbook, I know that I have spent countless hours putting together creative
lesson plans, only to have them fail miserably in actual practice. There is a need for creative thinking and
exploring while at the same time, teachers are held accountable for student
test scores on curriculum content.
John
Dewey’s writing brought up a lot about how education is full of theory and that
we can often find a great deal of things that are wrong with institutions such
as education, but being able to figure out how to fix them is the problem. No one has all the answers and most of
educational ideas are theory. This is
the hard part for me in education.
Educators are constantly being asked to tackle new and exciting
theories/ideas about how we should teach in our classrooms and run our
buildings, yet the theories change from year to year. Nothing has time to get put into place or
become solid structures before we are changing their shape. As a traditionalist I have trouble with
implementing a new idea that will become “the wrong way to do things” merely
five minutes after I try it out.
The
final Schubert article made perfect sense with the entire idea of my blog
post. He asked the question of do we, as
educators, have to choose one side of the argument or the other; progressive
education versus traditional education?
This is exactly my dilemma. John
Dewey said not to choose a side and to continue on without a direct path, but
this strategy goes directly against my Type “A” personality where I must have a
path to follow. Floating along between
paths causes great internal conflict.
That is where I am as a professional.
I am part progressive educator and part traditional educator, and I am
not sure that it is only me that is conflicted; I think it may just be the profession
itself and although it sometimes frustrates me personally because I consider
education today so unstable, having such a malleable profession is a large part
of what keeps me intrigued, on my toes, and prevents me from getting bored each
day.
Hello Kristi,
ReplyDeleteI found myself agreeing with many of the points that you made throughout your first reflection over Cycle 1: what is curriculum? What is its purpose? You stated, “I often wonder if I am alone in this constant tug of war because of my own personality traits or is it the profession itself that can’t make up its mind.” I would like to share that I do not believe you are in this alone. In fact, I to love structure, traditions, and curriculum but I also love being creative and bringing engaging activities into my lessons that are not always stated in a textbook. I am a kindergarten teacher and I have quickly learned that young minds only stay on topic for so long and it is up to the teacher to keep these students engaged and motivated to learn. If I were to just use a textbook, I would loose half of my student’s attention. However, for standardized assessments my students still need to be able to learn and gain new knowledge from textbook type lessons. Therefore, I do need to be able to incorporate both ways of thinking into my teaching style.
Moving on to your second issue, the purpose of curriculum was brought up with the issue of severely cognitively impaired students, inclusion, and curriculum. As educators we want all students to have that equal chance for success.. We want to educate the whole child and not hinder their education because of a cognitive impairment. However, we also want our students to be happy. I loved the quote that Rosanne K. Siberman made in the Donovan article, “You want them to be happy. You want to be about working on showing this kid that he’s a worthwhile human being.” For some students a separate setting or different learning goals or targets are what makes sense for that student to be successful. We, as educators, take the time to get to know our students and can help fit them in an educational setting that will be best fit for each individual child.
Last year I had a student that moved into my classroom right after the fourth marking period began. He came from a school in which he was in a cognitively impaired classroom and his parents were not happy with this setting. This young boy was now fully immersed in my classroom. The first couple weeks were rough. I spent numerous hours researching interventions for this boy so that he could be successful in this general education setting. Finally, after I had tried many interventions I held a meeting with my principal, support staff, and the little boy’s parents. At this meeting we shared that full inclusion was just not working out for their son. We than presented a new plan that combined inclusion and pull out.
Finally, I want to touch upon your comments regarding creativity in the classroom. I too spend many hours creating engaging lessons that will keep my students attention. For the most part these lessons are the times of the day where I can see my student’s excitement for learning EXPLODE! However, we still are held accountable for student test scores on curriculum content. So, can we do both? I believe that it is our job to take the curriculum and present it in a way that our students will most benefit from it. We must remember that learning is active. It is the child and not the subject matter with determines both quality and quantity of learning. This means we need to know our students learning styles. I do believe that we can use creativity in our classrooms to teach content standards. We can model and create new experiences for our students. By doing this our students will be gaining new knowledge that they can relate back to at assessment times. Therefore we are still holding our students accountable for the content knowledge but creating fun engaging learning moments along the way!
~Caitlin Meyer
Hi Kristi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your work here!
I really enjoyed the way you started and ended your post. Actually, far too few people reflect on what teaching does to teachers--the internal struggles and conflicts that so many of us feel! I think you are doing a real service by bringing that to people's attention. Clearly, your post resonated with at least one member of the class!
Part of me thinks all good/successful teachers are Type A. After all, we have to get 25 -- 35+ kids roughly on the same page, and doing something roughly similar (or at least contributing to a roughly common goal). You can't be a hands-off person and expect that to happen!
And I do think it is very insightful to ask whether the conflicts you feel are intern to you or part of the field.
One way to think about what Dewey means for us today is not that the latest education theory changes every five minutes (though I know it can seem that way), but that all educational theory is really just old wine in new bottles. I think the Schubert piece lays it out pretty well--the same four camps have been battling it out for the past 100+ years. What Dewey says, for many of us, is just as applicable or thought-provoking today as it was back in 1902.
So educational theories move in a circle, not a line. I find at least some comfort in that. We can know that there is always a place for us--whether we are more traditionalist or progressive at heart--but that at times we will have to explain what we are doing using different types of explanations.
I'm still of the belief that good teaching is good teaching. It requires knowledge of individual kids and knowledge of subject matter. The teacher brings the two together by shaping environments in which the child's interest and curiosity leads them to inquire into something that is of value in the curriculum. I think good teachers have been doing a version of that since the dawn of time. However, the political winds come and go, and so it's always a question of how we explain to politicians (who don't know much about education) why what we are doing is good for kids and good for communities.
Anyway, hang in there! I appreciate your approach here, and hope we will find a day in which teachers don't feel so pulled in opposite directions!
Kyle