Week 4 Blog ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read a few different articles that gave an understanding of the three learning theories. The three learning theories were: Behaviourism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. Over the past few weeks we have been going over a few different types of models in the curriculum, in example: Praxis, Process, and Product.

First I am going to go over Behaviorism. In my opinion, Behaviourism connects most with the Product curriculum model. The Product model is not the most student interest based, it is more focused on the end results/ outcomes of the student. When it comes to Behaviorism, this involves a repetitive structure based on measurable aspects of human behaviour. Some strategies used when it comes to Behaviorism is Classical Condition which was discovered by Pavlov. This includes training the individual with a stimulus paired with a routine or action to lead the individual to have an automatic response to the stimulus. This to me is very robotic. 

When it comes to individual experience and these concepts, I never thought too much about how structured I became as a student in my early education. When it came to our daily routine, right in the morning when the song “O Canada” came on we would immediately stop what we were doing and stand for the anthem with our arms by our sides while standing quietly or singing along. From grades K-8 we did this robotically. 

Next is Cognitivism. I believe that Cognitivism connects the most with the Process model of curriculum. The Process model is very middle ground when it comes to the two other models described in this blog. There is a strict structure, however, what is included in the structure lets students and teachers have a little more freedom in the sense of content. The overall experience is based on aspects other than just certain types of academia, which includes activities and student response- there is still a curriculum goal involved with this type of model. This connects to the Cognitive theory with the idea of touching on all types of learning: thinking/cognitive, feeling/affective, and doing/psycho-motor.

When I look back and try to remember where this model and theory was involved in my education, I think about one specific health class in grade 6. When I was around 11/12 years old, myself and my other classmates had to hollow out an egg, give either “him” or “her” eggs a name, and design it like how we would want our future babies to look (assuming that everyone in that room would want to have children one day). When I was younger, I really enjoyed this activity and had fun with it. There were specific goals in the curriculum that had to have us be  taught about how one day, you will have a child, which will happen if you have intercourse, as well as teaching us how babies are important and you have to be careful with them. 

Finally I will talk about the Constructivism theory. This Theory in my eyes connects the most with the Praxis curriculum model. The main purpose with Constructivism theory, similarly to the Praxis model, they both focus on the best interests and ideas of the students, teachers, and the community around them. This includes learning that is more diverse with its teaching methods, its content, and goes at the pace of the individual student while allowing them to form their own thoughts. 

This one was a bit more tricky for me to make connections to, after a while of trying to think up a past experience, I could not. They all connected to the Product and Process models more. This is pretty unfortunate and eye opening to me. 

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 3 Blog for ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools by Levin, B.. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction  (2008). 

The first thing I wanted to point out that I noticed right away was how it mentions that politics and curriculum go hand and hand. Not long after, it says how “Tinder (1991) describes a political system as “a set of arrangements by which some people dominate others” (Levin, 8). To me this shows some red flags. “Most policy decisions in education, including curriculum decisions, are made with little or no public attention” (8) To me, this is another red flag. When I think about education, I think about teaching students life skills and knowledge while providing a safe environment. I do not think about a place that includes the interests of the government, and not of the community, all while the people living in it are having to fight for survival. 

There was a highlight on research being a factor when it comes to building the curriculum, however, it only goes so far. I believe that research is a key part of building a foundation to which we can better the education for future students/ people. Taking the time and looking up what works and what does not work in the school setting so we can create a more accommodating environment where everyone can be happy and successful should be the main goal. 

Throughout the article, there was also a point brought up about teachers disagreeing with the decision process when it comes to curriculum. There was mention of it being Teachers vs experts. What makes teachers’ opinions on the matter invalid? Instead of it being a person vs person situation, it should be person + person vs the problem. Working together to form decisions that benefit all. 

“Curriculum decision processes depend on governance systems” (17). Not on students. Not on Community. Not on learning as an individual. Depends on governance systems. 

Another red flag.

We also went over the Treaty EducationOutcomes and Indicators Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2013. One of the first things I read that really stood out to me was “The Ministry of Education respects the federal government’s legal, constitutional, and fiscal obligations to First Nations peoples and its primary responsibility for Métis people.” (3). The words legal, constitutional, fiscal, obligation, to me make it sound like a chore. When this is a beautiful topic for students and staff to be learning about. It should have to be a legal obligation, it should just be in the curriculum. Another thing to note, the goal section was barely even half a page. I am sure that there were multiple tensions based on the Treaty Education Curriculum, which is why the words legal and a half page of goals were written out.

Overall, I believe that curriculum should be based on the students and what they need. Not about what the government needs. 

