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.