Month: January 2023

Common sense is an interesting concept, as it is not as common as we believe. Common sense is objective; it is based on each individual’s background, upbringing, and culture among many other aspects. In education, many things seem to be common sense; as a student, it was common sense for me to walk into a classroom, sit down at a desk, and listen to the teacher. However, for some students, this is not “common sense.” As educators, we must analyze and reflect on these ideas of common sense in our society so we can provide quality, equal, and understandable education to our students.

Historically speaking, common sense has massively shifted. In the past, let’s say in 1942, it was common sense that if a student spoke back to a teacher or was disrespectful they would receive physical punishment. Today, this behaviour from a teacher is completely unacceptable and would result in severe consequences for the teacher. How does one define what a “good” student is, and what does it mean to be a “good” student according to common sense? In Kumashiro’s Against Common Sense, he discusses what it means to be a “good” student. Kumashiro shares his experience with a student he called “M”. M was a kindergarten student and was known to be troublesome. M was restless and had difficulties concentrating during times when he was expected to be seated and quiet. Kumashiro looked at M as a “bad” student, but as time went on he came to realize M was anything but that. M was not a “bad” student, but rather, found different approaches to learning and listening to be more effective. Instead of conforming to the “common sense” idea of being a “good” student, which Kumashiro describes as being able to passively take in information and silently listen to others share knowledge, M took the information in by asking questions and engaging with the learning. “I remember consistently feeling quite frustrated by such students, not only because I assumed that being a student required behaving and thinking in only certain ways, but also because I felt pressure from schools and society to produce this type of student,” (Kumashiro, pp. 21). It is unfair to assume each student will be the same and will conform to our understanding of common sense in learning, so we must adapt to their learning styles and teach in a way that can benefit all students.

Many writers and teachers share similar thoughts of common sense. In A History of Education by F.V.N Painter, he explains the ideas of education through his eyes. Painter’s book was released in 1886, nearly 150 years ago, yet the ideas similarly align with our common sense ideas of what makes a “good” student. The objective of education was to shape young thinkers into respectful, hard-working, considerate adults. “Thus, in its essential nature, education aims at developing a noble type of manhood; but it has also an external relation. Man has various labours and duties to perform in the world, which require special training, and a wide range of knowledge,” (Painter, pp. 3). Painter points out that “man” (speaking of humans, not exclusively men) must be prepared for future endeavours and work efforts. He is not concerned with HOW the students will learn, rather, he is only concerned with WHAT they will learn. The ideology behind this is extremely linear; students must learn “x” and if they are not understanding they are not “good” learners. Painter fails to recognize the variability in students, hence why I describe his thoughts as linear. Students that stray from his idea of a “good” student are the exact opposite. Unfortunately, this ideology is still present in today’s learning environment; many educators fail to understand how students learn in varying ways and how to adapt their learning styles to new and different teaching styles.

Students that are capable of sitting, listening, and understanding just by reading and hearing hold an enormous advantage. I, personally, am one of these students. I have the privilege of being able to sit in a classroom and listen to a lecture for two hours and recall most of the important points. However, I know many people who do not learn so easily. I have friends who could not learn the same way as me and teachers that could not adapt to their learning styles. The outcome was often poor grades and poor relationships between the students and teachers. Today, those friends are exceeding in hands-on jobs such as mechanics and welding. I find it unfair that students like them suffer because they are viewed as “bad” students when they are wonderful learners that struggle to adhere to the norm.

Educators need to recognize these patterns and break free from common sense understandings. Students need to receive attention at different levels, and every student should have an equal opportunity to learn whether they fit the common sense understanding of a “good” student or not. No student is a “good” or “bad” student so long as they are given the opportunity to learn and grow their mind.

Painter (1886). A History of Education (pp. 1 – 21)

Kumashiro (2010). Against Common Sense, Chapter 2 (pp. 19 – 33) – “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: What It Means to Be a Student”

Historical thinking is an interesting topic for me, as it focuses on history. I am fascinated with history and understanding the development of human civilizations, hence why I am a history major and I aspire to become an educator. I quickly gravitated toward the topic of “historical thinking.” Immediately I wondered what exactly is historical thinking. My initial thought was historical thinking probably relates to understanding history by connecting the thoughts of the past to present ideas. I sought to clarify this so I could understand how to connect historical thinking in my future classrooms. From the information I found, historical thinking is the concept of applying critical thought to past ideas and events and developing connections throughout history. I can apply this to my teaching by introducing students to critical thought about each lesson and teaching students how to use and interpret primary sources to develop connections between lessons and moments in history. I selected “A Model of Historical Thinking” by Peter Seixas as my primary article, as Seixas discusses the relationship and connectedness of the “six historical thinking concepts” Canadian educators utilize. Interestingly, Seixas breaks down how these concepts were developed from British, German, and American understandings of history education. The Canadian Model took the concepts of the American and British developments for historical education to be “communicable and intelligible to teachers and their students,” but also took the German concept to introduce students to a deeper exploration of historical issues (Seixas, 2017). These concepts encourage students to ask questions about the ideologies and societal developments of the past.

