Something that made me stop in this article was when Eisner talked about some examples of implicit curriculum, and in particular how something as seemingly trivial as school architecture conveys meaning to students. While I had given some thought to other ways that we implicitly teach students things (such as the diversity of representation we imply with our in-class examples, or the inherent value we place in certain subjects given the time allocated there), this was something I had never considered, but makes total sense. It seems strange to think that we can hope to inspire a level of confidence and belonging from our students when the environment they are expected to foster such qualities in can be so isolating and cold. Particularly with how important it is to me in my desire to create a safe and comfortable space in my classroom, this is definitely something to consider and hopefully address within the scope of the school I work at. Another thing that made me stop was that there were two separate excerpts on individuals from the 30s (Mumford) and the 70s (Illich) who were expressing concern over what the extensive use of machines and tools respectively would mean for our relationship with them, and specifically that it would eventually sour into humans being governed by them – that it would become “master” to us. I think this is really interesting, as it is arguably even more relevant today with how widespread technology and in particular AI use is. I find it fascinating that we can have the same anxieties almost a hundred years ago, especially considering how new and unprecedented the issue of AI seems to us. It is slightly comforting to know that these were worries that have existed for a while, and have yet to come to true fruition (arguably), and yet possibly slightly disheartening as well that these are things that have plagued us for so long.
This has definitely expanded my own idea of curriculum, as before I had considered the word at face value: a set of content and competencies that teachers are required to teach to their students. A way of meeting standards. After this article, I have a greater appreciation for how all encompassing curriculum actually is. It is not just the standards we hope to teach, but the ideas we implicitly impart both through what we do as well as what we don’t. I think that the new BC curriculum is hopefully well positioned to address this, especially with its emphasis on core competencies and foundational skills instead of focusing solely on subject content, as well as its emphasis on expanding and diversifying the perspectives we focus on. Although I do not have extensive knowledge of the past BC curriculum, this new one does seem to have a good theoretical goal of helping teachers guide students to become productive, critically thinking, well rounded individuals, focusing a lot more on the implicit curriculum Eisner discusses through the types of activities and methods chosen, and how we structure our classroom. In terms of the null curriculum, although I am sure the new curriculum has expanded upon content that was not covered before, there does still seem to be an emphasis on the typical subject areas and content that have been the main focus for years (math, science). I would be curious to delve more into the art and elective curriculums to see what has been added there, and how BC is addressing what Eisner was speaking on in terms of a lack of emphasis on certain subjects and life skills (such as law, economics, art etc.). Overall, it seems like the new curriculum is addressing a lot of the implicit curriculum more explicitly, with still having room to grow, as I’m sure there will always be.
No comments:
Post a Comment