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.
No comments:
Post a Comment