First, I would like to apologize for not having the opportunity to continue to read and respond to everyone’s blogs. My lack of computer access, together with report cards, illness, and the death of my grandfather, has left me quite behind. I do hope to catch up on the reading and hope people are still checking the blogs.
Despite the fact that I haven’t been writing I have been doing quite a bit of thinking, especially in relation to Baudrillard and philosophy. The night after the class on Baudrillard and all the discussion around the real and hyperreal left me thinking about truth, reality and philosophy in general. What is real? What is truth? How does this connect to education and what I do in the classroom (and in life) everyday? Then I went home, and before bed, as always, I did some journaling and meditation.
As part of my meditation I have been using a book of quotations by Osho. Osho was an Indian philosopher and teacher who eventually went on to establish a commune, which became world famous. He has written many books on life and philosophy and was considered by some to be as influential as Ghandi.
That night, after the Baudrillard discussion, I opened the meditation book and landed on the page titled “paradox.” Osho quotes a Japenese haiku and states,
“The beginning is also the end, the meeting is also a departing. One has to understand this contradictoriness, the paradoxical nature of existence. The welcoming smile is also a farewell.” (The Zen Manifesto)
This quotation got me thinking as to how closely related the Baudrillard discussion was to this idea, and so I searched my little book further. I looked up some more of Osho’s ideas and found a couple that resonated very strongly with me and our class discussions.
On “truth” Osho stated,
“The truth means the whole, all that is, the total. All that is- how can you define it? It is unbounded, infinite.” (The Book of Wisdom)
And
“Truth needs no proof, it simply is. It cannot be proved or disproved. It is luminous, it is radiant. Its presence is immediately felt but only by those who have the heart to feel.” (The Secret)
Finally, and most interesting to me, on the subject of “ordinariness” Osho states,
“Once you are ready to celebrate the ordinary life it is no more ordinary at all.” (The Sound of One Hand Clapping)
This final quote, which I have read many times before, really summed up classroom life (and life in general, but that is another blog) for me. Every year, every class, and every day, is a new day in the classroom. Everything I bring with me, as I try to work with my students, counts. Knowing this, I realize that my best efforts as a teacher and human being are good enough for today; I will continue to learn and grow as a teacher and an individual but for today I can accept where I am as exactly where I am meant to be.
In a previous blog I also mentioned that I have been doing some reflecting on old journals (it is amazing what not having a computer gives me time for) and I discovered some writing I had done at a pivotal point in my life. I had just graduated from education but was not at all certain I was ever going to teach in a classroom (I didn’t for almost ten years). In my journal of that time I noted a conversation I had while in Israel. Someone had asked me, what I do and I wrote,
“I am a teacher but I don’t want to teach conventionally. What do I want to teach? he asked. I’m not really sure, but I don’t want to just teach in a room with four walls and screaming kids. I told him I’d like to work with adolescents- what would I teach? I don’t know- everyone has their own lessons to learn which they have to figure out for themselves. I guess I just want to be a guide through those lessons.” (February 1994)
As I read this, I realized, very much to my surprise, that this is exactly what I have ended up doing, though now I realize I can do this in a conventional classroom, with four walls with a group of (sometimes) screaming (maybe not screaming, but often loud) kids.
Whatever the official documents say, this is my curriculum; this is what I guess I would call “the soul of curriculum” that is above and beyond the subject matter, outcomes and everything else.
So what was/is interesting and what was/is useful? Much to my very pleasant surprise I don’t have to think too hard, or stretch the truth, to come up with a response (and even more than one).
The whole process of questioning “What is curriculum?” has been both useful and interesting to me. It has helped me to reflect on my own practice and why I do what I do, in relation to curriculum as subject areas, documents, valid knowledge and everything beyond.
Looking at the 50 Great Educators, though at times tedious, was useful in helping me clarify my own understandings of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, individually, as well as how they are connected and cannot be seperated. Defining curriculum, though not easy, or by any means complete, was very useful in building my own understandings.
Of all of the discussion I found Marshall McLuhan the most interesting, perhaps, just because it helped me finally understand some of his ideas that I had learned about in high school over twenty years ago.
I also found the blogs both interesting and useful (until my computer died); I feel like I really got to know others in the cohort better by reading and responding to their thoughts and ideas. The convenience (again up until the death of my old PC) made this enjoyable rather than a chore. I truly appreciate the opportunity to do this, and the time and effort everyone put into their blogs to make this possible.
To sum things up, I thought it fitting to go back to McLuhan and his tetrads. What might McLuhan say about 21st Century Curriculum and this cohort’s study of it?
Enhances- Communication- convenient discussion not requiring both (all) parties to be physically present
Obsolesces- The textbook
Retrieves- Philosophy
Reverses Into- Good Old-fashioned classroom discussion
And so I will end this blog here with gratitude to Denis for inviting/making me get into this process and the discovery of the blog as a tool of communication, and to everyone for your participation and comments, without which a blog would not be a blog.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Something is Missing
So, I have been experiencing major computer problems at home, which has delayed the publication of this week’s entry, however as usual the wheels in my brain have been churning, and I have been doing quite a bit of reflecting. During the moments my computer has been working, I have also devoted quite a bit of time to reading and responding to other blogs. Practicality played a big part of this; I didn’t want to do any major writing of my own, as I was afraid I would lose it with the random restarting of my computer (which has been the problem I am experiencing- it is so annoying) and as a result the different topics others have blogged about have also sent my brain reeling.
I really enjoyed hearing about Biesta and his ideas and philosophies. Though I have not read any of his writings, and am working solely with what was introduced in class and in the blogs, he seems to have flipped some of our common understandings on their sides. I am quite intrigued by the change in the outlook of empathy, and the idea of putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes and then looking back out at ourselves. What a cool way to see the world. Just hearing about these ideas gave me a lot to think about.
So I have been doing quite a bit of thinking, and I have ended up at a point where it is clear to me, that through all of the discussions on curriculum, pedagogy, and philosophy something is missing. As I begin to pinpoint what this is for me, I am beginning to get a little bit nervous. I am afraid I am opening a can of worms that may be both controversial and somewhat uncomfortable. In order to explain my thoughts, I also recognize that I am putting a part of myself and my beliefs out there, which I have not done until today, and I am left wondering how they will be received (which I suppose is always the case, but in this instance it feels a bit more personal).
Together with this, in my personal life, due to major changes in the past year, I have been going through a very strong period of personal reflection. I have spent the better part of the last 20 years of my life journaling, and so I have been going through an intense process of reviewing and reflecting on my life, my own changes and growth, through my journals.
About 15 years ago, due to various circumstances, I began what I consider to be the spiritual path of my life. This is not to be confused with anything having to do with religion. In fact, my spiritual path led me away from the religious customs and traditions of my conservative Jewish upbringing. As a young, 20-something I found myself uncovering my spiritual self, as a secular Jew living in Israel.
Rereading these journals recently I came across a quote I had noted from a book. The book was a small publication that I vaguely remember, called That Which You Are Seeking Is Causing You To Seek. I did not bother to note the author, and at the time never imagined that I would become an English teacher and actually care that I had not noted it.
The quote read, “In spiritual practice it is good to be disturbed. We want to be disturbed as long as we can be disturbed. When you are not disturbed it is only because you are not disturbed, not because nothing is disturbing. It is true that nothing is intrinsically disturbing, but as long as you can be disturbed you can’t know that. So if we want to wake up, if we want to see how we create disturbance & suffering within ourselves we will want to continue to be disturbed and to pay very close attention to being disturbed for as long as we are disturbed.”
As soon as I read this, from some 15 years ago, I immediately thought of our class, Kincheloe and his “State of Discomfort,” Biesta turning ideas upside down, Hansen and the “Poetics of Teaching,” and even some of the McLuhan ideas, and realized it is all connected. It seems to me that underneath of everything, underneath the curriculum, behind the pedagogy and philosophy, there is the spiritual component that is conspicuously missing, or at least not talked about in an obvious matter. As I continue to read and listen to others, more and more, I feel like these leaders and great minds in education are circling these ideas, but never naming them.
As a result, I am left with the feeling that something is missing, and I am left with many questions. Where does the spiritual fit into all of this? Does spirituality play a role in curriculum, pedagogy, and educational philosophy? Can we talk about god without naming it god? Can we talk about education on a spiritual plane? Can we talk about spirituality in school without bringing in the subject of religion?
If I believe in a god of my understanding, and live my life accordingly, don’t I bring that god to school everyday, even though I never speak a word of it or “teach” about it?
It seems to me that there exists a spirituality that is at the foundation of everything and goes way beyond the religions of the world. Whether we call it God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the creator, Krishna, or any other of the many names, is there not an underlying common denominator, or a spirit that exists? Can or does this spirit connect to education, curriculum and our teaching practices regardless of what we choose to name it?
And so, once again, I am left with more questions than answers, which again is the foundation of a spiritual practice. So as I close this entry, which I am sure I will continue to ponder in the future, I wonder about this missing component, this spirit and the role it plays in education, teaching and curriculum. On that note I pose this question: Does curriculum have a soul?
I really enjoyed hearing about Biesta and his ideas and philosophies. Though I have not read any of his writings, and am working solely with what was introduced in class and in the blogs, he seems to have flipped some of our common understandings on their sides. I am quite intrigued by the change in the outlook of empathy, and the idea of putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes and then looking back out at ourselves. What a cool way to see the world. Just hearing about these ideas gave me a lot to think about.
So I have been doing quite a bit of thinking, and I have ended up at a point where it is clear to me, that through all of the discussions on curriculum, pedagogy, and philosophy something is missing. As I begin to pinpoint what this is for me, I am beginning to get a little bit nervous. I am afraid I am opening a can of worms that may be both controversial and somewhat uncomfortable. In order to explain my thoughts, I also recognize that I am putting a part of myself and my beliefs out there, which I have not done until today, and I am left wondering how they will be received (which I suppose is always the case, but in this instance it feels a bit more personal).
Together with this, in my personal life, due to major changes in the past year, I have been going through a very strong period of personal reflection. I have spent the better part of the last 20 years of my life journaling, and so I have been going through an intense process of reviewing and reflecting on my life, my own changes and growth, through my journals.
About 15 years ago, due to various circumstances, I began what I consider to be the spiritual path of my life. This is not to be confused with anything having to do with religion. In fact, my spiritual path led me away from the religious customs and traditions of my conservative Jewish upbringing. As a young, 20-something I found myself uncovering my spiritual self, as a secular Jew living in Israel.
Rereading these journals recently I came across a quote I had noted from a book. The book was a small publication that I vaguely remember, called That Which You Are Seeking Is Causing You To Seek. I did not bother to note the author, and at the time never imagined that I would become an English teacher and actually care that I had not noted it.
The quote read, “In spiritual practice it is good to be disturbed. We want to be disturbed as long as we can be disturbed. When you are not disturbed it is only because you are not disturbed, not because nothing is disturbing. It is true that nothing is intrinsically disturbing, but as long as you can be disturbed you can’t know that. So if we want to wake up, if we want to see how we create disturbance & suffering within ourselves we will want to continue to be disturbed and to pay very close attention to being disturbed for as long as we are disturbed.”
As soon as I read this, from some 15 years ago, I immediately thought of our class, Kincheloe and his “State of Discomfort,” Biesta turning ideas upside down, Hansen and the “Poetics of Teaching,” and even some of the McLuhan ideas, and realized it is all connected. It seems to me that underneath of everything, underneath the curriculum, behind the pedagogy and philosophy, there is the spiritual component that is conspicuously missing, or at least not talked about in an obvious matter. As I continue to read and listen to others, more and more, I feel like these leaders and great minds in education are circling these ideas, but never naming them.
As a result, I am left with the feeling that something is missing, and I am left with many questions. Where does the spiritual fit into all of this? Does spirituality play a role in curriculum, pedagogy, and educational philosophy? Can we talk about god without naming it god? Can we talk about education on a spiritual plane? Can we talk about spirituality in school without bringing in the subject of religion?
If I believe in a god of my understanding, and live my life accordingly, don’t I bring that god to school everyday, even though I never speak a word of it or “teach” about it?
It seems to me that there exists a spirituality that is at the foundation of everything and goes way beyond the religions of the world. Whether we call it God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the creator, Krishna, or any other of the many names, is there not an underlying common denominator, or a spirit that exists? Can or does this spirit connect to education, curriculum and our teaching practices regardless of what we choose to name it?
And so, once again, I am left with more questions than answers, which again is the foundation of a spiritual practice. So as I close this entry, which I am sure I will continue to ponder in the future, I wonder about this missing component, this spirit and the role it plays in education, teaching and curriculum. On that note I pose this question: Does curriculum have a soul?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Commercial, Curriculum?
