Blog #1- Curriculum Theory/Practice & The Problem of Common Sense
How does Kumashiro define ‘commonsense?’ Why is it important to pay attention to the ‘commonsense’?
In my understanding, Kumashiro defines ‘commonsense’ as the ‘common’ among a group or groups of people. The ‘common sense’ that one may have in Canada compared to other countries could be highly similar but also extremely different. It is important to acknowledge your own personal definitions of ‘commonsense’ especially when working in education. In many cases what you think is ‘commonsense’ could actually be something that a student is struggling to understand. Our routines throughout our daily lives cause us to assume things and view certain activities, functions, or days as being ‘commonsense’ which is not the case for many people despite where they are living.
What type(s) of curriculum model did Kumashiro encounter in Nepal?
Kumashiro encountered a very ‘traditional’ way of teaching- curriculum as product. Most of the knowledge came straight from their textbooks and used direct instruction. They used only traditional ways of testing such as exams and refrained from creative teaching methods. Kumashiro explains that when they tried to switch up the teaching style and include teaching methods from the US they received a lot of pushback from both the teachers and the students. Something that stuck out to me when reading the story was the student who was afraid that Kumashiro was not teaching well enough for them to pass their current grade because Kumashiro was not teaching in a traditional way.
What type(s) of curriculum model is the “commonsense” model in our Canadian school system? What might be the benefits and drawbacks to this model?
I believe the ‘commonsense’ model in our Canadian school system is somewhat similar to the traditional model in the sense that we as teachers will provide the information we are told to teach (from the curriculum) and then the students will use this information to practice. Once the information has been taught as well as practiced there will be some kind of ‘exam’ or assessment. I think what separates the common model in Canada from other countries such as Nepal is Critical Pedagogy and Curriculum as Process. The way Canadian teachers choose to get the information to their students as well as assess their students is different than most teachers in Nepal- based on what we have read. In both cases the information is being taught, practiced, and then assessed; but it is very different. Teachers believe to meet students where they are and guide their learning through student-led activities. I feel the drawbacks of the models in the Canadian school system would be the possibility that information is being lost throughout the system. When sticking to the book the students are forced to absorb everything within that class. However, a teaching style where students are expected to learn strictly through their textbook has its own flaws as well. Some benefits of the Canadian system include the hidden curriculum and the creative freedom it provides students and teachers. It allows students to learn in their own way how to thrive in both school and community.
Hello Ashley, I really enjoyed reading your blog post about the “commonsense” and Curriculum Theory, you did a great job answering all the questions in detail. In your first paragraph, you talked about something that I never actually thought of, you talked about how something that is “commonsense” to us may not be the same case to another student and that is actually very important to pay attention to that, especially if there is a new student in the class or a newcomer to Canada there would be things that will not be “commonsense” to them. We had similar ideas on how shocked we were when the Napal students thought Kumashiro’s teaching was wrong and they were not learning anything because that was not common sense to them. I enjoyed reading your blog,
Nikol