Some Optimism for Once

Internet,

Its that time, finally! This will be my final course related post, much to the disappointment of my numerous, avid readers. Throughout this blog, I have often brought up rhetorical questions directed at (and occasionally criticizing) the methods in which teacher education has been taught. I thought I would take this final opportunity to end this on a more positive note!

While a good chunk of what I've learned through this curriculum course will not be emulated in my own practice, I have acquired some useful skills as well. The concept of backwards design is one that I will appropriate into my own repertoire, albeit an edited version of what I learned in class. Instructional formulation through backwards design was not something I had considered prior to this course. High school classrooms usually shows signs of scaffolding, meaning that each new piece of information builds on top of a previous knowledge base. I figured this linear process would translate well when forming lessons plans as well.

It would appear that I was wrong. I can admit it, don't worry, my pride won't suffer too much.

By tackling large concepts and assignments first, I was astounded to find how clear class planning became. By knowing the end result, it became much, much easier to fill in the gaps on the road to completion.

I won't be adopting this practice wholeheartedly though, as I mentioned above. While the overall concept definitely appeals to me, some of the middle steps will definitely need some work-shopping. I found the meticulous scanning and clustering (scanning and clustering, scanning and clustering, vertically and horizontally) to be extremely tedious, It made me lose focus on the larger unit I was developing. I would love to offer an alternative; some way I've found to make this simpler, but I can't. The development of my teaching style is an ongoing process and will constantly evolve as I do. However, the first step to finding a solution is, oftentimes, to first identify the problem.

While I have been critical these past few posts, I don't want any of you dear readers to get the wrong idea. I do enjoy the education system and teaching is definitely a passion of mine. I'm currently at an odd stage though; living in both worlds, as a teacher and simultaneously, as a student. To compound this, the education system (as I have mentioned before) is in a transitory state. There is a shift taking place from traditional methods to modern ones, which is quite reflective of my own experiences. At one point, our previous instructional strategies were the way to do things, there was no alternative. By being critical, I only hope to avoid glorifying these new methods as the only method. Education is constantly changing, so we shouldn't put all our chips behind one style. There you have it folks, I'm not actually cynical, I'm helping by being critical!

As always, here's some art.  Today, the work reflects my mindset, considering all my (numerous) deadlines approaching. This performance piece by Olivier de Sagazan haunts my nightmares, and now I will force it on you too.

And now you're scarred for life. 

Musings on Curriculum

Hello again Internet,

Its blogging time. Today is going to be slightly different than my usual post, dear readers. Previously, I've used my course readings to inspire my biweekly rants, but this week, I have no readings. Instead, I'd like to share some of my disconnected musings regarding curriculum planning and implementation.

The entire course this blog was created for is focused primarily on the formation of lesson plans from curriculum documents. A lengthy process has been outlined for us, consisting of informational scans in multiple directions, clustering and bundling knowledge, and identifying the knowledge, actions, and mind-frame each student should possess by the course's completion. I have ranted on multiple occasions now about the shortcomings of this process (primarily the fact that it is an organic, changing process, that is taught in a strictly linear format), but a new concept that irks me has surfaced.

Recently I completed an observational placement in a high school for a different course of mine. I watched teaching style, lesson plans, and marking schemes very closely. Following this experience, one question has plagued me ever since.

Does anyone actually USE this lengthy process to form their lessons? Sure as hell doesn't look like it. That isn't even my major issue though. I have no problem learning a framework for lesson creation that I may never use again. I do, however, have a problem when that framework is presented as fact.

From what I saw in this placement specifically, teachers know what they are going to teach (for the most part), and they try to get that knowledge to the students as easily as possible. That's all it boils down to. One teacher I worked with told me (and his entire class) that this was the first time he had ever taught this class, so he had no idea how it was going to work out. Does that sound like the words of someone who isolated and has strategically placed the Know, Do, and Be of the course throughout the entire semester? Definitely not. I did, however, find the class extremely receptive to his honesty, which in turn translated to attentiveness to his lesson.

I really don't have a conclusion to this idea, but my questions were to prominent just to ignore. Is it the mark of an effective teacher to distill manageable skills from curriculum documents, or do we instead look to the teacher who is personable, knowledgeable, and provides and interesting lesson?

This is not to say these two are mutually exclusive by any means. I simply believe that teacher education should not possess the rigidity I have experienced. Anyone who has ever been in school can attest to the fact that each teacher is different from the next. I believe teacher education should not only recognize this, but nurture these differences.

The work I've chosen for this week reflects the reproducibility that our current teacher education system would seem to seek. I will leave you with more question; do we really want a fleet of teachers who glean information the same, who deconstruct curriculum the same?




