Blog #4:

Common sense understandings in the culture of Western society have shaped the idea of what it means to be a good student – conforming, excelling in examinations, punctuality, etc. Those that can adhere to traditional classroom practices and structures excel in their studies (the good students), and everyone else is left astray – commonsensically categorizing the rest as bad.

In Kevin Kumashiro’s book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Towards Social Justice, this idea – good student/bad student – is explored through Kumashiro’s personal teaching experiences.  It has to be understood that “the way we think about learning that can be oppressive” (Kumashiro 2010). Difficult situations such as misbehaving or questioning authority (seen through students M and N) do not occur because of “bad students”, but because learning needs and interests are not being met. Ultimately, it is the educational frameworks and pedagogies that need to be corrected, not the students themselves.

Historically speaking, educational systems were molded for the benefit of one distinct population… and one distinct population only. Good students were white (Anglo-Saxon descent or white appearing), Christian, and wealthy. The result of education, as expressed by Painter, should be “a noble manhood, whose highest exemplification, the ideal of all culture, is Christ,” (1886). All of these aspects and more created an oppressive, improper precedent tainting the definition of a “good student” which still affects our current day school practices and beliefs.

Sources

Kumashiro, K. K. (2004). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. New York, NY. Routledge.

Painter, F. V. N. (1886). A history of education. New York, NY: D. Appleton.

Blog #3

A safe, inclusive education environment is not achievable if meaningful conversations between students and educators are withheld in the classroom. In Kedrick James’ article, Mapping Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Inclusion through Curriculum and Practice in a Canadian Teacher Education Program, a focus is placed on the crucial role of teachers to include SOGI language, awareness, and integration into their daily practice. Studies done at a university in British Columbia concluded that formal curriculum – though important – has less of an impact on SOGI inclusion in students than informal curriculum. Thus, shifting focus to the major impact informal education can have on the inclusivity, comfort, and identity of both SOGI and non-SOGI-identifying students.  

James additionally highlights that teachers must both be committed to and competent in SOGI inclusion for an effective impact to be made on students. A survey conducted by Every Teacher Project concluded that “lack of training and fear of backlash” were common factors in educators avoiding SOGI issues; thus, emphasizing the need for “adequate SOGI resources and instructional support” (966). When fear withholds educators from encouraging change, the initial problem continues to grow. Researching, learning, understanding, and openly sharing knowledge on SOGI topics is the best way to bring a source of belonging to students while also challenging unjust social dynamics.  

Other ideas to expand upon 

• “When failing to be intentionally inclusive in these moments, educators perpetuate the hidden curriculum of shame and blame,” 
• “Teacher education occurs informally, when the discourse shifts from the language of curriculum to matters of personal relevance – when the scheduled class discussion becomes an open conversation, when lecture topic becomes relational talk. Our data suggest that these dialogical openings are critical to learning processes and make up an essential part of progressive work in teacher education.” 
• “Through the gaps in structured curriculum, classrooms can breathe with lungs of open dialogue: time is afforded to identity and to forming relational bonds” 
• “SOGI inclusive education goes beyond simply stating that all are welcome and then teaching disembodied knowledge of a subject in language that continuously underscores dominant, heteronormative stereotypes and the gender-binary worldview that dominates formal curricula” 

Out of all the topics I researched, sexual and gender identity within the curriculum stuck out to me the most. I found James’s peer-reviewed article through the University of Regina library database, where I intend to do the rest of my research. Going forward, I need to find two additional resources on the topic of sexual and gender identity within the curriculum to compare and contrast with the initial article. From there, I plan on picking a format for my piece (either MLA or APA), then I will research the formatting guidelines to refresh my memory.  

Source 

James, K. (2019). Mapping Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Inclusion through Curriculum and Practice in a Canadian Teacher Education Program. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(4), 957-991. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.uregina.ca:8443/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/mapping-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-sogi/docview/2336300562/se-2 

Blog #2

Through my personal experience, the Tyler rationale was most evident in my high school years. Varying from class the class, the majority of the teachers I had gave lessons with a top-down approach. They lectured on content – with the intent of covering curricular outcomes – and we as students took notes. Intelligence, mainly for the core subjects, came down to memorization via paper exams. For most cases, scoring well did not mean understanding how to apply concepts but rather remembering how to define them via test time. From all of the scores on paper, intelligence was then measured as a numerical value. If the required classes were taken and all “behavioral objectives” were met, one could eventually graduate (Smith, 2000, p. 5).  

Limitations of the Tyler Rationale: 

• Limits the potential of those with individual needs  
• Not made for all students to succeed (no adaptations, no alternatives, etc.) 
• Limits the potential for creativity  
• Limits the ability for students to explore their own curiosities 
• Knowledge is typically represented through numerical values 
• Top-down approach, students have “little or no voice” (Smith, 2000, p. 4) 
• Teachers are viewed only as implementers of the curriculum 

Benefits of the Tyler Rationale: 

• The Tyler rationale set a precedent for educators and curriculum makers to see what works and what does not 
• There is a “clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated,” (Smith, 2000, p. 4) 

Source 

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopedia of informal 

education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.  

Blog #1

In his educational book, The Problem of Common Sense, Kevin Kumashiro evaluates and critiques the social construct of common sense. As defined, common sense is an unseen, unquestioned, routine individuals follow to adhere to the norms of their culture (Kumashiro, 2009). Though common sense may be comfortable from an emic perspective, its understandings are not universal – giving way to oppressive ‘us against them’ societal dynamics.  

It is crucial that we – both as educators and as members of society – question what is going on in our daily environments as oppose to maintaining comfort. Common sense, from the lens of an insider, is difficult to observe as it is weaved into daily cultural practice. The comfort of this routine makes the inner commonsensical thread easy to overlook, thus leading to blind conformity and ethnocentric beliefs – like Kumashiro’s view on U.S. superiority (Kumashiro, 2009). Though difficult to perceive as an insider, it is important for individuals look beyond comfort and pull apart cultural frameworks. Doing so not only broadens perspective, but allows for acceptance in the fact that there are multiple correct cultural practices and methods.  

Currently, my knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy is very limited. I was in the Catholic education system from preschool until grade 12, narrowing my personal experiences to one division. A commonsensical belief I hold is that curricular content should relate to ALL students. The curriculum has the tendency to focus on the ‘majority’ (Canadian-born, English/French fluent, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc.) as opposed to all. Anyone considered ‘outside of the majority population’ is typically left out of curricular content, and considered low priority. The times are changing and commonsensical understandings must change with it. Education is not efficient unless it can resonate with all.  

Source 

Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against common sense : teaching and learning toward social justice. (pp. XXIX–XLI). Routledge. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19qJJP3W5xa_Y1Vezet_H18xVo1NUvGqE/view