WEEK 1 – Curriculum and Pedagogy
Week 1
Kumashiro defines ‘commonsense’ as being something people take for granted. The ‘commonsense’ within the education system is familiar and oppressive – this is how Kumashiro defines ‘commonsense’. Things need change within the education system and Kumashiro believes that involving “… Anti-oppressive forms of education…” (Kumashiro, 2009, p. XXXVII) will break the normality of those set ‘norms’.
Paying attention to ‘commonsense’ is important because teachers need to be fully aware of the students well being. With attention and involving anti-oppression in education – this is important for helping students feel safe in their environment. Change needs to happen and talking about doing what’s right for the students rather than the normalcy of the ‘commonsense’ within education is the direction the education system needs to take.
My understandings of ‘commonsense’ in curriculum and pedagogy is how the curriculum is based on grades and this is a reflection of the student. The teacher will teach over the school year of all the subjects and requirements in the curriculum. The layout of being a student is: sit in your desk, listen to the teacher, get assigned homework, and study for tests. Each year there would also be a school supplies list for each student. My view on ‘commonsense’ in curriculum and pedagogy is school is just seen as normal for how things are taught, because I was told it was ‘normal’.
One thought on “WEEK 1 – Curriculum and Pedagogy”
WEEK 2
My early schooling relates to Tyler’s rationale of the product within the curriculum. My experience was being made to feel like a product and judged upon the product I was becoming. The history of the curriculum in my option needs upgrading, because basing a student 100% off of their product is not seeking 100% growth in students, instead students need to be reminded that they have capabilities. I felt like a checklist for my performance in school. And with my experience, perhaps opportunities were taken away from me. Opportunities as simple as having fun or discovering my interests at an early age and being encouraged to pursue them.
There are limitations to Tyler’s rationale. Having a student being based off of a product alone is an issue. Along with the teacher having assumptions on the importance and value of a student. The product in curriculum is also not protecting the teachers qualifications and own ways of teaching authentically with having the belief that the curriculum is ‘Teach Proof’.
The benefits of Tyler’s ideas of curriculum is that today the curriculum can be under development and ongoing – which is the upgrading the curriculum needs. The curriculum document can as well be edited and made easier for teachers to navigate. And the diversity within the curriculum is ongoing too.
Curriculum development will benefit with ongoing critical scrutiny – to better the teaching experience for everyone. I have a question: should the curriculum alter teaching into embracing individuality and identity, rather than playing around with checklists?