Teacher As Curriculum Maker

16 Jan

Calvin Reviews the Education System

This blog entry is a response to the chapter Teacher As Curriculum Maker written by D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly. Please see reference at the end of the blog.

This chapter attempts to address the role of teachers as they interact with the curriculum.  As this chapter is very long and intensive I will be focusing on the sections that specifically resonated with me and my experiences as a teacher, not the whole chapter.

  1. The Teacher Framed by the Conduit Metaphor

In an attempt to summarize and understand this metaphor I found some information on the Encyclopedia Britannica Online that supplemented that of the chapter. The Conduit Metaphor refers to the  idea that knowledge is a “commodity that is external to learner”, meaning that it is provided for them rather than something that they construct themselves.  In practice it refers to the idea that the student is an empty vessel waiting for the teacher to fill them with their infanite knowledge.  Success can be measured by the student’s ability to regurgitate that knowledge with a high percentage of accuracy. It is the job of the student to memorize the information provided for them without consideration for their own context or experience.  The teacher is expected to provide a scripted wealth of information through prescribed methods. These methods and content were provided for them through the curriculum.

This is what I believed teaching to be when I began my career.  As I began teaching, I quickly became bored and unsatisfied with this method and deviated from it. In doing so, I abandoned the curriculum except for obtaining the grade appropriate “topics” that I could address with my class in a way that I thought they would find the most engaging. The chapter refers to this abandonment when it refers to a study of the Toronto secondary school biology curriculum conducted in 1978 in which it was found that

“Roughly two-thirds of the curriculum taught was outside the bounds of policy specified in the provincial guidelines document and was therefore technically illegal.” (372)

While it was assumed that teachers were and should be using prescribed curriculum and were acting in accordance to the “conduit metaphor”, it was not happening.  Teachers were instead being “curriculum makers” (Side note: I put that in quotations not as a refernece to the chapter but instead to Norm Yakel of the University of Regina as during my undergrad degree he would tell us not to be curriculum users but instead curriculum makers.  This resonated with me and I used this as a rationalization in my mind as I deviated from the curriculum during my first years of teaching).

Happily, I think that in my school division and province, we are now moving away from this model with the renewed curriculum and through my board’s “Structural Innovation“. Through the use of Outcomes and Indicators teachers are given a guideline of “Big Ideas” that they are to meet through their teaching, there are not prescribed units that they must follow anymore, allowing the teacher to become a maker of curriculum that meets both the interests and learning levels of their students.  The Indicators are to me, suggestions of things that I should look for in their demonstration of their knowledge but I do not treat them as a list of tasks that I must have them perform.  I use them as inspiration as I plan their learning path.  Since the release of the new Saskatchewan Curriculum, I have actually been using it and even have the Outcomes that we are addressing posted predominantly in my classroom. This is good because this is also the first time that I have ever actually been held accountable for my use of the curriculum within an Inquiry and Project Based learning framework.  This approach to my student’s learning is a lot of work but “making curriculum” is one of the most exciting things for me in this job, I would not have it any other way.  My teacher librarian refers to them as my “idea explosions.” It is what I do best!

My board’s Structural Innovation framework allows me the flexibility to structure my classroom, my student’s learning and my teaching in a way that allows me to facilitate the learning my students engage in rather than dictate it. I consider myself a Constructivist and the roles of curriculum maker and learning facilitator are integral to my practice.

Having said all that, this does not resonate well with all teachers.  In the chapter, the authors refer to a study conducted in the 1970’s that found that when it comes to educational reform, teachers can be the most resistant. It found that any reform efforts were often thwarted by three things; 1. The grade level of the teacher (secondary teachers were less likely to change than elementary teachers). 2. The longer the teacher had taught, the less open to change they were. 3. The teacher that believed that all students could be motivated and successful, the more willing to engage in reform they were.  Being in the schools as Structural Innovation was introduced and implemented, I witnessed all three of the above mentioned first hand.  It also states that in order for change to follow through long-term, teachers needed to be directly trained on how to change and that the training needed to be practice and self developed, not prescribed.

2. “Teacher-Proof” Curriculum Within The Conduit: From Teaching Machines to Distance Education

This section of the chapter refered to attempts to make it very difficult for the teacher to deviate from the prescribed curriculum.  In the video below, the Teaching Machine and it’s purpose is described.

I think that you would agree with me when I say that I am very glad that those machines did not become common place as they are the epitome of the teacher as conduit model!