The other two articles I selected relate to Seixas’ article in different ways.  “The Settler Grammar of Canadian History Curriculum: Why Historical Thinking is Unable to Respond to the TRC’s Calls to Action” by Samantha Cutrara examines how Truth and Reconciliation is impacted by the historical thinking model Canadian educators follow. Cutrara points out the limitations presented by historical thinking, writing, “the current historical thinking approach to history and social studies education imposes a settler grammar over the study of the past in ways that lessen the space available to develop the respect, openness for truth, and relationality needed to develop these ongoing relationships of reconciliation” (Cutrara, 2018). Cutrara argues that speech and delivery methods limit the openness to express and develop the necessary relationships for reconciliation. The second article I selected was “Historical Thinking in Higher Education” by Adele Nye. Nye explores the deeper meanings of historical thinking and discusses how, based on an interview with Australian university students, students often connect historical thinking with secondary sources while educators promote primary sources. Nye promotes the idea of teachers emphasizing the importance of historical thinking to students by discussing what it is. Additionally, Nye focuses on how teachers can deliver the idea of historical thinking so as to stimulate deeper thought. One later year student described historical thinking as, “Observing arguments, assessing sources (primary and secondary) and not necessarily making one’s own judgment (at this level of study) but being able to pinpoint methods and problems of other historians” (Nye, 2009). Teaching and developing an understanding of historical thinking will assist students in understanding the multiple viewpoints and interpretations of history, therefore stimulating critical thought and teaching students to ask important questions.

My next steps are to further study these articles and highlight key points to summarize each article. Beginning with Peter Seixas’ article, I will look for the key points to summarize his writing, then take a deeper dive into the other two articles to connect the points from each. I am mainly looking to distinguish the similarities and differences between each article so I can cross-reference and understand the different views and ideas of each author on the topic of historical thinking. I hope to take away a greater understanding of historical thinking that I can apply to my future classrooms to help students understand history in a deeper, unbiased, and more meaningful way.

References

Cutrara, S. (2018). The Settler Grammar of Canadian History Curriculum: Why Historical Thinking Is Unable to Respond to the TRC’s Calls to Action. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1), 250–275.

Nye, A., Hughes-Warrington, M., Roe, J., Russell, P., Peel, M., Deacon, D., Laugeson, A., & Kiem, P. (2009). Historical Thinking in Higher Education. History Australia, 6(3), 73.1–73.16. https://doi.org/10.2104/ha090073

Seixas, P. (2017). A Model of Historical Thinking. Education Philosophy and Theory, 593-605.

The article Curriculum Theory and Practice discusses a multitude of different approaches to curriculum, teaching, and learning. One of the said approaches is the Tyler rationale, which is based on four major questions :

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

The ideas behind the Tyler rationale focus on organization and precisely managed education. By understanding education systematically, we can examine and approach learning through different lenses.

I experienced the approaches outlined in the Tyler rationale in numerous different forms throughout my K-12 education. Objective-based learning was a huge part of my grade 7, 8, and 9 classes; the teacher tells the students this is what they must achieve and the students followed step-by-step to achieve the goal. In grade 9 history we were taught about the Mayan civilization, but only briefly. We were expected to take notes from PowerPoint and regurgitate the little bit of information presented on our exams, then we were evaluated based on if we met the goal of “learning” about the Mayans. I am a history nerd, but even I found it dull and lacking in content, so my main goal was to memorize what was said and be able to reiterate what I heard. The idea of creating an outline of what the students should learn and then organizing the lessons to deliver that information so they can be evaluated on the said topic is the Tyler rationale.

I can recall other times when the Tyler rationale was applied to my education. Learning writing techniques such as cursive, which I never used outside of the classroom, or multiplication on those timed sheets of 100 simple equations. The repetition and monotony of these lessons helped drill these concepts into my brain, and the evaluations were to prove that the repetition worked. I find that some of these worked very well, personally. I do not remember how to write in cursive, but I can multiply and single digit numbers in my head without really thinking about it. But does this prove that I learned these things, or is it just by memorization? I know that 5×9=45, but I can’t easily break it down for a 7-year-old to understand. The Tyler rationale is useful and beneficial to students and teachers in many ways but is also limited.

Using this approach, educators can clearly determine the outcomes they are expected to present to students. The ideas and concepts are laid out in an organized matter that guides the lessons. For example, I, as a future history teacher, am expected to teach students about World War Two. I will be expected to educate the students on specific matters of the event, and once the course material has been covered I will assess what the students have learned. The lesson planning is simplified by the Tyler rationale; I know what I am supposed to teach and what I am supposed to evaluate the students on. The Tyler rationale also provides benefits to the students learning; they will learn only the most important information pertaining to the course that will expand their knowledge/skills and assist in their future endeavours. Prioritizing the student’s skills and knowledge keeps them engaged by offering useful information for their future and for life outside of school.