Generally when I sit down to write I have some idea as to what I want to say, and where it is going to go, but today this is not the case. However, I feel like this work is hanging over my head and I have the time now to get it done, and so I guess I am going to see where it ends up. Unlike the feelings some expressed in class, I have never had a problem pushing that publish button. Ideas are just words and thoughts, and I am not certain they were ever really mine in the first place (but that is the subject for a whole other blog).
Yesterday I was watching TV (this is not surprising to anyone who knows me) and within an hour I had seen the same commercial about six times. Each time I saw it, it struck me that this too connects with everything we have been talking about in class, and so now it is my turn to reflect upon a commercial. The commercial I saw was for Dentyne. With exceptionally annoying background music, it shows a variety of different scenes involving human contact and events. As each scene plays out in a couple of seconds, it labels each interaction with a computer descriptor; for example the hug between two people is “transfer complete,” the celebration of the winning goal is “friend request accepted,” and the final kiss is “instant message.” The commercial ends with the tag line, “Dentyne, make face time.*!”
As the commercial ended the first time my initial thought was, though annoying, this is clever marketing, and doesn’t this connect with many of the discussions around McLuhan? Then as the commercial was replayed four or five or six times during the course of the show, the marketing aspect behind its concept began to dawn on me more; this company was using phrases that in actuality require no human contact and giving them entirely new meanings. This is a tactic that is very clever, it changes the meaning of the words and their implications. What a great way to sell gum; what great marketing.
And it was this thought that led my mind to make the great leap to curriculum (and I haven’t quite landed yet, which is why I don’t know where all of this is going to take me). But the thought that came to my mind after seeing this commercial the first time, and then all the subsequent times, was how much of curriculum comes down to marketing? And then, who is doing this marketing, and for whom?
As the discussions in class and through the blogs continue, I am beginning to realize that my own personal definition of curriculum is becoming less important, if not entirely irrelevant. This is not to say that what I do in my classroom is not important. Nor is it to say that I do not need to question my own practice, why I do what I do, and be critical in my thinking. This, in fact, has never been more important, as I am beginning to understand how much greater this role of curriculum actually is, and how unless I am willing to become politically involved on many levels (which today I am not) I have very little control over curriculum and its potential (both positive and negative) in schools today.
I have long known how lucky I am to be a teacher in Manitoba. I have also been very grateful for the freedom I have in my classroom as an English Language Arts teacher, as the learning outcomes of the curriculum are so broad, almost anything can be applied as subject matter, and demonstrations of learning are endless. Though my gratitude in these areas to those who came before me is not something I take for granted, what has been is that all of this could easily change at any moment. The curriculum as I know it could be completely redefined with a change in government, school board, administration, or even by a group of parents.
Which brings me to the topic I have been trying to avoid; curriculum as a definition of power, and then back to that commercial, marketing. The small group discussion around Kincheloe led to conversation regarding certain school practices, curriculum, and the distribution of power. While discussing the new Arts curriculum, Chris very aptly pointed out that regardless of its content, this new curriculum is a document, and not a guide. The difference, upon implementation, is that a document is meant to be upheld and enforced, whether or not we as teachers agree with the content or changes made, as opposed to a curriculum guide, which allows each individual teacher to choose to what suits his/her in the classroom. Chris also cited a historical context when this occurred in relation to government changes, which I recall appreciating hearing at the time, but do not remember now.
Reminded of this perspective, I cannot ignore the fact that curriculum is a point of power, and the powers that be, or as Howard has referred to them, “the gods of education” (albeit in a slightly different context) have put forth curriculum which teachers are expected to uphold. However I may define curriculum, it still comes to me in the form of a document. Given this fact, which I would still prefer to ignore, my definition of curriculum seems suddenly limited to something which can be contained in a document. And while this document may be written by a group of teachers and others who are often respected, which was also pointed out in our discussion, it still remains a document which I am expected to teach in my classroom.
As if this is not enough of a revelation for me, the discussion also included the role of parents and their potential to affect change within a school and influence its culture (does this count as curriculum?). Catherine told the story of the microwaves in her school in her blog last week, and the topic resurfaced with discussions around Oh Cananda, Hatikva (the Israeli National Anthem), and religious practices in our schools today. Groups of parents can have tremendous power as to what happens in schools, at times with little or no say from the teachers involved. While I have no doubt that the majority of parents really do care about their children and their schools, parents have the ability to be loud, persuasive and persistent; they also do a lot of the fundraising. This aspect opens up another dimension to the definition of curriculum, money. Where does money fit into the definition of curriculum? Social standing and classes aside (if that is possible), does money play a part in how curriculum is defined or developed?
Somehow, all of these thoughts and questions then bring me back to the Dentyne commercial; how is curriculum marketed? Is curriculum a commodity which is ultimately “sold,” by and to teachers, students, parents? Is curriculum meant to be a matter of “hocking knowledge?” Has it ended up this way?
So this is where I have ended up for today (a day later than I began). Rereading my thoughts, I realize that these are not new ideas. They are things I have known somewhere, but was really happier ignoring. But when I really allow myself to look within, I know that this curriculum is important stuff; it impacts my life and my classroom every single day.
I guess this is just another beginning, or maybe I am somewhere in the middle. There is also a paradox to these understandings; in recognizing my powerlessness over the “education gods” (at least at this point in my career), I also recognize the strength of my individual voice within my teaching practice. I accept that with this voice comes a great responsibility to be diligent and mindful in my practice. On the other hand, I also must acknowledge that until I am ready to take a more active role in the creation of curriculum (whatever that may be) I have to respect the work of those who have come before me, and those who are doing this work today. I can begin to do this by striving to be both an open-minded individual and a critical pedagogue.
Yesterday I was watching TV (this is not surprising to anyone who knows me) and within an hour I had seen the same commercial about six times. Each time I saw it, it struck me that this too connects with everything we have been talking about in class, and so now it is my turn to reflect upon a commercial. The commercial I saw was for Dentyne. With exceptionally annoying background music, it shows a variety of different scenes involving human contact and events. As each scene plays out in a couple of seconds, it labels each interaction with a computer descriptor; for example the hug between two people is “transfer complete,” the celebration of the winning goal is “friend request accepted,” and the final kiss is “instant message.” The commercial ends with the tag line, “Dentyne, make face time.*!”
As the commercial ended the first time my initial thought was, though annoying, this is clever marketing, and doesn’t this connect with many of the discussions around McLuhan? Then as the commercial was replayed four or five or six times during the course of the show, the marketing aspect behind its concept began to dawn on me more; this company was using phrases that in actuality require no human contact and giving them entirely new meanings. This is a tactic that is very clever, it changes the meaning of the words and their implications. What a great way to sell gum; what great marketing.
And it was this thought that led my mind to make the great leap to curriculum (and I haven’t quite landed yet, which is why I don’t know where all of this is going to take me). But the thought that came to my mind after seeing this commercial the first time, and then all the subsequent times, was how much of curriculum comes down to marketing? And then, who is doing this marketing, and for whom?
As the discussions in class and through the blogs continue, I am beginning to realize that my own personal definition of curriculum is becoming less important, if not entirely irrelevant. This is not to say that what I do in my classroom is not important. Nor is it to say that I do not need to question my own practice, why I do what I do, and be critical in my thinking. This, in fact, has never been more important, as I am beginning to understand how much greater this role of curriculum actually is, and how unless I am willing to become politically involved on many levels (which today I am not) I have very little control over curriculum and its potential (both positive and negative) in schools today.
I have long known how lucky I am to be a teacher in Manitoba. I have also been very grateful for the freedom I have in my classroom as an English Language Arts teacher, as the learning outcomes of the curriculum are so broad, almost anything can be applied as subject matter, and demonstrations of learning are endless. Though my gratitude in these areas to those who came before me is not something I take for granted, what has been is that all of this could easily change at any moment. The curriculum as I know it could be completely redefined with a change in government, school board, administration, or even by a group of parents.
Which brings me to the topic I have been trying to avoid; curriculum as a definition of power, and then back to that commercial, marketing. The small group discussion around Kincheloe led to conversation regarding certain school practices, curriculum, and the distribution of power. While discussing the new Arts curriculum, Chris very aptly pointed out that regardless of its content, this new curriculum is a document, and not a guide. The difference, upon implementation, is that a document is meant to be upheld and enforced, whether or not we as teachers agree with the content or changes made, as opposed to a curriculum guide, which allows each individual teacher to choose to what suits his/her in the classroom. Chris also cited a historical context when this occurred in relation to government changes, which I recall appreciating hearing at the time, but do not remember now.
Reminded of this perspective, I cannot ignore the fact that curriculum is a point of power, and the powers that be, or as Howard has referred to them, “the gods of education” (albeit in a slightly different context) have put forth curriculum which teachers are expected to uphold. However I may define curriculum, it still comes to me in the form of a document. Given this fact, which I would still prefer to ignore, my definition of curriculum seems suddenly limited to something which can be contained in a document. And while this document may be written by a group of teachers and others who are often respected, which was also pointed out in our discussion, it still remains a document which I am expected to teach in my classroom.
As if this is not enough of a revelation for me, the discussion also included the role of parents and their potential to affect change within a school and influence its culture (does this count as curriculum?). Catherine told the story of the microwaves in her school in her blog last week, and the topic resurfaced with discussions around Oh Cananda, Hatikva (the Israeli National Anthem), and religious practices in our schools today. Groups of parents can have tremendous power as to what happens in schools, at times with little or no say from the teachers involved. While I have no doubt that the majority of parents really do care about their children and their schools, parents have the ability to be loud, persuasive and persistent; they also do a lot of the fundraising. This aspect opens up another dimension to the definition of curriculum, money. Where does money fit into the definition of curriculum? Social standing and classes aside (if that is possible), does money play a part in how curriculum is defined or developed?
Somehow, all of these thoughts and questions then bring me back to the Dentyne commercial; how is curriculum marketed? Is curriculum a commodity which is ultimately “sold,” by and to teachers, students, parents? Is curriculum meant to be a matter of “hocking knowledge?” Has it ended up this way?
So this is where I have ended up for today (a day later than I began). Rereading my thoughts, I realize that these are not new ideas. They are things I have known somewhere, but was really happier ignoring. But when I really allow myself to look within, I know that this curriculum is important stuff; it impacts my life and my classroom every single day.
I guess this is just another beginning, or maybe I am somewhere in the middle. There is also a paradox to these understandings; in recognizing my powerlessness over the “education gods” (at least at this point in my career), I also recognize the strength of my individual voice within my teaching practice. I accept that with this voice comes a great responsibility to be diligent and mindful in my practice. On the other hand, I also must acknowledge that until I am ready to take a more active role in the creation of curriculum (whatever that may be) I have to respect the work of those who have come before me, and those who are doing this work today. I can begin to do this by striving to be both an open-minded individual and a critical pedagogue.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Fifty Great Educators
This weekend was my birthday and so I took a little break from school work and didn’t have time to sit down and write until today, however what I noticed during this time is that a lot of ideas have been running through my head. Similarly to our first course with Wayne, I have had many conversations with colleagues and my mom (a retired teacher of many years) and even though I can’t always sit down and write formally, a lot of ideas have been “percolating” in my mind.
When we were given the task of choosing from the list of “Great Educators” I was really at a loss as to who to choose, and I didn’t consider my choice very important. My studies at the Faculty of Education were so long ago, that with the exception of those people who we studied with Wayne, I really didn’t remember or recognize anyone else, especially as I got the list so close to the end of the class. When I made the choice to go with a Jewish educator it was a fairly flippant decision; I simply thought that I had to pick someone, and as my Jewish identity is such a big part of who I am, I might as well pick someone Jewish. As with many things in life, I didn’t recognize at the time how significant the choice, as well as the process of my choice, was until after the fact.
At the time I noted that considering the list was so small (I am certain there are well over fifty great educators in modern times- at least I hope so), and judging by the names alone, there were quite a few Jewish names on the list. After giving this more thought and reflection, I realized that this is not actually surprising to me at all.
I was brought up Jewish and went to Jewish day schools through to my high school graduation. During my schooling two areas were consistently stressed; the first was my Jewish education, including Jewish values, religion, laws and tradition, and the second was the value of education in general. For as long as I can remember I have known that I was entitled to a good education and that my education was important. As a young student (especially in high school, and even in university) I may not have appreciated this, but I always thought of it as a given. I would do well in high school and I would go to university, which is exactly what I did. It was also what the vast majority of my classmates did, as well as what my brother, my sister and their classmates did in subsequent years.
