I decided to explore Margaret Macintyre Latta and her work on aesthetic education. Her work outlines the misunderstanding of aesthetics as simply something pretty and magnificent. Latta explains how aesthetic education is often connected to the arts and therefore overlooked as being beneficial to education as a whole. By moving past these preconceived notions of aesthetic education Macintyre looks to “challenge traditional disciplinary and institutional structures” (Latta, 2008, p.688) and broaden knowledge and understanding.

Margaret M. Latta’s work I feel is very process based and focused on the way things are learned and examined through a critical understanding. This article specifically talks about other works surrounding the concept of aesthetic education and the numerous perspectives and opinions that can be had. By approaching aesthetic learning in the curriculum students can experience more creativity in a process education than in a standardized approach. Latta expresses how aesthetic education can “invite students to participate wholly as creators”(Latta, 2008, p.696)  by presenting them with a process model. Latta supports the use of aesthetic learning and pedagogy within the creation and expectations of the curriculum.

From Latta’s work, I am going to continue my research primarily in support of aesthetic education, but I hope to find a scholarly work that goes against this model. Through this, I am going to examine the benefits and negatives of this approach to education while recognizing its role within curriculum and pedagogy. I look forward to examining how aesthetic education fits into the process model of curriculum and how it can be implemented within the education curriculum. I feel at this point there are many directions that I can take with Margaret Latta’s work and it’s impact on curriculum studies.

Sources Referenced

Margaret Macintyre Latta (2008) Aesthetic education: the task of revisioning, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40:5, 687-698, DOI: 10.1080/00220270802054083

In my previous years of schooling, I have witnessed firsthand the product model approach to curriculum and practice. This approach is something that I enjoyed as a  neurotypical high school student who succeeded easily at tests and other product-type assessments. My previous beliefs solely in favor of this teaching model were supported by my personal bias and success within it. Looking at the narrow-minded outline of this model now, I can see how many students would not excel or potentially produce good products while having a lack of understanding. I feel that the belief of this model being ‘teacher proof’ (Smith, 2000, p.4) as mentioned in Curriculum and theory practice is just impossible to obtain. The educator of a class will constantly change the experience of students, and if a model is attempting to take that factor out of education there would be a crucial aspect of student development and relationships stripped from the curriculum

The product model approach to education places limits on diversity and individual success and development. When the curriculum is so narrowed down to achieve specifically targeted products, and solely those products, an educator will witness different levels of success as student capabilities fluctuate. I think that within this model some students will lack understanding as well as motivation to learn. Smith states how the product model can create “education and assessment which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something” (Smith, 2000, p.5). This analogy is one that I found easy to understand as it lays out clearly how standardized the planning of a product model can be. Furthermore, it is easy to see within this simple analogy how easy it could be for a student to fail; A student forgets a check, and the list is no longer complete.

The product model can benefit both students and teachers due to its simplicity. With an end product that is made clear some students will experience great success, as everything is laid out they can complete the tasks to reach the target. Although some students may not find this model the most supportive and suitable. As for educators, the simplicity of the product model makes clear what they need to do to see success in their students. The Saskcurriculum is an example of the product model made clear for educators. An educator can simply follow the outcomes and indicators presented and see success within their classroom (at least that’s the concept that this model believes in).

Sources Referenced

Smith, M. K. (2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

In Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, Kumashiro addresses common sense in connection to education as something that “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.”(Kumashiro, 2009, p. XXXV). The role of common sense in education outlines what is expected to be taught and how an educator should go about it. Overall the idea of common sense is created from social pressure and societal expectations of what is right. Kumashiro defines common sense by sharing his experiences in navigating the role of commonsense in Nepal as his point of view falls separate from the expectations of society. His experiences in Nepal show just how a society’s idea of commonsense is directly formed by expectations. For example, when the students expect a lecture, homework, and exam format within their education they feel that this specific sequence of teaching is simply correct.

Commonsense requires acknowledgment of what it is and how it directly affects our opinions and perspectives on different aspects of society. In the past, I have personally felt that many things in life simply fell under the realm of common sense, but with analysis, I can see how close-minded those beliefs were. Growing up I feel I majorly experienced a teacher-centered education that was rooted in lectures, assignments, and examinations. To me and in my education this sequence of teaching was simply how it was and therefore it was correct. Through my furthering knowledge and education, I see how closed off this approach may be; it does not embrace diversity in different learning styles or support students with diverse needs. By understanding different pedagogies and moving past the concept of common sense an educator can further grow within both teaching and learning among their students. The education curriculum is something that will never look a specific way, despite the commonsense beliefs that curriculum is simply what needs to be taught. This belief of the education curriculum outlines content but what it fails to do is explain how students are going to take and assess the content presented to them. The simplicity that commonsense places on curriculum does not encompass the diversity in the way things are taught and furthermore how they are learned.

Sources Referenced

The problem of common sense (From Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI).