In his article “A Curriculum for the Future”, Gunther Kress makes a strong case for the notion of “changing with the times”. The idea of prioritising and rethinking current curriculum is incredibly important in my opinion, as it is foolish to assume that the present system is without fault. Kress’ statement about “the coming era demand[ing] an education for instability” (133) is so incredibly profound. I did my seminar presentation on e-literature, and one important aspect of that subject was the notion of thinking about and preparing for the future, as change has become so rapid today. Putting these readings together really emphasizes the notion that nothing is constant, and this definitely makes me think critically about how I will deal with curriculum in my future classroom.
At its very core, the goals of education have changed (Kress 134), and I strongly feel that we must also follow suit. What the norm was even 10 years ago is not necessarily a reality today. During my practicum, I encountered many teachers who seemed to be comfortable and settled in their methods of teaching. By this, I mean that many of them refused – and frankly didn’t see the point – of trying new, innovative ways of teaching. When talking to a teacher about wanting to utilize different forms of technology in the classroom, I was told on more than one occasion to stick to “what works”, which in this case meant giving students notes and worksheets. This, to me, seemed like such a primitive way of communicating with my students, but looking back on it now, I see why a newer way of reaching students can seem fearful to some teachers.
Changing how one has always done something, especially when the ‘newer’ way of doing it can seem daunting, is reason enough to deter one from making modifications to their instruction. To be honest, I do not do well with change, but when it comes to teaching, what makes me more willing to try new things is the idea of reaching my students on a greater level. The potential of providing my students with a deeper connection to school content is so incredibly exciting to me that the fear that comes with change disappears. I truly believe that there is so much room for improvement when it pertains to school curriculum, and the only way that this development can take place is if we make it a priority to plan not only for now, but the future. Nothing in life is stable – especially teaching – and to become comfortable with a primitive mode of doing things would be an incredible disservice to our students.
Works Cited
1 response so far ↓
irenek13 // Jul 23rd 2013 at 1:08 pm
Natasha,
I could not agree more with what you’ve written above. As we’ve discussed however, it is so hard to change and keep up with the times if you have no idea where things are going! To this end, I understand more deeply the need for teachers who are intrinsically motivated and hungry for personal/professional development. Have you ever heard the saying, “only dead fish float with the current”? This topic reminds me of that. Without a willingness to adapt and change with time our practices will fall out of sync with the needs and interests of students. That said, do you think there are “timeless” elements to content and teaching? Is it a teacher’s responsibility to accommodate to emerging trends of each decade or are there ways to find stable anchors in the storm? Kress documents historical, political and economic changes as the impetus for transformation in curriculum. Could it not be said however that as soon as we adopt a “new curriculm model”, it will just as soon need to be replaced in favor a more “relevant modes”? Given my background and educational history, I am not opposed to Kress’s interpretation of “education for instability”. Adaptation, modification and flexibility are familiar terms (“buzzwords” if you will for my life), but a part of me wonders if what we really need is simply a few “tweaks” to make things better. Perhaps this is a naiive, inexperienced observation on my part but I do agree with the notion of “everything in moderation” that we have spoken about in class. I agree that the “Fordist era” and other dominant aspects of history have not only informed but prescribed the educational curricula as it stands. I also agree that changes must be made and measures taken to challenge the assumptions and values that informed the pedagogic practices of the institutionalized education system. However, I would love to engage in more nuanced discussions of how this can be done in a way that preserves the strengths of the past approach while adapting for the needs of the future. Another saying from class: Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
You must log in to post a comment.