The value of education has always been at the heart of Jewish tradition and values, and growing up Jewish it was a value that was taught and then continuously emphasized throughout my learning. From the earliest Yiddish stories (I learned Yiddish before Hebrew) the learned Rabbi was a scholar and always the most esteemed member of the community. Having the time to study (in this case the Torah and other biblical and rabbinical teachings) was sought after in the shtetals (Jewish villages- think of "Fiddler on the Roof"), and studying at Yeshivas (rabbinical schools) in Israel today is still held in high esteem (by most- politics aside), and is considered a service to the country; it is often an alternative to going into the Israeli army (again politics aside). Jewish history (for better or worse) has also necessitated the need for the focus on education as at many times throughout Jewish history, Jews were not allowed to own land, and restricted from studying Jewish religion, which led to further stress on the importance of education (both Jewish and secular), as well as the right to study.
As Jews immigrated around the world, especially after the Holocaust, and assimilated to various countries, specifically in North America and Britain, it is not at all surprising that many entered the fields of education, and focused on the connections between education and social justice.
As I began my reading of Basil Bernstein, and then heard the various presentations of the other great educators, who also happened to be Jewish, like Bloom, Eisner and especially Gardner, the impact of Jewish history on modern education in the 20th and 21st century became much clearer to me. It is a part of my history that I have somewhat taken for granted, and I am beginning to realize I need to be both grateful for it and proud of it.
As a result of all of the presentations during last week’s class I also find myself coming back to the question, “What is curriculum?” As with many things in this life, the result of these thoughts is another paradox, as it seems that I am coming both closer to a working definition, and farther away from a definitive answer, simultaneously.
Reading about Bernstein's work helped to clarify a working definition of curriculum for me, and again paradoxically also led to further questions. In his work with “message systems,” Bernstein separated the concepts of curriculum, pedagogy, and later evaluation into clear working definitions. He stated that, “Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, and pedagogy as what counts as valid transmission of knowledge.” He later went on to add, “Evaluation as valid realization of knowledge by those who have been taught” (Fifty Modern Thinkers on Education). Working with these definitions I can narrow the curriculum to the “what” of what we teach, and pedagogy to the “how.” Evaluation is not quite as clear cut, but that is the topic for another blog.
Defining curriculum to the “what” makes things quite clear; curriculum is knowledge and knowledge includes both the facts and the skills. The topics and the processes are equally important, for one could not exist without the other. Curriculum can then encompass everything we teach, which at first glance appears to make things quite simple, but as always with questions like these, things are never that simple. This definition only leads to many more questions. The two most pertinent questions which come to my mind are, 1. Who then decides what this valid knowledge is?” and 2. Can we ever truly separate curriculum (valid knowledge) from pedagogy (how the knowledge is transmitted)? These are questions I am still pondering and I am certain I will return to in later reflections.
Before I close this entry I would also like to share one very interesting insight that my mother expressed in the course of one of our conversations. My mother recently retired from teaching for over 25 years in Winnipeg's core area, and so we often talk about my courses and the discussions we have in class (she also helps me greatly with my research and has my Questia password- thanks mom). My mom commented that, “Curriculum has changed with the different periods in society. In the 60’s it was about the “what,” the facts, and the inspectors would come into the schools and expect that each teacher, in each classroom, would be on the same page in the same book, according to their grade level. Then in the 80’s the focus shifted to the “how;” with Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and of course, Piaget, teaching became all about the development of the child and how they learned. A third shift then began to occur in 2000’s, when she noted that the “who” had moved into the forefront, and the individual student including their background and experience were considered to be a part of learning.” I thought this was a pretty cool observation, especially as it was an understanding of her experiences. It also reminded me of the “Growing up Canadian” video and the changes in our schools, and how we are all a part of that. So even if I don’t have any of the answers, it’s good that I am asking the questions.
When we were given the task of choosing from the list of “Great Educators” I was really at a loss as to who to choose, and I didn’t consider my choice very important. My studies at the Faculty of Education were so long ago, that with the exception of those people who we studied with Wayne, I really didn’t remember or recognize anyone else, especially as I got the list so close to the end of the class. When I made the choice to go with a Jewish educator it was a fairly flippant decision; I simply thought that I had to pick someone, and as my Jewish identity is such a big part of who I am, I might as well pick someone Jewish. As with many things in life, I didn’t recognize at the time how significant the choice, as well as the process of my choice, was until after the fact.
At the time I noted that considering the list was so small (I am certain there are well over fifty great educators in modern times- at least I hope so), and judging by the names alone, there were quite a few Jewish names on the list. After giving this more thought and reflection, I realized that this is not actually surprising to me at all.
I was brought up Jewish and went to Jewish day schools through to my high school graduation. During my schooling two areas were consistently stressed; the first was my Jewish education, including Jewish values, religion, laws and tradition, and the second was the value of education in general. For as long as I can remember I have known that I was entitled to a good education and that my education was important. As a young student (especially in high school, and even in university) I may not have appreciated this, but I always thought of it as a given. I would do well in high school and I would go to university, which is exactly what I did. It was also what the vast majority of my classmates did, as well as what my brother, my sister and their classmates did in subsequent years.
The value of education has always been at the heart of Jewish tradition and values, and growing up Jewish it was a value that was taught and then continuously emphasized throughout my learning. From the earliest Yiddish stories (I learned Yiddish before Hebrew) the learned Rabbi was a scholar and always the most esteemed member of the community. Having the time to study (in this case the Torah and other biblical and rabbinical teachings) was sought after in the shtetals (Jewish villages- think of "Fiddler on the Roof"), and studying at Yeshivas (rabbinical schools) in Israel today is still held in high esteem (by most- politics aside), and is considered a service to the country; it is often an alternative to going into the Israeli army (again politics aside). Jewish history (for better or worse) has also necessitated the need for the focus on education as at many times throughout Jewish history, Jews were not allowed to own land, and restricted from studying Jewish religion, which led to further stress on the importance of education (both Jewish and secular), as well as the right to study.
As Jews immigrated around the world, especially after the Holocaust, and assimilated to various countries, specifically in North America and Britain, it is not at all surprising that many entered the fields of education, and focused on the connections between education and social justice.
As I began my reading of Basil Bernstein, and then heard the various presentations of the other great educators, who also happened to be Jewish, like Bloom, Eisner and especially Gardner, the impact of Jewish history on modern education in the 20th and 21st century became much clearer to me. It is a part of my history that I have somewhat taken for granted, and I am beginning to realize I need to be both grateful for it and proud of it.
As a result of all of the presentations during last week’s class I also find myself coming back to the question, “What is curriculum?” As with many things in this life, the result of these thoughts is another paradox, as it seems that I am coming both closer to a working definition, and farther away from a definitive answer, simultaneously.
