Educators’ time, teaching methods, creativity, etc. is limited because we have to cover so many learning outcomes. I often hear the curriculum being referred to as a mile wide and an inch deep. To learn without curriculum would mean restructuring the whole education system.
When planning a lesson, I start with the outcomes I am helping my students meet. Constructivist teaching methods or problem based learning takes time to plan and assess. Teachers have to spend time getting to know each student’s strengths and limitations in order to provide material within their zone of proximal development (Perkins, 1991 as cited in Driscoll, 2005). This limitation of constructivist teaching could be extended to assessment because it takes time to evaluate student progress.
To me, Papert’s (1980, p.31) comment that school can “infantilize the child” suggests that because the curriculum is so disjointed that we aren’t providing authentic learning contexts in school that our students will encounter in the real world. Not only would these contexts better prepare students for the future but they may serve as a motivation for learning. “Some children’s difficulties in learning formal subjects such as grammar or mathematics derive from their inability to see the point of such a style” (Papert, 1980, p. 27). Authentic or open learning allows students to pursue their talents and encourage multiple intelligences.
On the other hand, some teachers may benefit from having a curriculum because they need guidance on what students need to learn. For example, beginning teachers. A curriculum establishes trust between parents and educators because parents know that every child in grade three is learning the same outcomes.
The New London Group (1996, p.66) says,“as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life.” We need to prepare students for the changing workforce as companies take new approaches. For example, Google has a twenty percent time program. This means they can take 20% of their work week for special projects they want to pursue individually. Google says that they develop many of the ideas that come out of these projects. Could our students adapt to such a concept in their workplace? Does our curriculum take away our students’ abilities to think for themselves?
I agree with Papert when he says that there is a “conservative bias being built into the use of computers in education.” He goes on to say, “the idea of the computer as an instrument for drill and practice that appeals to teachers because it resembles traditional teaching methods also appeals to the engineers who design computer systems: Drill and practice applications are predictable, simple to describe, efficient in use of the machine’s resources” (p. 36). Therefore, designers and teachers need to think about how to create educational learning environments that are student centred.
Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 384-407; Ch. 11 – Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review. 66 (1), 60-92
Papert, S. (1980). Chapter 1: Computers and computer culture. In Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.