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 2 Blog for ECS 203

During class this week we went over some chapters from the two readings: Kevin K. Kumashiro’s Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice and A History of Education, by F. V. N. Painter. While reading these two pieces, multiple different types of perspectives came to mind. Here is a brief summary from my eyes when reading parts of the History of education which was published in 1886. To start off there are an abundance of terminologies and ideologies that in today’s society would be extremely controversial to go over in the classroom. There is an overuse of the word man, and plenty of references to God. There are also mentions of characteristics like being strong and brave, being the most important when looking at male students. The word discipline also comes onto the scene when talking about how one should be educated. It further goes on to teach those reading it about racist stereotypes, that are unfair and unjust. When information that is taught to sponge-like youth, when it is incorrect, it creates this domino effect of misleading information being spread throughout the population and generations.

On a lighter note, Kevin goes over some of his teaching experiences with specific kids and lessons. An Overall summary is about teaching children in a way that is a good fit and recognizing that all students learn differently. Us as educators have huge impacts on the students we teach. 

Some questions arise: what does it mean to be a good student according to “common sense”? From the traditional standpoint of what a “good” student looks like, would be expecting a child to sit still, and think what we want them to think. One thing to note is that it is not about what we want them to think, but about what we are taught to make them want to think. In other words, we are taught to become robots to make more robots. Robots do not have creative thoughts of their own, or have trouble sitting still in class, or struggle to wait their turn. Unfortunately our curriculum has become very copy and paste. Only recently are we starting to notice a change in welcoming inclusivity of those who think or learn differently. 

Now this gets into the more controversial side, however, sometimes- like Kumashiro mentioned- unfortunately sometimes you have to learn things that make you uncomfortable. Painter describes the most privileged students as those young white men who can speak proper English and will one day have a wife in the kitchen. In Kumashiro’s, he mentions how there were always the students who stood out, not intentionally, but because they could not “sit still”. That is where I believe some educators are stuck nowadays, similarly to Kumashiro, teachers have it instilled in their mind that if they cannot get a student to sit still and listen to what they are teaching, then they are a bad teacher. Unfortunately nowadays, a “good” student is a student that will sit at their desk, speak when spoken to, do their work- while exceeding the teachers expectations, all while playing like how a student should play. So if you cannot be “good” does that mean you are a “bad” student? The answer is no. It is outright sad to think that some students think that they are being bad all because they are not capable of sitting still.  Why is it a bad thing to regulate by wiggling- being “bad” with efforts of trying to be “good”. Why is it that students have to change and control their natural feelings to self regulate to our “norms”, why do they have to change but we don’t? 

Our belief of “common sense” is for children to conform to our strict expectations, when really, we should be flexible to fulfill the needs of all of the diverse learners.

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 1 Blog for ECS 203

During my ECS 203 class this week I read both The problem of common sense (From Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI). and Smith – Curriculum Theory and Practice. While reading these pieces, it definitely gives a different perspective on how others view common sense, Kumashiro writes it as “common sense does not tell us that this is what schools could be doing; it tells us that this and only this is what schools should be doing.”. Now to highlight the words could and should, this reminds me of a lesson I learned about in highschool and traditions. We went over the story called The Lottery by Shirley Jackson,

*Graphic and Trigger Warning Ahead*

Throughout the short story, when I went over it with my English class, the theme of tradition came up: even if it is tradition, does it mean it is a good thing? The winner of the lottery in the story ends up getting stoned to death by the rest of the community, all because it is tradition, to this community it is “common sense”.

*Graphic and Trigger Warning Over*

This relates to the idea of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”. Why do we have to follow what we should be doing, instead of what we could be doing? When I went to elementary school, we all sat in rows and were expected to sit quietly while the teacher educated us, this was common sense throughout all of my K-12 education. Now going through my education degree, I have been constantly changing my “common sense” and my new education has been showing me what is actually broken about that kind of system. There was a lack of inclusion and justice.

At the school in Nepal that Kumishiro taught at, he expressed that the curriculum model is exam and test based. Genders are separated and crowded into their spaces. Students prefer a strict, quiet, academic based classroom where if students have behavioural outbursts, they should be hit.

While reading through Smiths Curriculum Theory and Practice, the idea of common sense through this reading breaks curriculum down into “interaction of teachers, students
and knowledge.” There is more relationship building and evaluation of what the true best interests are for the students involved. It is more than just copy and pasting information from student to student assuming that they all learn the same way.

Now there are both pros and cons to this model. When using a more cut and dry method of teaching, limiting distractions, and putting the pressure onto students to know the information or they will not pass onto the next grade, this creates an environment when those who know the information are able to go further and learn all the information provided. The cons are that these students are going to struggle to find interests in anything other than school and the information provided at school. This is also a con for students who struggle to learn in this type of environment, many students learn in a variety of ways. It is hard to get to know what students really need when the main focus is on only the academic portion.

Best, Baylee