Kumashiro’s definition of ‘commonsense’ refers to the shared understanding and knowledge people learn through socialization and education. However, it is worth noting that common sense varies significantly across different regions and cultures. This is particularly evident in Kumashiro’s personal experience, where the common sense she grew up with differs from the one she had to learn in Nepal. For example, the common sense for Kumashiro is to eat three meals a day; in Nepal, they get two meals daily. Both are common sense to those living in that region, but both are not actually common sense. The notion of ‘common’ sense may not be as universal as its name suggests, as cultural customs and values heavily influence it. Therefore, ‘common sense’ is not common at all.

Kumashiro also talks about how paying attention to common sense is essential because it causes more damage than we think. When talking about common sense and experiencing it, people get stuck in the routine of the knowledge that they were taught. Paying attention to common sense is important because it can cause oppression. Teachers and students may go into a school thinking a certain way because it is ‘common sense’; however, this common sense could be causing racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, colonialism and much more. It causes oppression without realizing that it does. It may be hard to see the effect of common sense that causes oppression. It is easier to see the issue from the outside looking in, so it is essential to take a second and look at what common sense you are contributing to and how it affects others. It is also important to pay attention to common sense because common sense can limit our views. Instead of trying new methods, we fall into patterns of doing the same things repeatedly. For example, when Kumashiro is in Nepal teaching, he experiences a method of teaching that is repetitive and common sense in Nepal. However, Kumashiro tried to change the grading system and used his common sense knowledge of the “American way” but was not examining the issues of that common sense. 

When Kumashiro was in Nepal, and he encouraged a curriculum that consisted of “lectures, rote memorization, textbooks, and tests”. The school in Nepal take a more “Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted” model approach to the curriculum. It is more “traditional textbook approach of an ‘order of contents'”. It is very lecture focused; the teacher explains what to do and how to do it and sends out homework that they practice on their own; however, they still need to be graded on their homework. The students are only graded on the midterm and the end-of-year exam. They go through a chapter from the textbook a day to keep on track in order to finish in time for the end-of-year test. The ‘traditional’ model emphasizes the teacher’s knowledge delivery to the student and typically focuses on rote memorization and standardized testing. This approach tends to be teacher-centred and emphasizes the transmission of information rather than the development of critical thinking or student-centred learning. Kumashiro’s experiences in Nepal showed the limitations of this traditional model, as it often failed to meet the needs of diverse learners and failed to engage students in meaningful learning experiences. 

In Canada, students are shown and learn through lectures, but they also learn through field trips for learning experiences. In the Canadian school system they use the praxis model. This allows students to learn outside of the classroom and experience the learning through experience. The schooling is mostly student centered.  It is ‘common sense’ that students are to do homework at home, listen to lectures and pay attention outside the classroom. However, the negative effects are due to students being told what they must do; it can be rigid and inflexible. Depending on the class it can allow for students to explore interests. It also allows students to learn in different ways.