Therry Guetta AKA Mister Brainwash

Trained by street artists, including Banksy and Sheppard Fairey, Guetta "appropriated" (stole) works from many unknown artists. He produces hundreds of copies of the same work in his art factory. He continually pumps out "art" he has never actually touched. His workers churn our more and more "Mister Brainwash" originals, devaluing art to a mere consumable.

Integrated Curriculum

Hi there, Internet,

Today we're going to be looking at the formation of an integrated curriculum. After that, I believe I will once again grace you with another rant on why I don't like how I've learned about integrated curriculum. But before that, let's talk about this "integrated curriculum" I've mentioned three times now. Basically, the idea is to combine one area of learning, say science, with another, perhaps English. The goal of this is to foster not only a greater understanding in the subject matter, but also a greater interest through continuity.

The design of this new-fangled integrated approach is extremely similar to the backwards design process we discussed last post, with a few minor differences. The main difference occurs in the initial planning phase thought, when you are supposed to intensively examine curriculum documents in order to cluster similar concepts. To "integrate" one subject with another, the idea is too cluster concepts similar to each subject. For our science & English example, this could mean getting the students to write a paper on a scientific topic, which would then be assessed based on their research (science) and their writing style (English). Essential questions that drive each subject's units should transcend the boundaries of individual subjects in order to create an enduring interest and understanding in each subject field.

My text then proceeded to give a detailed example of this based on a prospective 4th Grade unit, but not before stating that this process is much easier for primary school teachers who are in control of all their subjects. Unfortunately, I don't plan on being a primary school teacher, so these rather detailed example is nowhere near as helpful as it could be. For secondary school teachers, collaboration is going to be essential if your goal is an integrated curriculum. Any tips on how this can be accomplished? Not really, the most I can glean is "that this is quite difficult with 7+ people." Anything is difficult to accomplish with 7+ people and its nigh impossible considering that our school systems are neither planning for nor equip to deal with an integrated curriculum on such a scale. I hate to say it but teachers simply don't have the time or resources for such an epic undertaking that is not even board approved.

Is integrated curriculum is good idea? Of course it is, I would be absolutely fantastic if every subject had ties to every other. Is it feasible (aside from small pockets of very dedicated individuals) in secondary schools today? I would say no.

Regardless, I'd like to move on to one other topic. This chapter of my text dealing with integrated curriculum has featured the second disclaimer that "although presented in a linear fashion, in reality, the planning process is hardly that". In fact, it continued to say that in all likelihood I will be extremely frustrated and that the work is tedious.  Now I won't rehash my previous misgivings with these disclaimers and say "it shouldn't be taught linearly if it won't be experienced linearly" but seriously, if this is so difficult, why are there no suggestions to make it easier? An FAQ maybe? Even a list of where new teachers have the most trouble that I could focus on? Instead I get a disclaimer that's basically telling me,  "everything after this point, y'know, all the wonderfully organized information? Yeah, it'll be a nightmare to compile, it will be difficult to collaborate, and the entire process outlined for you is subject to change for no reason whatsoever and every experience will be different. Good luck!"

There, I'm done this post's rant. I probably should have called my blog Rantings in Education instead of Adventures in Education. Oh well, I suppose were taking an adventure of cynicism. This week, I'll leave you with a piece titled Siesta by Post-Romanticist, Arthur Berzinsh. Berzinsh channels a simple time; a time when men were men, women were objects, and supernatural beings had nothing better to do than blow fart bubbles.

Planning Backwards

Hello again Internet,

This week we will be looking at the processes used in the establishment of learning goals, quality assessments, and marking schemes. Before we begin however, I'd like to take the opportunity to include a little disclaimer; my knowledge here has little experience to build off and my basis isn't exactly what I'd consider solid. The first steps to this long process of creation hinges on mythical "curriculum documents" that I have been assured exist somewhere. I have not actually seen them (or even their format), so I will be assuming that they are rather clear and concise. My readings for the course this blog is for have told me to refer to them on numerous occasions to "highlight key phrases" and the like, but never went much more in depth than that. So, Internet, we'll go forward and pretend we can follow these vague initial steps.

After looking for these key ideas in our curriculum documents, the general idea is to work backwards from broad concepts to the specific. The first step is to pick a topic which must be deduced from curriculum documents. My readings tell me, "if you know the curriculum well, you will have good ideas," so I can only assume that since we don't know the curriculum at all, we will currently have bad ideas. Regardless, once we have our topic, the next step is to further deconstruct said curriculum document and group similar concepts and ideas together. Keeping a broad context in mind (like how this lesson will fit in with the students yearly goals) is important at this stage, so it can be helpful to examine learning goals for both younger and older grade levels for comparison. I find these instructions rather specific, but I believe the steps must be malleable, as I have heard curriculum documents differ from province to province.

