Category: EDUC 103

Sometimes the Best Choice is not to Choose at all

            The conundrum of creating a curriculum is always placed on the shoulders of the curriculum creator. In Module 2, we have learned about the 5 different conceptions of a curriculum and how much it differs in terms of perspective. The video presentation of Sir Ken Robinson (video) also tackles a similar theme, critiqueing a well-established format of the curriculum and arguing its current fit with modern society.

            There are 5 different conceptions of a curriculum, all of which can be understood by their very name or title: (1) Academic Rationalist Approach is where the academics are the most important subject matter to which all things become standardized and information centralized to one specific source. (2) Cognitive Processes Approach is where the curriculum focuses on improving the pattern of thinking and arriving at solutions. (3) Humanistic approach is where the human’s experience is at the forefront of education to which the educator functions as a facilitator of and processor of experience enrichment. (4) Social Reconstructionist is where the curriculum is formed precisely to critique the existing society and established norms in order to create an idealized version (maybe personal version) of utopia to which these learners will belong in the future. Lastly, the (5) Technological approach is the focus on the usage of available technology and having the education through this and for this. (Valiance, 2012; Murray 1993)

            These methods or approaches can actually be observed in many classes I’ve undertaken. The majority of which can be classified as Academic Rationalist from Kinder up to Grade school, and still Academic Rationalist with a sprinkling of Cognitive Process and Technological come high school years. In college, the difference of the conceptions of curriculum is more defined as professors have more freedom in deciding which kind of curriculum they want their students to partake in. My Psychology class was distinctly Humanistic, as our assessments were dynamic and unique, and our professor would emphasize the importance of the human experience to correctly understand human psychology. My Philosophy classes did nothing but critique our established ways and make us understand what can be changed based on a change of perception. This can be classified under Social Reconstructionist Conception.

            In the talk featured on the video, it was apparent that the mode or conception being critiqued was the Academic Rationalist Approach as the speaker talked about the importance of subject matters, traditional methods of teaching and assessment, as well as tidbits of biases by academic personnel, parents, friends, and even politicians of what course or subject matter has greater economic utility or academic value.

            It was obvious that Sir Ken Robinson wholeheartedly disagreed with these conceptions as he finds that these are limiting to the learner as well as outdated for our world today. The learner is an individual with different passions and abilities; therefore, having such a standardized and rigid view of education will not be a “one-size-fits-all” sort of thing. Rather, education is a more personalized experience, one which society can benefit more from if all humans are given an opportunity to discover their hidden talents or resources. Additionally, our world of the 21st century is every evolving, and thus, sticking to the Academic Rationalist Approach will set us back to 19th century standards.

            Sir Ken Robinson therefore was proposing a forward movement in his speech. He was encouraging educators in attendance to see the learners as individuals and bring it “back to basics.” This was evident even during the start of his speech where he likened the education system with theater. Theater in all its glory and contribution to the human society can be streamlined to just the actor and their audience. The gist and power of theater is in the relationship, not the additives. The same can be said with education. Take away all the additives and what is left is the relationship of the learner with their teacher, and if one must include additives, they must ensure that the additives are thoroughly beneficial to the either one in the relationship or to the relationship itself.

            To know the individual, the relationship between the educator and the learner must be personal, first and foremost, and be cultural as it is economic. Cultural because the identities provide a sense of tolerance and mutuality and thus enriches learning and understanding. Economic because we can’t really take this out of the equation. Ultimately, I think Sir Ken Robinson wasn’t vouching for any conception in particular, rather, he was vouching for proper fit. After getting to know the audience, we will know what kind of performance can be given to for their satisfaction.

            Similarly, as I was going through this module, I have felt that each of the conceptions were lacking in some aspects. At the same time, I saw some really good approaches and insights in all of them, of which I also saw in some of my previous experiences in the education sector. Because of this, I had this nagging feeling that these conceptions are not presented to us as a choice. Rather, these are established approaches done by many great thinkers for their own purposes. And today, in order to become the educator we desire, we must borrow from these great minds and use as we see fit. In conclusion, do we have to choose between the 5? I think my title says it all.

References:

Vallance, E. 2012. A Second Look at Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum. Theory into

Practice vol. 25, Issue 1, 1986 in Taylor and Francis Online. Retrieved 29 July 2012 from

www.udel.edu/soe/whitson/curriculum/files/Vallance_1986.pdf

Murray. 1993. Curriculum Development and Design 2nd ed. , Australia: Allen and Unwin

Robinson, K. 2011. Creativity, Learning and Curriculum. Retrieved 29 July 2012 from

Expectation vs Reality

“Teacher, how come they discussed how powdered eggs are made in the other section, and we didn’t?”

random culinary student

Exactly three years ago, I entered the High School I’m currently teaching to become a teacher of Culinary Arts. I was fresh from an HR training job after finishing a degree in Psychology and obtaining a license as a psychometrician. I had certified myself as a chef, proving that I am well capable in the kitchen, and was also quite confident that my experience in training adults, facilitating learning sessions with professionals, would equip me with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform my duty as an educator of the youth.

Was there ever a more misguided thought!

            The first month of in-service had almost brought me to tears. It was not because of the sheer amount of paperwork as I was already used to heaps of paperwork in the previous industry I belonged to, but the source of utter confusion and despair was trying to comprehend why we had to keep producing documents which basically contained the same contents if only to present them in different ways.

            My supervisor oriented me with the documents that I had to produce within the month, and these will be used as the springboard and basis of the school year to prepare for. A curriculum for the grade level I was about to handle has been established by the school, but I had to check for the curriculum mandated by the government as well—DepEd curriculum for the specific grade level and subject (DepEd Order No 21, 2016). At the same time, I was advised to be creative, forming activities that tackled most of the skills in the least amount of time. I was given both freedom and structure, navigating through paper works and hoping that at the very least I was able to produce something fresh and worth learning.