Reading about Bernstein's work helped to clarify a working definition of curriculum for me, and again paradoxically also led to further questions. In his work with “message systems,” Bernstein separated the concepts of curriculum, pedagogy, and later evaluation into clear working definitions. He stated that, “Curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, and pedagogy as what counts as valid transmission of knowledge.” He later went on to add, “Evaluation as valid realization of knowledge by those who have been taught” (Fifty Modern Thinkers on Education). Working with these definitions I can narrow the curriculum to the “what” of what we teach, and pedagogy to the “how.” Evaluation is not quite as clear cut, but that is the topic for another blog.
Defining curriculum to the “what” makes things quite clear; curriculum is knowledge and knowledge includes both the facts and the skills. The topics and the processes are equally important, for one could not exist without the other. Curriculum can then encompass everything we teach, which at first glance appears to make things quite simple, but as always with questions like these, things are never that simple. This definition only leads to many more questions. The two most pertinent questions which come to my mind are, 1. Who then decides what this valid knowledge is?” and 2. Can we ever truly separate curriculum (valid knowledge) from pedagogy (how the knowledge is transmitted)? These are questions I am still pondering and I am certain I will return to in later reflections.
Before I close this entry I would also like to share one very interesting insight that my mother expressed in the course of one of our conversations. My mother recently retired from teaching for over 25 years in Winnipeg's core area, and so we often talk about my courses and the discussions we have in class (she also helps me greatly with my research and has my Questia password- thanks mom). My mom commented that, “Curriculum has changed with the different periods in society. In the 60’s it was about the “what,” the facts, and the inspectors would come into the schools and expect that each teacher, in each classroom, would be on the same page in the same book, according to their grade level. Then in the 80’s the focus shifted to the “how;” with Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and of course, Piaget, teaching became all about the development of the child and how they learned. A third shift then began to occur in 2000’s, when she noted that the “who” had moved into the forefront, and the individual student including their background and experience were considered to be a part of learning.” I thought this was a pretty cool observation, especially as it was an understanding of her experiences. It also reminded me of the “Growing up Canadian” video and the changes in our schools, and how we are all a part of that. So even if I don’t have any of the answers, it’s good that I am asking the questions.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
McLuhan's Wake
When I was in high school I was lucky enough to have Mr. Sheldon Oberman, who many Winnipegers knew as Obie, as my English teacher. We did many cool things, and Obie played a big part in “turning me onto English,” and I carry much of what I learned from him to my classroom today.
In grade 12 English, very early in the year, Obie introduced the “Ideas Project” we would be working on. These were said to be year-long studies, which would culminate in a major (2 hour) presentation at the end of the year. The Ideas Project topics were very broad and complex, and ranged in everything from architecture to existentialism to Freud. My topic was Picasso and it sparked a life-long interest in art, which once again I bring to my classroom as an art teacher. Among the many choices included was Marshall McLuhan, which happened to be covered by my best friend.
Of course, at the time I was a 17 year old kid, and while I was more interested in English and Obie’s classes than some of my other studies, I can’t say that I worked as hard as perhaps Obie would have liked. Most of the work was done in March and April, as we graduated in early May, and while I did learn a lot about Picasso and art (for which I am truly grateful) all I got out of the other ideas and topics presented was a basic overview, a taste of what they had to offer. Perhaps that was Obie’s point all along.
So when I came to this course, and discovered we would be delving into the life and thoughts of Marshall McLuhan my curiosity was piqued. All I remembered from grade 12 was that he was Canadian and he said, “The Medium is the Message.” But over the years, especially since I have started teaching, I have come to truly appreciate the work that Obie did as a teacher, and so I figured that if he had brought the topic forward there must be something to it. As it happens I was right, and much like Obie himself, Marshall McLuhan was a pretty right-on dude, a bit of a freak (and I mean that in the kindest way), with some way out-there thoughts.
As I was watching the documentary I was quite fascinated by Marshall McLuhan, his life and the many ideas presented. I was left with the overall feeling that he was quite a cool guy and it must have been frustrating to be him in the time he was living. There were many ideas that I am certain went over my head, but there was a lot there that I could relate to, and that resonated with me.
As his ideas were laid out, I was also struck by how the majority of his work seemed to exist on a spiritual plane and connect to the greater philosophies of life and living; the cycles of nature are part in parcel with his laws or rules of media. Life and nature are a cycle of birth, change, growth, death and rebirth, as are his laws.
Many references were made to his religious life and faith as a Catholic and his study of the bible, however little was said about what this truly meant to him. I would have liked to hear this, as many of the ideas he presented resonated with my own spiritual knowledge and life philosophies.
Early in the documentary he related everything in the world as an extension of our selves as individuals; the media as the extension of human experience. The car is the extension of our legs, the pen of our arms, and language and ideas the extension of our minds. I understood his concern to be in how we use these tools in the world around us; what kind of creation does each of us choose to relate and reflect in the world around us? In essence, “what kind of people do we want to be?” This is a question I ask myself, and pose to my 8th graders, all of the time; in many ways to me it is the essence of living, and my responsibility as an individual, and especially a teacher of impressionable 13 year olds, is not lost on me. McLuhan stated somewhere that “our language is a way of understanding the universe,” and it is also how we communicate these understandings with others. Though it may sound strange, it kind of makes sense to me that he suffered a stroke after so much of his language (ideas and understandings) were lost on the world around him.
It is also pretty cool, and ironic, what a forward thinker McLuhan was in relation to time and technology, yet, at the same time, these very ideas link closely with very old schools of thought. He coined phrases like “global village,” and described a system that strongly resembles the internet today, and he couldn’t have known possibly known how right he would be. He noted how quickly time was moving, and that with technology the world was speeding up, as he said, “The more you get the faster you go.” I don’t think he could have possibly imagined how instantaneous the transmission of information would actually become.
However, at the same time, he also recognized the difficulties human nature has simply being in the present moment. This is the foundation of yoga and meditation practices which have existed in Eastern tradition and philosophies for thousands of years, and are still practiced today. McLuhan commented on the human perception of time, and how our present society is a reflection of the past, as it is “Impossible for man to look at the present because it’s terrifying.” Again this makes me question what McLuhan really believed on a spiritual level, as my meditation practice helps me to live and accept the present as it is today.
Though McLuhan seemed to focus a lot of his attention on the “what,” the media and the technology, I think what he was really interested in was the “who,” and the “why” in human nature. As he said his intention was to probe for understanding and what he was trying to figure out, and share as he did, were old questions that go back and back and back to the beginning of time.