Once our deductions are clustered into neat, little packages, we must then organize them to find out what our students must eventually Know, be able to Do, and Be (a less important aspects, one that some provinces omit entirely). With these ideas established, overarching concepts and enduring questions will be more easily identifiable. We must then keep these new concepts at the forefront of the lessons in order to guide students towards the desired learning objective. After this, we must simply become more and more specific. Next is to decide the style/number of projects, and finally, daily lessons that will help students reach a point intellectually where completion of the projects are feasible.

Now the entire time I read these steps I could not get over how robotic they sounded. Sure, the conclusion to my reading stated that, while the process was presented linearly, in the real world it is hardly ever like that, but my question is why should I learn it in such a specific, linear manner. Everything I've learned about teaching a class until this point has told me to include students in the planning process; to make them a part of their own learning. Now, suddenly, I'm told how to create these extremely traditional units. All my professors preach constructivism as the method of the future, but it shocks me how few actually practice it. If constructivist methods are so much better than traditional ones, then those methods should start in teacher education. Instead, I get a one off sentence saying "some teachers like to include their students in the creation of rubrics." That's fantastic for some teachers, but that doesn't help me at all. How about learning how to include students?

The specific, linear method of designing curriculum and assessment is great and all, but I feel it will rarely apply to the classroom. I feel I would be much better off looking at these curriculum documents firsthand and working through how to create this lesson plans instead of vague descriptions based on documents I have never seen. My rant got a little out of hand towards the end their, but it needed to be said. This time I'll leave you with a piece by Heironymus Bosch, the man who painted the surreal before it was cool. The title, A Violent Forcing of the Frog, makes about as much sense as this piece does, but it definitely reflects how I feel after my little rant.

Until next time, Internet,

cjarvis

A Violent Forcing of the Frog

Heironymus Bosch

Hello Internet & Initial Observations

Hello Internet,
For the inaugural post to Adventures in Education it would seem best to introduce myself. I'm currently in my penultimate year of teacher education at Brock University in Ontario, Canada. This blog is actually for one of my courses, and due to this, it will deal primarily deal with my musings surrounding education, curriculum, and learning in general. My degree will cover teachable subjects in both visual arts and English. They are similar in many aspects, as they both provide opportunity to look closely at the creations of others and, in addition, create works of your own.

However, the method in which these two subjects are taught, are, in my opinion, vastly different. As such, I'll need a variety of teaching methods and strategies in order to cover both of these. I'm getting ahead of myself though, we're just starting out on our Adventure. It will be an interesting practice to see if my thoughts change throughout the development of this blog, though!

Let's start with curriculum, shall we? The actual definition is a bit hazy; curriculum means a lot of different things to different people. Clandinin and Connelly define it as "life", a definition that I find next to useless. The International Baccalaureate Organization claims it consists of what is to be learned (written curriculum), how it is learned (taught curriculum), and how it is to be assessed (learned curriculum). I find this explanation a lot easier to comprehend, but I would like to make the addition of a fourth component, the hidden curriculum (which includes biases and thought patterns unintentionally communicated to students). Other courses I have dealt with previously always stressed the importance of this "hidden curriculum", so I was surprised when it wasn't even mentioned in my reading. Let's file this thought away for later; it still may surface later on.

Next up is the concept and different styles of assessment. The three types outlined are assessment for learning (AfL), assessment as learning (AaL) and assessment of learning (AoL).Honestly, prior to reading about these different types, I had no idea they were defined as such. Most teachers I have encountered use a combination of all three types of assessment seamlessly. So much so, I had thought the concept and practice of assessment was taught under a single heading. My text further stated that that a combination of AfL, AaL, and AoL, which helped to assuage my initial confusion. As these concepts are in no way distinct or separate, I have to question why they are taught separately at all? They seem to be intertwined in such as a way as to be inseparable, so why not teach them as one large concept? Perhaps further analysis will yield some answers to my questions.

It is undoubtedly an exciting time to become a teacher. We are at an interesting fork in the metaphorical road that is education. A transition is occurring between traditional methods and new, constructivist inspired practices. We, as future educators, will be an integral part of this transition, and I, for one, can't wait to see what directions we take this!

To finish this post off, I'll leave you with an artwork by one of my favourite artists, Alex Gray. The Artist' Hand (1997) applies perfectly to our knowledge of curriculum and assessment thus far. The layers and changing nature of the hand depicted reflect the many layers and complexity of education. Nothing is solitary here; everything is interconnected. In addition, we as the artist (architect, educator, etc.) have the ability to change our very reality. Use this power wisely, I know I will!

Until next time Internet,

cjarvis

Alex Gray

The Artist's Hand (1997)