BlogPost5

This class, readings and intense discussions combined, has really questioned my understanding of curriculum and the history of how it has affected learning. I am actually struggling to narrow down my research concerns because as I read and as we discuss, I feel further away from my previous notions. This makes it hard to come up with a topic, because it seems ever changing. I am somewhat uneasy/disturbed with some of the historical aspects that we have read about and discussed in class. For example, how often the curriculum is different for students of different socioeconomic backgrounds and how different kids have access to different educational experiences (or lack there of) based upon where their parents or guardians chose to raise them. Education is tricky. Tricky to pin point and difficult to narrow the guidelines of what “should” be taught. As I have read Pinar’s opinion of constructivism (or what I believe is most linked to constructivism) on page 50, I feel that not every child does get to, or chooses to, actively participate in their educational journey in a way that is effective and lasting. This, to me, is most upsetting. On page 11 of Grumet’s article called Existential and phenomenological foundations of Currere: Self-report III Curriculum Inquiry, she talks about our role as educators. She states, “as educators we alone must bring into being the tradition which we elect to carry on; existential phenomenology requires action as well as theory.”I question often if our attempt at curriculum and the standards we use to design our lessons/instruction are trying to be more inclusive, but have rather excluded many types of learners. Let me explain.

I think that if we do what Grumet and even Pinar (and Apple too, I believe) when examining our background, history and allegory, we will find that many of us “educators” teach in a way that we were taught or a way in which we can access and experience the learning opportunities. This being said, I do believe that all kids learn differently. I believe that we must first discover what motivates kids and what creates life long learning in them in order to provide the most effective education possible. However, with everything we have discussed, I wonder what grouping students with similar interests and learning styles with educators of that same style and interests would have a greater success rate. Essentially, if we group the children according to style, and not ability or disability, with an educator who would be in the same group, if our curriculum would be more fitting for actual student learning. What if these groups used these guidelines to do simply that, guide them in their course of study and not define their learning experiences? Would we “label” kids less and seeing more motivated and active children?

Grumet has a powerful quote that hits home for me and solidifies that we are educated only to the extent in which we have experienced in the past. She says, “If we must calibrate education, then we might say that we are educated to the extent that we are conscious of our experience and to the degree that we are freed by this knowledge to act through skills required to transform our world.” I interpret that as saying that basically we act in ways because of what our history and experiences have essentially let or instilled in us. This quote makes me feel that this idea/recurring research thought could have potentially very interesting results.

Another research idea/topic I have toyed with during the course of our class discussions and readings is whether rapport and relationships with educators is the “key” to a more inclusive curriculum. For instance, if a student respects and reveres his/her teacher, will a greater (more inspirational and meaningful) learning experience take place? Does it really matter what is in the “curriculum” as long as the teacher is able to express it and convey it to the students in a way that they can understand and relate to?