All in all, I thought a curriculum was a mere syllabus.

            It had all the details of the plan. A course guide, to indicate the topics that will be available for the semester, the grading sheet or grading rubric, proposed timeline, and a line-up of activities. My main objective of the course is found on the lesson plan, a document called a UbD (Understanding by Design) where we had to work backward, starting from the goal then work our way back to how exactly we could achieve this goal in a series of activities and lessons (Authentic Education, 2015). I had assumed that the curriculum is merely the document handed over to me by the school, which indicates that the students of the batch were to learn the following subjects, and thus learn the following skills and imbibe the following values. However, after going through a gruesome year with many opportunities for growth and learning, and the eye-opening article on this course, I can finally conclude that a curriculum is a system that contains both the detailed documents supporting the system’s documentation as well as the process in which it is being developed.

            It is through the readings of this course that I have realized that the in-service program where we had to create the documents was only the first step of the curriculum process. The school’s established curriculum and the government-mandated curriculum are the basis of the formation of an ideal curriculum that merges the desired components and what the school is capable of.

Planning the curriculum would entail thinking about the different stakeholders: the school, the outside school auditors, the teachers who will execute the plan, the learners and the learner’s parents. The timeline is also laid out, estimating the time it will take to keep topics in line, preferably in increasing difficulty, as not to overwhelm the students. In our school, we have a system called Articulation Integration, where teachers of the different subjects of the same level meet for a few hours to discuss how to combine activities while learning is produced in different subject matters. This aims to lessen student workload while being able to hit two birds with one stone.

            This ideal plan is accompanied by documentation such as the lesson plan, a learner’s manual, matrices, guides, and rubrics. All of these are kept in a folder as a reference within its timely execution. But it is also during the execution where we enter the second stage of the curriculum process. The teachers finally meet their students and become exposed to the school culture as well as the specific “flavor” or culture of a certain batch of students. This is also where teachers struggle to adjust the lessons and activities based on student capability and interest, as well as unforeseen changes in the timeline (natural disasters, holidays, programs, etc). There is also an issue of catering to different learning styles (Advanogy.com, 2020) where teachers revise programs in order to hit all kinds of student learners and ensure holistic and inclusive learning.

            Another way that the curriculum undergoes changes is through its execution or delivery. Different teachers are given the same guide, but it is up to them on how to execute using their personal strategies, style, and personality. Teachers establish rapport with the students carrying a certain persona, and this persona must be matched with the lessons and activities. The content for all classes might be the same, but the delivery can never be 100% exactly as it was for the other teacher of the same course. This is also why our school established the Learning Circle where students of the same batch and subject, but handling different classes or sections would meet once a week for an hour just to discuss their observations from the previous lesson or activity, give suggestions on its execution for the next school year, and then plan for the next lesson or activity so that even when differences cannot be avoided, they will more or less be aligned with each other content and goal-wise.

            Such as the audio-clip “Curriculum as Practice, (OER Africa, 2010)” where teachers of different cultures approached the same lesson with different styles. The first teacher, presumably from South Africa, had discussed briefly the nomadic tribes and then proceeded to ask about the definition of what she had discussed, pointing out with her words and tone, that the definition is obvious if the students had been paying attention. Due to her tone or possibly due to the students lacking knowledge, the answer was not extracted from the learners and came from her yet again. The second teacher who made a more casual approach in the discussion related the topic by discussing a culture-specific nomadic tribe that is familiar to the learners. From this, a student was able to correctly correlate its meaning from an established experience or knowledge, allowing the discussion to become more interactive.

            Lastly, but maybe the most important cause of curriculum modification would be the learner’s reception. Some sets of learners are insightful as some can be more inquisitive, curious, critical, or passive. It depends on their approach to learning that teachers adjust to their needs. As an example, refer to the quote I’ve mentioned above. Students would often come to me asking about unavoidable discrepancies in additional information or conversations held in the classroom. There are some days that students ask insightful questions which leads teachers to impart additional information that excites the class enough to share the new knowledge with students from another class, thus the question regarding powdered eggs. And some students are content with the general knowledge (about eggs) that you impart with them.

            Finally and ultimately, as teachers close the school year and bid learners adieu, we finally enter the final stage of the curriculum development. The third and final stage is the evaluation phase where teachers would synthesize the changes and modifications and stabilize it as the achieved curriculum. In its final stage, more documentation on the rationalization of the changes would be made, thus the presence of year-end reports and evaluation documents. This achieved curriculum would then become the springboard for next year’s planned curriculum.

            This course has given me an “aha” moment as I was able to understand why the adjustment of the curriculum never ended. In the last 3 years, I’ve revised my curriculum more than 3 times, and there is no indication that there will be a final or permanent version of this. Students evolve, and government mandates evolve, and I think it is our most imminent duty to evolve with them to be of better service.

References:

Advanogy.com. 2020. Overview of learning styles. Learning Styles Online. Retrieved from: https://www.learning-styles-online.com/overview/

Authentic Education. 2015. What is Understanding by Design?. Authentic Education. Retrieved from: https://www.authenticeducation.org/ubd/ubd.lasso

Hernando-Malipot, M. 2019. DepEd issues policy guidelines for K to 12 basic education program. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from: https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/08/26/deped-issues-policy-guidelines-for-k-to-12-basic-education-program/

OER Africa. 2010. Track 1: Part 3 – Curriculum as Practice. Youtube Video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OU9xUjC-Zk