Our present task is to examine why we need to consider curriculum. As teachers, it is imperative that we constantly look at curriculum since it is the medium used to perform our work. We want to make sure we have at our disposal a curriculum that has high standards, it's relevant, and as Wiggins states it " develops a thirst for learning" not only as a short term endeavor but one that seeks to develop lifelong learners. As I read the articles I kept thinking about the common complaint of the authors about the "traditional curriculum" which they find inadequate because it doesn't foster critical thinking, it doesn't encourage learner participation as an "expert," and it doesn't provide opportunities for all learners to show what they know. Wraga even adds that it lacks interdisciplinary connections which helps prevent having a fragmented curricula. He goes on to say that in earlier decades (1940's) the interdisciplinary connections were prescribed. So, I thought, " What happened? Why did curriculum development moved in the direction it did to the point where students find learning irrelevant? At the risk of being simplistic, I think the change ocurred--like in many cases--just to try the new "fad" without carefully considering the benefits or lack of to student learning.
Most of my early schooling was in Puerto Rico and as I recall, it was the traditional style. I can see the benefits of a holistic education in which students can engage the textbook, their culture and be able to think interdisciplinary. As a world language teacher, I definitely see the advantages of and practice in my classes the integrated approach. I want my students to be able to communicate in Spanish in a meaningful way. I want them to explore, appreciate and experience the differences and similarities between their culture and others. Of course, the extent of their experiences are limited because of their ages (K-2) and the limited exposure to the language and cultures. However, my desire is to awaken the mind to a world beyond their own and encourage them through their learning to continue their quest in not only learning to speak the language but in becoming citizens of the world. I think this is what Wiggins calls the need for a modern curriculum. One that has a the capacity of making our students "citizens and students of the world."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey- thanks for brining in your experience growing up in Puerto Rico- it really makes me wonder about the curriculum debate in other countries- Karim- can you lend us some insight. Do other countries wrestle with curriculum similar to us? Is this a distinctly American thing? Should it be? I would love to see some models from around the globe- especially from countries that have really good educational systems- but then again it is hard to apply these to such a diverse and independent country as ours here-- I really like this way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteWell as I did most of my schooling in morocco. Where the educational system was a copy of the French one, and just by saying so you would go huh!. Yes the Moroccan officials didn’t want to develop their own educational system and therefore their own curriculum and for years and years we were held to the same standards as the French students. But on the other hand what we were taught was totally disconnected of our real life. We were quizzed on things we have never seen, materials to teach the curriculum were not available and other then the manuals we had little or no other resources. The Moroccan government change the curriculum taught in k-12 but that change brought with it a lot of problems and conflicts as we are a bilingual system. The French curriculum felt sometimes as wearing borrowed suit that doesn’t fit.
ReplyDeleteI like the analogy of the borrowed suit- that is so interesting and I love both of your perspectives!
ReplyDelete