- the last months of the curriculum map were not as defined which I think is probably a good thing because I do want the children to 'pick up the ball and run with it' and of course, I won't be able to predict where they might take us on our journey. I think this is a good thing. It allows for autonomy of the children; openness to new ideas; the interconnectness of the children as they begin to collaborate with each other making networks of ideas with new ideas emerging from their collaborations; and it allows for diversity of individual learners. When I was doing my curriculum map I found this part frustrating because i wanted to be able to fill it in more but it just wasn't happening and I got annoyed at myself. So like we discovered on Friday the work doesn't always have to be finished/polished/ it allows for change and variation. So I am giving myself permission to let this be an unfinished document! (Ah! that was freeing!)
- my curriculum mapping was thought through totally by starting with the big idea. I filled in the strategies/learning outcomes/skills after I got the 'what we will be doing and the how of what we were doing'. I see now this is just another framework of thinking and that even though it is called 'backward' design it is a valued way of getting at the learning. This is valuable to me because I often feel that I am doing something wrong. Now I can value the way I think and move forward and not get so stuck in feeling that 'I am different'. I think sometimes this gets me stuck and feeling like I don't belong because "I am not on the same page".
- I listened and observed Leslie doing her curriculum map from a totally different perspective.
She starts with the learning outcomes. I watched her anxiety and frustration build because she felt she could not begin without the exact wording of the learning outcomes. At first I found this strange and didn't quite get why she was feeling so frustrated. I think I found something in my reading that helps me better understand the source of tension she was feeling and probably many of my colleagues.
Curricula that supports the belief that education's role is to transmit and perpetuate cultural knowledge and values and /or achieve national, social, economic and political goals... makes the practitioners assume the role of a technician who delivers a pre-set curriculum to a passive, homogenized student body, where little, if any consideration is given to social differences such as class, race and gender. Practitioner and pupil are disempowered -- pupils seen as either receptacles to be filled with knowledge or 'materials' to be worked on; and educators who 'have no power to decide broad curriculum goals and (whose) values have no place in the curriculum'.
The article continues by saying:
"... this is a foil against which the progressive, child-centred/emancipatory ideology which underpins practice in Reggio Emilia schools can be contextualized. Unlike the content and product approaches to education which prescribe the content and /or the objectives, Reggio schools do not have any formal pre-packaged 'curriculum' (see **). They are against all pedagogy whose purpose is in some way to predict the result, which is a sort of predictor that pre-determines the result, and that becomes a sort of prison for the child and for the teacher, and for the human being.
(**Some proponents of Reggio say this is way they can do what they do but I think what makes their learning so profound is the expectation that they do weekly professional development - every Friday - with their colleagues around the learning/projects in their classroom. They are always in the present with their students and trying to bring meaning to what is actually emerging in the classroom - not some preconceived idea of someone - outside of the classroom - ministry of Ed.)
After reading this I am wondering if this is what happened for Leslie? Her experience of the assignment was so different from mine. Is this what some of my colleagues are feeling as they design their curriculum maps? What can I offer to my colleagues as a dialogue to open up to a broader understanding of curriculum but still feel they are covering the ministry curriculum. How can I begin to collaborate with them when we are coming from two very diametrically opposed positions? How can I break down these barriers?
-I also noticed an interesting thing in my assessment practices that I never really thought about. I use authentic assessment - anecdotal and documentation of conversations and project work. What this will actually look like is very dependent on my class and each year my assessment changes when I do my documentation panels. I need to explore ways that I can demonstrate this to administrators, parents and teachers in a framework that they will understand.
- Project work in my curriculum map is very important and it really does fit nicely into this idea of 21st century learning. The children network with each other usually in small groups of
three or four kids. They decide on something they want to explore and build on each others ideas (scaffolding). This model of learning has some interesting characteristics because it does very much reflect the idea of networking without the main frame. So I am thinking now the one strand that has not been strong in my classroom can be added to the project based learning. The children in their play are already doing what they will be doing later with the help of technology. I just need to facilitate this better in my classroom. So......I am adding this element with digital cameras and a program like Adobe Photoshop/Appleworks drawing program? Any other ideas ????
These are the big ideas I was thinking about when I was reviewing my curriculum map and continuing to read in LTYC.
I have a number of Reggio Books would people be interested in looking at them. I don't really want to pack them up if there is no interest? This books actually show the project work with children.
No comments:
Post a Comment