This section of the chapter also discusses another method of computer assisted learning that they refer to as Computer Assisted Learning environments.  In this case, computers are used to facilitate student learning but that the role of the educator in this model is unclear.  They go on to introduce the Computer Mediated Communication System. This is described as

“Helping distance educator develop their own kinds of interactive classrooms: small and large, local and regional group configurations of learners are created by a telephone, computer conferencing and face-to-face meetings and workshops.” (375)

The authors write that this type of computer assisted learning is one in which the teacher must take on the role as curriculum maker as they must work collaboratively with the learner to create this space and what they will be learning within it.  At the time of the writing of this chapter (1992), it was not yet known just how far this would go!  Think of all of the online collaboration that occurs now through social media and the discussion around the use of Personal Learning Networks (PLN) and Personal Learning Environments (PLE) as the face of new educational reform.  What the authors are referring to through the use of Computer Mediated Communication Systems in education was a rudimentary form of the PLN/PLE.  In a PLN/PLE, a learner creates a network of people, digital resources and information that they access via various forms of social media, digital tools and means of communication and collaboration.  In the formation of a PLN and/or PLE in a structured school environment, it would be the role of the teacher to guide the learner in setting their own learning outcomes and helping them establish relationships with the people, resources and tools that are necessary for their PLN as well as being part of the student’s PLN.  Many scholars are exploring the use of PLN/PLE and digital learning as the future of education.  See the work of the University Of Regina’s Alec Couros as an example of this exploration. When education reform and our technologically driven world leads us to this type of open learning, teachers will have no choice but to be curriculum makers and will work alongside their students in this capacity.

An example of the PLE of a Grade 7 Student

3. The Humanities Curriculum Project

When my board office introduced Structural Innovation to teachers, I heard a lot of people comment, “We tried that in the 70’s, it did not work then, it will not work now.”  I found this very discouraging because I thought it sounded very exciting an I was energized by the idea of trying new things.  This was because I was already doing so and I was excited to see that I would have admin support.  I am not sure that the thing that was tried in the 70’s with my board was related to the Humanities Curriculum Project but it does sound very similar.  The chapter goes on to say that just like Structural Innovation, some school had success, some did not.  One of the key aspects talked about earlier in the chapter was that change only works if the teachers are involved in the decisions.  In the case of the Humanities Curriculum Project, it was intended for the teacher to be central to the reform in the classroom but how that would look was shaped by the researcher and not by the teacher.  As mentioned previously in the chapter, that would not work. I know that in our application to become a Structural Innovation school, all of the teachers had full input however, I did hear of other schools where all decisions and ideas came solely from the administration. I believe that we will have a similar results in our school system as the Humanities Curriculum Project because of this reason. So, yes, in some cases it will not work.  That does not mean that we give up trying.  There are some success with change.  I can speak to this from my experience in my Professional Learning Community and how we have structured our senior classroom. For a peak at what we do, visit our Wiki.

4. Teacher as Curriculum Maker

The authors of this chapter call attention to the need for educational reform. Through examples, they show that the reform will only truly be successful and sustained when the teachers are directly involved in the decisions that are made for change. How do we engage teachers in these decisions?  The authors state that teachers must become curriculum makers (and in this, they do not mean only what will be learned but that curriculum should be a “course of life” encompassing all things related to teaching and learning) and that in order for teachers to become curriculum  makers, researchers must listen to their stories.  Through this listening, a usable, realistic, engaging format for educational reform can be formulated.  I agree with this idea wholly as I have seen and heard the difference that it is making in the success of Structural Innovation in the schools in my system.  And while I  can not speak for other schools and other teachers, in my school, where the needs, wants, and success stories of the teachers were considered in making our plans for innovation, we have seen many successes.

 

A Call For Educational Reform:  What are We Going to Do About it?

Related Articles

Curriculum as a Multistoried Process by Margaret Olson

Article Reference

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Curriculum Research, pp. 363-401. New York: MacMillan.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Teacher As Curriculum Maker”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Teacher As Curriculum Maker « Te(a)ch -- Topsy.com - January 16, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Danielle Stinson, Danielle Stinson. Danielle Stinson said: Teacher As Curriculum Maker: http://wp.me/p14BY8-1T […]

  2. Teacher as Curriculum Maker « It's Elementary! - January 16, 2011

    […] outcomes through interactions with our students.  Danielle Stinson explains this in her blog post Teacher as Curriculum Maker: “Through the use of Outcomes and Indicators teachers are given a guideline of “Big […]

  3. Edustange » Teacher as Curriculum Maker « It’s Elementary! - January 16, 2011

    […] through interactions with our students.  Danielle Stinson explains this in her blog post Teacher as Curriculum Maker: “Through the use of Outcomes and Indicators teachers are given a guideline of “Big Ideas” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: