I agree that often times curriculum is not flexible and poses barriers that may inhibit positive learning experiences. You might think I am crazy, but I think this problem goes way back to the roots of our education system. Prior to the formalized schooling, when students learned, they were often in an apprenticeship type learning environment, wherein the job of the teacher was to teach only one or a few students at one time. Individualization was intrinsic within the apprentice system because the teacher could know the student and how he learned best. When we decided to mass educate our students, it became difficult to differentiate learning styles, areas of intelligence, and individual skills. Therefore, we expect the students to meet the expectations of the curricula, instead of the curricula meeting the expectations of the students. When the curriculum is static, students not only have to learn the material, but also how to deviate from their natural inclinations for learning, meaning students often need to go against the manner in which their own brain works. This is a barrier because a good deal of energy of the student is then put toward fighting his own DNA, which takes away from the energy that can be put forth toward real learning. Without flexibility in the lessons themselves, some portion of the student body, struggles to just understand the material based on how it is presented, leaving less time to internalize the lesson itself.
The benefits of analyzing the curriculum for strengths and weaknesses rather than focusing on a student's strengths and weaknesses, is that adjusting the curriculum is actually much easier than trying to "adjust" all the students. The curriculum is actually less complex in nature than a person's mind and abilities. Constructing a curriculum that doesn't lower standards for students, but makes it much more accessible to all types of learners is a task that takes less time and effort than attempting to get students to conform to a certain method of learning. Why would we want to do that anyway? If all of us think alike, than there will be nobody to be innovators who think critically and creatively in the world. The benefits of analyzing the curriculum and making some minor adjustments to be inclusive to all learners will certainly produce more successful students than trying to change the physiology of the students to make them understand a non-living and less complex curriculum. I would also like to take the time here to argue that if an instructor has trouble adjusting the curriculum, then maybe that instructor doesn't understand her curriculum very well. When I began teaching, a very wise colleague shared with me the idea that a teacher should be able to explain the same concept in at least three different ways. If a person knows her content well, then this isn't really a problem.
I guess the challenges to this approach is that our system is engrained in our very lifestyle. It is the model we have been using for education for a very long time, it is regulated by the states and depends on outside sources for funding. With all kinds of people trying to control it, education itself becomes difficult to morph because there is so much more involved in its survival than the success of students. Having said that, I do think that individual teachers can make a lot of change to the curriculum on an individual level, which may not change the very infrastructure of our education system in the U.S., but can have a big impact on the success and happiness of students. All students will benefit from a teacher striving to make her lessons universal.
The benefits of analyzing the curriculum for strengths and weaknesses rather than focusing on a student's strengths and weaknesses, is that adjusting the curriculum is actually much easier than trying to "adjust" all the students. The curriculum is actually less complex in nature than a person's mind and abilities. Constructing a curriculum that doesn't lower standards for students, but makes it much more accessible to all types of learners is a task that takes less time and effort than attempting to get students to conform to a certain method of learning. Why would we want to do that anyway? If all of us think alike, than there will be nobody to be innovators who think critically and creatively in the world. The benefits of analyzing the curriculum and making some minor adjustments to be inclusive to all learners will certainly produce more successful students than trying to change the physiology of the students to make them understand a non-living and less complex curriculum. I would also like to take the time here to argue that if an instructor has trouble adjusting the curriculum, then maybe that instructor doesn't understand her curriculum very well. When I began teaching, a very wise colleague shared with me the idea that a teacher should be able to explain the same concept in at least three different ways. If a person knows her content well, then this isn't really a problem.
I guess the challenges to this approach is that our system is engrained in our very lifestyle. It is the model we have been using for education for a very long time, it is regulated by the states and depends on outside sources for funding. With all kinds of people trying to control it, education itself becomes difficult to morph because there is so much more involved in its survival than the success of students. Having said that, I do think that individual teachers can make a lot of change to the curriculum on an individual level, which may not change the very infrastructure of our education system in the U.S., but can have a big impact on the success and happiness of students. All students will benefit from a teacher striving to make her lessons universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment