Analyzing the Curriculum
by George Posner
pp. 227-236
The Collaborative Approach to Curriculum Implementation
This section of Chapter Nine details the differences between other methods of curriculum implementation and the collaborative approach. Table 9.2 (p. 229) summarizes the major differences between the collaborative and traditional scientific RD&D method:
(I had copied this into a tidy table, but couldn't transfer it from Windows in that format -sorry)
What knowledge and skills are necessary for implementing change?
RD&D: Explicit taught skills
Collaborative: Tacit or craft knowledge; teacher with teacher learning
What is the focus of development efforts?
RD&D: Materials production
Collaborative: Professional growth of teachers
What directs curriculum change?
RD&D: Objectives
Collaborative: Teacher beliefs
What evaluation methods are used?
RD&D: Psychometric; standardized testing
Collaborative: Ethnographic; kid-watching
What is the goal for curriculum implementation?
RD&D: Fidelity of implementation
Collaborative: Multiple interpretations
The author seems to be a proponent of the collaborative method of curriculum implementation, pointing out the obvious flaws in the RD&D method. He cites the “…isolation of the RD&D efforts from teachers” (p. 227) whereby researchers developed curriculum in isolation from teachers who were then expected to implement curriculum goals which they didn’t necessarily share (p. 228). Teachers were then accused of ‘sabotage’ when they tried to adapt the curriculum to fit their specific needs and situations. The collaborative model, on the other hand, allows teachers to be active participants in the development and implementation of the curriculum and even invites other stake-holders, such as the students and community members to be part of the design and review of new curriculum. This model was described in detail as the author examined the implementation of a whole language program in one school district. The success of this program served to underscore the benefits of the collaborative approach.
In summary, the chapter suggests that although the RD&D approach “provides for systematic and deliberate planning, carrying, out and monitoring… the collaborative approach provides for teacher ownership and growth (p. 235).”
Comment:
I totally agree that the collaborative method of curriculum implementation is superior to the RE&D method. When teachers are encouraged to examine their practices and beliefs, and then to make changes in their curriculum delivery based on that reflection, the students can only benefit. When teachers thoughtfully experiment and risk teaching what they truly believe in, rather than what manuals prescribe, the classroom becomes an exciting laboratory of critical thinking and learning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Lauren...
I truly am a huge fan of collaborative and cooperative learning. It is my belief that all of us have something to teach and something to learn. By using these methods of teaching/learning, we as learners, have the opportunity to share our knowledge and experiences with others. This is turns boosts our self-esteem, morale and makes us part of the learning community rather than the student sitting at the back of the classroom watching the second hand ticking by on the clock. I am reminded of “To Sir With Love” and other great inspirational teaching stories and how the teachers used the knowledge of the students to help guide them to further knowledge on which to build. This notion of constructivist learning helps remind us that the teacher is learning and sharing along with everyone else. The classroom becomes a community rather than an isolated environment.
Vince and Lauren,
I also think that when teachers are also learning and tell the students that they are also learning, students see the teachers as a less threatening equal. This I hope allows for more open, comfortable and less intimidating learning atmosphere. As we know if the environment is non-threatening then more learning will occur.
Jacquie
I agree as well: the collaborative/cooperative learning approach is an excellent model, though I wouldn’t forsake RD&D completely. It might still have value in moderation; say when setting overall directions for example. Lets be frank: if teachers aren’t part of the curriculum development process, or if they do not believe in the efficacy of a new curriculum theory, they may well “sabotage” new approaches - either explicitly or implicitly. There is some talk of this kind of tension playing out right now in Quebec, as their Ministry of Education has overhauled their curricula very recently. I wonder if the new curricula expected here in Ontario will create similar friction? I have to agree with Jacquie too. I believe the ideal educational setting is one where the teacher is a kind of learning facilitator or manger, rather than an omniscient expert power figure. I’ve had older teachers from a previous generation disagree (“Never tell them you’re learning too – you’re the teacher. They need to be confident that you know what you’re doing and what you’re talking about. Never show weakness!” LOL!) Still, I’ve made the approach work in my own small way. It's a method I learned about in one of my Ottawa U. B.Ed classes called Holistic Education (yay John Dewey & John Taylor Gatto!) Great course. I highly recommend it.
Post a Comment