Although the Tyler rationale offers strong benefits to students and teachers, it does have limitations. One of the greatest setbacks of the Tyler rationale is the lack of input. The choice is eliminated from the teaching and learning process, impacting teaching and learning styles. The approach of “student must learn by these tight guidelines” restricts the educator’s abilities to express their teaching style and actively engage with the course material and students. Teachers become robots in this approach; they follow the instructions on how to educate the students rather than learning from the students and adapting to best suit the needs of the classroom. This also impedes the learning capabilities of students. The students are told “this is what you will learn and how you will do it,” which disconnects students from the lessons. Students are also not offered alternative options to fit their learning needs. Many students struggle to learn by simply listening to a teacher talk or write. The separation of choice creates a division between the learners and educators; students want to learn their own ways, and educators want to teach in their own styles. Limiting these choices removes creativity from the classroom and makes the students into knowledge sponges, but at a point, they will stop retaining the information and begin losing interest.

The Tyler rationale has many ups and downs. It can benefit teachers who are interested in conveying the message and lesson each day but limits the freedoms of creative and expressive teachers. It also benefits students who learn visually or by hearing, reading, and writing. Students who learn physically by actively interacting and engaging with concepts and course material are not included in this learning style and will fall behind. The teacher-student interactions I remember and enjoyed growing up are no longer existent, as the barrier of what should be learned divides what both sides can benefit from most: human interaction. Teachers are not robots, students are not knowledge sponges; we are all human beings and must treat learning as such.

This week, we were asked to read “The Problem of Common Sense” by Kumashiro and analyze what Kumashiro means by the phrase “common sense.”

The questions we were guided to address were as follows: How does Kumashiro define ‘commonsense?’ Why is it so important to pay attention to the ‘commonsense’? What commonsense understandings of curriculum and pedagogy do you bring with you into this course?

The short introductory chapter of Kumashiro’s book dives into his experience as an educator in Nepal. He first mentions commonsense as being described as “what everyone should know,” based on how people in the Nepali village took pieces of life for granted. Kumashiro shared his experience of attempting to integrate his assumptions, expectations, and values into the classroom. His experiences tell of how commonsense is not globally common, but rather regionally subjective based on an area’s customs, cultures, and ways of life. The American ways Kumashiro considered to be “commonsense” did not align with the Nepali ways of “commonsense,” clearly showing this subjectivity of commonsense. The conclusion Kumashiro found was that the Peace Corps was guiding him to engage in cultural imperialism; he was teaching the Nepali students and teachers to value the American ways and be more similar to Americans. Kumashiro outlines that commonsense does not outline what schools could be doing, but directly states what schools should be doing.

Now begs the question, why is commonsense important, and why should I as a future educator pay attention to “commonsense?” It is imperative to distinguish why we as people believe in common sense. Commonsense is the guidelines of our society; it is like the unspoken rules of a society everyone is supposed to know. However, “commonsense” poses the issue of ignorance. The way we are told and trained to do things is “just the way it is.” It is the societal normality we believe is correct.  Alternative perspectives allow us to engage with different approaches to benefit others. By recognizing the importance of “commonsense” and the subjective meaning of commonsense, we are given the ability to recognize that different approaches and ways are not bad. Change can be scary, but can provide positive outcomes. Breaking away from the societal norms of commonsense allows educators to engage with anti-oppressive education methods; learning, examining, and interacting with different methods opens a world of possibilities to connect students with the information they are learning and educators are teaching.

Entering ECS203, I have relatively basic knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy. From my understanding, curriculum and pedagogy work hand-in-hand. The commonsense understandings of curriculum I know are that curriculum is the baseline knowledge a student must be taught for a given subject/grade to be perceived as on par with their grade level. A teacher is to follow the curriculum provided to educate students and provide information for a successful future, and the curriculum. My understanding of pedagogy is that pedagogy is the philosophy of education. Pedagogy is how an educator applies their knowledge and provides the information to the students. While the curriculum is what the students are supposed to learn, pedagogy is how I am supposed to provide education to the students. There are many approaches to teaching; in the past, students mainly sat down, listened, and took notes, while the teacher lectured, described the subject, then quizzed the students on the information provided throughout the course. Today, new methods continue to appear. One that stands out the most to me is hands-on learning. Some students learn easily by hearing and writing information, while other students learn better by directly engaging with the lesson. Whether it is through visually seeing the big idea broken down with physical objects or by physically interacting with pieces that relate to the subject, students are able to relate and engage with the lesson.