The article Everything you know about curriculum may be wrong. Really. is really thought provoking. Essentially, Grant Wiggins is saying that the aim of most contemporary curriculum is to impart knowledge but that this should not be the goal. Instead, knowledge is the dynamic and never static result of trying to actually perform well in reality. For example, you wouldn't learn to play basketball by sitting in a classroom and studying all the rules and strategies. Rather, you would learn on the court and pick up the rules and strategies as you progressed.
I like the critique offered of classical styles of learning and it makes me think of the traditional manner in which students study language, especially here in Korea where rote memorization and cramming are second-to-none. My aim in class is to improve students confidence and fluency and I look at grammar eventual result. This is much the way a child would learn his or her native language. Task-based learning lessons would suit this style offering role-plays, projects, case studies, and authentic materials to engage students. For testing, I like to give students questions at random as well as mystery questions to limit how much they can memorize and really see what they have absorbed in class through the various activities that we have covered.
Wiggins offers a lot of food for thought that I find intriguing.
Patrick, I love the basketball analogy; it defiantly simplifies your message to the audience. As a pretty big sports fan, I also love using sports analogies as much as I can. The analogy alone was enough for me to want to read more of your posts. Your example of the Korean education system using rote memorization and cramming is spot on! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve taught a lesson or given a test (which most students did well on); only to see blank stares in their eyes when the topic was revisited days later. Great work linking the article in your post as well.
ReplyDelete