"Credible Curricula"

Reading curriculums that are not based on the National Reading Panel research are not considered credible curriculums by teachers and schools.
http://www.clicknkids.com/Public/ProgramDescription5.asp

I was doing some research on an author I had heard speak, Dr. J. Ron Nelson, when I came across the above quote. The site indicates that Dr.Nelson helped develop the phonics program the site was selling. In light of our class work, the quote reallyc aused me to stop and ponder. Who determines what is a 'credible curriculum'? According to this site, I guess the National ReadingPanel is the only perspective to take into account when instructing reading. I am flumoxed by the audacity of the statement.
It also worries me. As teachers, we are so busy with the day to day workings of the classroom, that often we accept a program as the curriculum and don't critically deconstruct it to see what has influenced it. I know I didn't have the time to do that when I was in the classroom. I pulled what I liked from the program, as well as the prov. curriculum documents, and created my own curriculum. Scary thought? Kind of, but I also think it was effective. Probably lots of room for improvement, but my students were generally happy, learned, and made satisfactory growth throughout the year.
But now programs claim to be based on research, on 'best' practice, on consultations with experts,.... on the National Reading Panel. It all sounds so intimidating that we as teachers could easily jump on their bandwagon of promises.
So what does that do to my role as a consultant? Should I be a leader who says "use this program....this strategy...this practice" and expect to be listened to without challenge? Some teachers do say to me, "Just tell me what to do." Our division has not had a history of doing that. They have left it up to individual schools to determine what is best for them. Maybe it's time to be a bit proactive in light of the large amount of information, 'experts' and programs available with very little teacher time for analysis and reflection????

Vygotsky and Higher Level Thinking

I'm still reflecting on Bruner's quote I cited a few posts ago.

Children rarely [are provided work in] redefining what has been encountered, reshaping it, reordering it. The cultivation of reflectiveness is one of the great problems one faces in devising curricula: how to lead children to discover the powers and pleasures that await the exercise of retrospection.
Jerome Bruner, Beyond the Information Given, 1957, p 449

as cited by Wiggins and McTighe, Understanding by Design, 2005, p. 290

Before we "lead children to discover the powers and pleasures that await the exercise of retrospection." we have to believe they are capable of it. Moving away from Piaget's belief that children mature their way through stages of cognition Piaget's Theory allows me to see more potential in children's capacity to learn. In the last few eyars I've come across Vygotsky's work. Again, the interesting things is that I'm hearing about his work from a variety of sources, including this class. Vygotsky's Theory Vygotsky's explanation that learners can move to a new or deeper understanding if they have a social interaction with someone more knowledegable has influenced many educators and curriculum writers. Many of the underpinnings of current 'best' practices (guided reading, modeling, etc.) and pedagogies (explicit instruction, scaffolding) are built on Vygotsky's and other constructivist theorists' work. Why do we still see educators who state a belief in the capacity of all children of all ages to learn, but see instruction controlled by the content of the written curriculum, what's the disconnect? I wish I knew.

Bloom's and Higher Level Thinking

As I’m thinking about all the talk we are doing in our office and in the province on the new curriculum and assessment, I hear different viewpoints expressed the perspectives of curriculum as product, process, and praxis. Those viewpoints often are indicators about what teachers expect from a curriculum document and how they will implement it in their classrooms. It’s forcing me to try to be as honest and objective as I can about how my own beliefs and personality are influencing my own practice. One of those beliefs is the importance and power of higher level thinking.
I’ve been working for several years on comprehension and have often run into the statement that younger students don’t’ have the capacity to think deeply. My personal experience, both as a primary teacher and a mother tells me otherwise. I've been musing about what theorists have to say on the issue.
The standard for higher level thinking, Bloom’s taxonomy, is experiencing a rebirth. It has been revised. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy I am also hearing references to it at workshops, in new programs, and in discussion with other educators. The best way I came to understand higher level thinking in relation to age capacity was through developing a model for levels of comprehension based on a discussion with Bill Prentice (ELA Consultant, Sasatchewan Minsitry of education) on Bloom's Taxonomy a few years ago. Essentially, there are two components to moving through Bloom's levels. The first is the level of complexity, that is the cognitive task becomes more complex, in essence moving up through the 6 levels from Remembering to Creating each cognitive process becomes more complex. However, within each level of complexity, there is a level of difficulty. A simple task for remembering would be: Name the capital of the province you live in. A difficult task for remembering might be: Name the capital cities of all the rpovinces of Canada. That understanding has helped inform my belief that young child are capable of complex thought.

Higher level Thinking vs. Coverage

Children rarely [are provided work in] redefining what has been encountered, reshaping it, reordering it. The cultivation of reflectiveness is one of the great problems one faces in devising curricula: how to lead children to discover the powers and pleasures that await the exercise of retrospection.

Jerome Bruner, Beyond the Information Given, 1957, p 449
as cited by Wiggins and McTighe, Understanding by Design, 2005, p. 290

This quote highlights a major roadblock in curriculum implementation. We can easily see the content that needs to be covered, and are often overwhelmed by the immensity of that content. But who of us has not heard or said to ourselves that we just don’t have time to cover everything in each of the curriculum documents that we are required to use? That feeling or assumption causes us to shut down possibilities of varying the delivery and also to shut down the possibility of students using the information to develop higher level thinking. It also leads us to create our own ‘hidden’ curriculum and teach what we believe is important. Even if we see curriculum as praxis, a critical goal, we end up teaching to the product in a way that encourages short term memory and regurgitation.

Inquiry

At our division's workshop on inquiry, we were asked the question "What happens when a student's questions and interest take them away from the content of the curriculum?". Afterwards, I reflected on the understanding of curriculum she and I had. She was concerned about covering the content in the defined provincial curricula, and I was focusing on the process of learning and the skills involved. Our different perspectives highlight a tension that exists as we look at curriculum. The inquiry approach plays with both perspectives in that the outcomes are defined, but can change as students and teachers work through the inquiry process. The
Galileo Network was an important influence in the creation of the revised curricula which has inquiry built into every subject. It will be a major shift for teachers to work their way through.

In working in the area of differentiation, they use an acronym KUDs to clarify the outcome or purpose for learning. As I work with it, it helps me to not focus only on the content or the process. Clarity in what we are teaching can only assist the learning the process.

Provincial Curriculum

I have just returned from two days of provincial curricula presentations. It was interesting to get a glimpse into the creation of the major subject curricula for Grades 6-9. I do believe that a great amount of thought was put into developing them. I also believe that most of the writers have a great amount of subject specific knoweldge that they brought to the writing process. I also noted that there is an attempt to simplify them by creating a common framework. The are many good things about the revised curricula.
A frequent question was how do teachers not become overwhelmed by having so many new curricula given to them at once? The answer to that question was not all that satisfying. The statement was that if teachers are already following the curriculum of each subject, all they need to do is begin to become familiar with the new by reading over the new outcomes and tweak their lessons accordingly. If only life were so easy.
When we are asked to implement curricula, we always bring ourselves to the process. We make choices that are influenced by our experience, our beliefs, our teaching style, and hopefully our students. So what are we talking about as curriculum - the provincial documents or the delivery of them? Probably both, but I'm still working on it. The answer to "What is Curriculum?" is not a simple one.
The provincial leaders were very careful to use the term curriculum documents, not curriculum guides. I need to find out why that was significant to them.