As mentioned in Block 4, the province is bringing out a new set of curricula. It has become a major focus of my job to understand the ELA curriculum and support its implementation. It is a shift in the way it asks us to look at the learner. I started teaching in the 1980's, when instruction was teacher focused with the learner being viewed as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge transmitted by the teacher. The 1992 curriculum asked us to move to focus on the student as a learner. The instruction was to be activity based and led by the student. The 2000 curriculum brought with it specific objectives. Instruction was to be purposeful and objective driven. It moved from student-focus to learning focus. Now this curriculum challenges us with outcomes, which are supposed to be measurable, and asks us to move towards higher level thinking and social responsibility. We no longer learn knowledge and facts, but also need to understand what to do with that knoweldge and how to find our own knowledge and understandings. Its focus is on deep understanding rather than obtaining knowledge, skills and facts.
I reflect on where I have been lead by the curriculum throughout my career, because I am being challenged to understand my own views. The content of Block 4 also challenges me. I accept constructivist premises wholeheartedly, but do find that belief challenged. I am working with 2 consultant colleagues and a group of teachers to write inquiry units. This is the second project we have worked on. It seems that true inquiry learning requires teachers to move towards a contructivist approach. They are eager and willing to engage in that process until we get to the actual writing. It is hard for them not to write lessons that move students towards knowledge and ideas that the teachers hold. So we are then challenged as facillitators to reflect on both the learning process and the product. Do we allow them to make sense of the underpinnings of inquiry leanring in their own way and express that within their units, or do have a predetermined diea of what it is, with the expectation that the units should meet that critieria? Interesting food for thought.
Learning from the Energy of Our Differences
11 years ago
6 comments:
Some of my greatest understanding of inquiry learning comes from a teacher I know who worked at an international school where the curriculum was completely inquiry based. He was immersed in the culture of inquiry every day for 3 years - at the end of every school year the teachers made adjustments to the inquiry curriculum to try and improve upon the previous year. The entire curriculum for all subjects in one grade was smaller (text size) that one current curriculum for one subject for one grade in our province.
His current planning document that he shared recently looked like this:
Stage 1: What is our purpose?
(stated curric. concepts)
Stage 2: What resources will we use?
(how can we incorporate multiple perspectives)
Stage 3: What do we want to learn?
Identify essential questions, teacher guiding questions and student inquiry questions.
Stage 4: How best will the students learn?(differentiated learning, multiple intelligences, technology integration, problem-based)
Stage 5: How will we know what we have learned? How will students demonstrate their learning and how will their learning be assessed?
Stage 6: Teacher reflection on learning and student feedback on learning.What will we do differently next time?
I am sure it is a challenge for anyone to design effective inquiry units without a strong background in teaching with an inquiry philosophy or in using inquiry as an instructional strategy.
Working as a team of critical thinkers I am sure you will continue to question and challenge each other and critique your planning as you go to produce thoughtful units that others may begin to use as they explore this approach.
Helping educators get their heads around teaching through inquiry for effective learning (supporting the paradigm shift of education) may be much harder than designing the units for teachers.
Marnie
Hi Joanne,
Curriculum change is so often. It wasn't too long ago that I attended a workshop on math and how to teach math using manipulatives. There were five strands then, now, there's four strands with the same concept, using manipulatives. It really made sense and I think it would be appropriate for studens. I find it to be very useful because students had to be assessed first and according to their assessment, they are either in phase one to five. This is the prime math initiative. Students are learning at their own level and making their way up from simple to abstract way of thinking. I think teachers would need to take a lot of time planning to make it work for the students. Planning is key to engage students in it and to plan according to the students level.
There are always changes in the curriculum and there is a need for that. As we become more aware of our learnings and teachings, we bring postive change into the curriculum, and with the web 2.0 its just getting better and better.
You've nicely explained the Constructivist dilemma, how can we teach what we don't know and understand? I haven't seen a grade five ELA curriculum yet, but I would be curious to see what one of your units looks like if they are available.
As usual good stuff Joanne (Do I hear a PhD in your future?).
I read an article last term that discussed the postmodern trend of curricula for deeper understanding and community connections. However, they warned that not all students want deeper understanding. That we should be flexible enough to offer survey type courses depending on the nature of our students.
This paper and your posting have me reflecting on the following questions: What is deeper understanding? What does it look like? How do you evaluate that? How do you create lessons that do this? How much work is that? Will the average teacher buy into this?
I think I could go on and on...
I recently attended a 2 day workshop on curriculum renewal and I too felt a disconnect from what the consultants were presenting to the group...it's really difficult to relearn new things after you've done them a certain way for so long.
JoAnne, I'm sure that you know this, but the new curriuclum really follows the 21st century skills stuff that I'm sure you've read too. It's probably not as exciting for you as me (for me it was a totally new idea) but it sure has wonderful applications for my students, so for that alone, mabye your new curriuclum isn't too bad? Maybe it just makes some teachers scard because new things can always be kind of challanging?? Not to say they\re bad, just new. Maybe if teachers are supported from admin down, it could be doable with real benefits to the students??? darcy
Post a Comment