When originally presented with the prompt, “To me curriculum is…,” I concluded that to me curriculum is the building code. My justification for this was that the government dictates both the BC curriculum and the BC building code and both act as a minimal standard in their respective fields. Both provincial standards are then built on by others (teachers/students & designers/architects) to be made into a structure (i.e. a building, a course). I still feel at its core that this metaphor is accurate but over the last few weeks my attitude has slightly changed, and it perhaps is not as perfect a metaphor as I once felt. However, I will let my metaphor stand but attempt to apply new ideas to it in hopes of better clarifying it and providing a greater picture of its substance.

The Original Metaphor

Using the building code metaphor, I asserted that when approaching curriculum, it is important to keep focus on both what I am teaching as well as how it is taught. This approach is supported by Egan (1978) who argues for a more balanced approach to curriculum, not going to one extreme or getting held up focusing on how to teach or the other extreme of what to teach. It is important to me that I keep the overall focus of the course and how I teach in mind, but the student’s interests and learning style should also be kept in mind. Ultimately, it is a balance that can be difficult to negotiate at times. Building on the metaphor I also gave heavy emphasis on students and teachers building on the government provided curriculum to create something that best meets the need(s) of students. This approach is supported by Blades (1997) who argues that students should not be forgotten in the discourse of curriculum making. I still hold to this approach to my curriculum creation and will, in fact, continue the argument of its importance.

Shifted Context

As my understanding has shifted throughout this course, I have begun to realize how much power teachers and students have in making the curriculum into what they need. I have found myself attracted to Montessori’s (n.d.) ideals on students not being taught to expect accolades, prizes, or punishments for learning. When I went through the K-12 school system, I aimed for grades that would keep me, my parents, and teachers happy. I received praise for my work, but I was always told what to learn and never took learning into my own hands. Now as an adult, I have had to relearn how to learn. I have found a joy in learning for its own sake and for my growth, without a shiny prize at the end. The skills and knowledge I have gained are satisfying and it feels good getting there on my own terms. As a teacher I do feel that my subject matter has some bare minimums that students should learn but the course can be customized to meet student need/interest. Perhaps in this regard Montessori and I don’t see perfectly eye to eye, but I respect the ideals of the teaching/curricular method.

In some ways my ideal teaching approach falls most in line with a balance of the curriculum-as-planned and the lived curriculum methods as outlined by Ted Aoki (1993). While the government planned curriculum is a good place to start in curriculum building, it is the interactions between students, teachers, and the community, or the lived curriculum, that emphasizes social – emotional learning and brings about the best from students (Aoki, 1993). I feel that this balanced, student focused, lived and planned curricular focus melds nicely with the approaches presented by Egan and Blades. During the initial move to online teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic, I had some wonderful interactions with students and their families when I asked them to interview a family member and ask them about their experiences with woodworking. The responses I received were so heartwarming I vowed to do this assignment every course. One father and son did a video interview where at the end of the video the father turned to the camera and challenged me to respond in my own video, telling him and his family about my experiences. I was overjoyed at this prospect and regretted not starting it by doing just as he asked. This opened a dialogue that would have otherwise not happened and allowed me and my student to learn about his father’s experiences as an immigrant and what different experiences he had to share. One 3-minute video brought so much life and investment into a hard and unfamiliar learning situation.

As I learn and grow as an educator, I am constantly reminded that what I do is not about me. Sometimes that is hard to remember, and it is easy to fall into rhythms. One saving grace is that students have an uncanny knack of reminding me that it’s their learning at stake. It’s this aspect of the job that I feel keeps me so invested. Every year is a new challenge and every year I will learn beside my students about them, their interests, and their dreams, as well as my own. It is not solely my building code to build off. We must work together to design personalized learning.

References:

Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65. doi:10.2307/1179791

Blades, D. (1997) Procedures of Power in a Curriculum Discourse: Conversations from Home. JCT, 11(4), 125-155

Montessori, M. (n.d.). A critical consideration of the new pedagogy in its relation to modern science. The Montessori Method: Scientific Pedagogy as Applied Child Education in “The Children’s Houses”, with Additions and Revisions by the Author., 1-27. doi:10.1037/13054-001

Aoki, T. T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255.