I think what he figured out, though not perfect and not always comprehensible (at least by me), were some pretty cool ideas. Along with the concept of living in the present the most striking concepts I took with me, and will continue to ponder, are, “Too much of anything will always bring the opposite of what you are getting,” and “The trick is to recognize the pattern before it is complete.”
In grade 12 English, very early in the year, Obie introduced the “Ideas Project” we would be working on. These were said to be year-long studies, which would culminate in a major (2 hour) presentation at the end of the year. The Ideas Project topics were very broad and complex, and ranged in everything from architecture to existentialism to Freud. My topic was Picasso and it sparked a life-long interest in art, which once again I bring to my classroom as an art teacher. Among the many choices included was Marshall McLuhan, which happened to be covered by my best friend.
Of course, at the time I was a 17 year old kid, and while I was more interested in English and Obie’s classes than some of my other studies, I can’t say that I worked as hard as perhaps Obie would have liked. Most of the work was done in March and April, as we graduated in early May, and while I did learn a lot about Picasso and art (for which I am truly grateful) all I got out of the other ideas and topics presented was a basic overview, a taste of what they had to offer. Perhaps that was Obie’s point all along.
So when I came to this course, and discovered we would be delving into the life and thoughts of Marshall McLuhan my curiosity was piqued. All I remembered from grade 12 was that he was Canadian and he said, “The Medium is the Message.” But over the years, especially since I have started teaching, I have come to truly appreciate the work that Obie did as a teacher, and so I figured that if he had brought the topic forward there must be something to it. As it happens I was right, and much like Obie himself, Marshall McLuhan was a pretty right-on dude, a bit of a freak (and I mean that in the kindest way), with some way out-there thoughts.
As I was watching the documentary I was quite fascinated by Marshall McLuhan, his life and the many ideas presented. I was left with the overall feeling that he was quite a cool guy and it must have been frustrating to be him in the time he was living. There were many ideas that I am certain went over my head, but there was a lot there that I could relate to, and that resonated with me.
As his ideas were laid out, I was also struck by how the majority of his work seemed to exist on a spiritual plane and connect to the greater philosophies of life and living; the cycles of nature are part in parcel with his laws or rules of media. Life and nature are a cycle of birth, change, growth, death and rebirth, as are his laws.
Many references were made to his religious life and faith as a Catholic and his study of the bible, however little was said about what this truly meant to him. I would have liked to hear this, as many of the ideas he presented resonated with my own spiritual knowledge and life philosophies.
Early in the documentary he related everything in the world as an extension of our selves as individuals; the media as the extension of human experience. The car is the extension of our legs, the pen of our arms, and language and ideas the extension of our minds. I understood his concern to be in how we use these tools in the world around us; what kind of creation does each of us choose to relate and reflect in the world around us? In essence, “what kind of people do we want to be?” This is a question I ask myself, and pose to my 8th graders, all of the time; in many ways to me it is the essence of living, and my responsibility as an individual, and especially a teacher of impressionable 13 year olds, is not lost on me. McLuhan stated somewhere that “our language is a way of understanding the universe,” and it is also how we communicate these understandings with others. Though it may sound strange, it kind of makes sense to me that he suffered a stroke after so much of his language (ideas and understandings) were lost on the world around him.
It is also pretty cool, and ironic, what a forward thinker McLuhan was in relation to time and technology, yet, at the same time, these very ideas link closely with very old schools of thought. He coined phrases like “global village,” and described a system that strongly resembles the internet today, and he couldn’t have known possibly known how right he would be. He noted how quickly time was moving, and that with technology the world was speeding up, as he said, “The more you get the faster you go.” I don’t think he could have possibly imagined how instantaneous the transmission of information would actually become.
However, at the same time, he also recognized the difficulties human nature has simply being in the present moment. This is the foundation of yoga and meditation practices which have existed in Eastern tradition and philosophies for thousands of years, and are still practiced today. McLuhan commented on the human perception of time, and how our present society is a reflection of the past, as it is “Impossible for man to look at the present because it’s terrifying.” Again this makes me question what McLuhan really believed on a spiritual level, as my meditation practice helps me to live and accept the present as it is today.
Though McLuhan seemed to focus a lot of his attention on the “what,” the media and the technology, I think what he was really interested in was the “who,” and the “why” in human nature. As he said his intention was to probe for understanding and what he was trying to figure out, and share as he did, were old questions that go back and back and back to the beginning of time.
I think what he figured out, though not perfect and not always comprehensible (at least by me), were some pretty cool ideas. Along with the concept of living in the present the most striking concepts I took with me, and will continue to ponder, are, “Too much of anything will always bring the opposite of what you are getting,” and “The trick is to recognize the pattern before it is complete.”
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
What is Curriculum?
As we begin this course of 21st century curriculum of all of the concepts we have been asked to reflect upon, I think the question of "What is Curriculum?" is the most interesting and relevant to me.
Somewhere in the course material it said we should write down our one sentence definition as to what curriculum is and a few things came to mind; one was curriculum is "what" we teach, but not "who" or "how" we teach. The thought that immediately followed was that in so many ways, in my grade 8 classroom, the curriculum is irrelevant; I mean this in the sense that the topics are at times provided as curriculum but it is the skills, choices and decisions that the kids are making that is the true teaching, and that can be reached regardless, or in some cases despite, the curriculum.
Then feeling a little bit confused as to how to answer this question I went to the dictionary. First I looked at my old, thick classroom dictionary that is duct taped over the name and spine, and it states, "Curriculum is the course offered by an educational institution." (no citation available because I am not getting up, bad English teacher, bad). And I thought, okay that does not tell me very much.
Then I went to dictionary.com and among several definitions I liked the one that stated, "the regular or a particular course of study in a school, college, etc." I particularly like the word "regular" because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
What I also liked on dictionary.com was the explanation of the origin of the word, "[Origin: 1625–35; < class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">curr(ere) to run + -i- -i- + -culum -cule2] ."
In many ways that "what" I teach of the curriculum fits the origin of the word the best as there is a natural course of action to much of what I do (at least to me and I hope to my students); it feels as though there is a progression of both skills and topics. But I still don't have a definitive answer to the question, "What is curriculum?"
This year I am teaching Social Studies and L.A. and the vastly opposite natures of the curriculum never ceases to amaze me, nor does it help to clear up any of the confusion I have around the topic.
The grade 8 SS curriculum is History and Ancient Civilizations. This is now my sixth year teaching it, and even as the new curriculum came out a couple of years ago, very little has changed. In grade 8 SS I am supposed to cover as much as I can from the history of the prehistoric man, through Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and onward. I have a textbook (that I/we use sometimes) and it is very straight forward.
Through this curriculum we also practice critical reading and thinking, note taking skills, study skills, test taking skills, research skills, public speaking and presenting, confidence, organizational skills, developing a work ethic, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and the curriculum or topics are seocndary to these underlying lessons and work behind it. So which part of this is curriculum?
In LA it was the complete opposite and the following was something I wrote as part of my narrative for another class:
In my first year teaching English Language Arts, I was completely surprised by the freedom I had within the curriculum in Language Arts. When I asked what I had to teach specifically, I was told that beyond the general objectives, it was entirely up to me. The school had novel sets, and other materials I could use, but I could also order the books of my choice, and pretty much delve into any topic I wanted. I was both amazed and awed by this responsibility, and it continues to be another privilege that I do not take for granted. Teaching Language Arts allows me the unique opportunity to bring myself and my personality to the subject matter. I certainly weigh the needs, abilities and interests of my students, but I also make choices that relate to my own experience, and allow me to bring my strengths and expertise, as well as my passions, to the classroom.
I still appreciate this very much today, but it still doesn't really answer the question, "What is curriculum?" but more and more, as I write all of this, I think that I was on the right track with one of my first insticts, in that it doesn't really matter.
Because ultimately I may talk about and delve into a whole bunch of different topics, and I may also strive to creat opportunities for the development of skills and ideas, but what I teach is not actually a what, but a who, and who I teach are my students.
This is not a completed thought but I am out of time and posting for today
Somewhere in the course material it said we should write down our one sentence definition as to what curriculum is and a few things came to mind; one was curriculum is "what" we teach, but not "who" or "how" we teach. The thought that immediately followed was that in so many ways, in my grade 8 classroom, the curriculum is irrelevant; I mean this in the sense that the topics are at times provided as curriculum but it is the skills, choices and decisions that the kids are making that is the true teaching, and that can be reached regardless, or in some cases despite, the curriculum.
Then feeling a little bit confused as to how to answer this question I went to the dictionary. First I looked at my old, thick classroom dictionary that is duct taped over the name and spine, and it states, "Curriculum is the course offered by an educational institution." (no citation available because I am not getting up, bad English teacher, bad). And I thought, okay that does not tell me very much.
Then I went to dictionary.com and among several definitions I liked the one that stated, "the regular or a particular course of study in a school, college, etc." I particularly like the word "regular" because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
What I also liked on dictionary.com was the explanation of the origin of the word, "[Origin: 1625–35; < class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">curr(ere) to run + -i- -i- + -culum -cule2] ."
In many ways that "what" I teach of the curriculum fits the origin of the word the best as there is a natural course of action to much of what I do (at least to me and I hope to my students); it feels as though there is a progression of both skills and topics. But I still don't have a definitive answer to the question, "What is curriculum?"
This year I am teaching Social Studies and L.A. and the vastly opposite natures of the curriculum never ceases to amaze me, nor does it help to clear up any of the confusion I have around the topic.
The grade 8 SS curriculum is History and Ancient Civilizations. This is now my sixth year teaching it, and even as the new curriculum came out a couple of years ago, very little has changed. In grade 8 SS I am supposed to cover as much as I can from the history of the prehistoric man, through Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and onward. I have a textbook (that I/we use sometimes) and it is very straight forward.
Through this curriculum we also practice critical reading and thinking, note taking skills, study skills, test taking skills, research skills, public speaking and presenting, confidence, organizational skills, developing a work ethic, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and the curriculum or topics are seocndary to these underlying lessons and work behind it. So which part of this is curriculum?
In LA it was the complete opposite and the following was something I wrote as part of my narrative for another class:
In my first year teaching English Language Arts, I was completely surprised by the freedom I had within the curriculum in Language Arts. When I asked what I had to teach specifically, I was told that beyond the general objectives, it was entirely up to me. The school had novel sets, and other materials I could use, but I could also order the books of my choice, and pretty much delve into any topic I wanted. I was both amazed and awed by this responsibility, and it continues to be another privilege that I do not take for granted. Teaching Language Arts allows me the unique opportunity to bring myself and my personality to the subject matter. I certainly weigh the needs, abilities and interests of my students, but I also make choices that relate to my own experience, and allow me to bring my strengths and expertise, as well as my passions, to the classroom.
I still appreciate this very much today, but it still doesn't really answer the question, "What is curriculum?" but more and more, as I write all of this, I think that I was on the right track with one of my first insticts, in that it doesn't really matter.
Because ultimately I may talk about and delve into a whole bunch of different topics, and I may also strive to creat opportunities for the development of skills and ideas, but what I teach is not actually a what, but a who, and who I teach are my students.
This is not a completed thought but I am out of time and posting for today
Monday, September 15, 2008
Cari's 1st Entry in 21st Century Cirriculum
So this is what the 21st century looks like. 8) My 8th graders might be impressed.
I couldn't quite believe we were starting another course so quickly and I still can't. It has only been two weeks and the school year is already in full throttle with piles of marking and editing, and then there is this work of my own. I am already beginning to feel overloaded.
The first class, just sitting and listening was a good reminder as to how my own students must have felt those first days of school, where, despite my best efforts I did the bulk of the of the talking, reveiwing rules and expectations. It is not easy getting back into the swing of things.
Buffy St. Marie was interesting, though I certainly wished it was not in the midst of the rest of the program. I particularly liked her line about "Let the IT in you shine through." I like the idea of IT whatever that IT may be. I think that that is in fact the essence of what I do, even though I use different words for the IT everytime. I think I often refer to it as each individuals absolute best.
I couldn't quite believe we were starting another course so quickly and I still can't. It has only been two weeks and the school year is already in full throttle with piles of marking and editing, and then there is this work of my own. I am already beginning to feel overloaded.
The first class, just sitting and listening was a good reminder as to how my own students must have felt those first days of school, where, despite my best efforts I did the bulk of the of the talking, reveiwing rules and expectations. It is not easy getting back into the swing of things.
Buffy St. Marie was interesting, though I certainly wished it was not in the midst of the rest of the program. I particularly liked her line about "Let the IT in you shine through." I like the idea of IT whatever that IT may be. I think that that is in fact the essence of what I do, even though I use different words for the IT everytime. I think I often refer to it as each individuals absolute best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)