Throughout the narrative reinhabitation and decolonization are happening. Youth and elders alike were out on the river, traveling along its banks, and basically being out on the land. They interviewed each other. This allowed them to learn from each other. It gave the elders a chance to pass on traditional knowledge to a new generation. The youth were able to reclaim aspects of their culture that they had lost.
I could incorporate the place into my own teaching by arranging for an elder to speak to my students. I could also take my students to events sorrounding First Nations culture (example: Treaty 4 celebration in Quappelle at the beginning of September). I coulkd also take them to residential school sites if possible. Learning in such a way would be a change from the traditional method of spewing information to them in the classroom and give the students a chance to witness such things with their own eyes.
According to commonsense being a good student is sitting quietly at your desk and doing your work. You do not speak out of turn. If you have something to say you raise your hand and wait for the teacher to address you. Of course this idea of a “good student” doesn’t apply to every student. This definition only really applies to those with healthy family/home lives, who don’t have a disability or disorder like ADHD. By focusing on this commonsense idea of what a “good student” is these other factors that can greatly affect a students ability to learn go unnoticed. It’s also easy to forget that different students learn in different ways by focusing on what is deemed to be commonsense.
For Assignment 1 I decided to look at Aesthetic Education according to Maxine Greene. The article I found is called, Breaking Through the Ordinary: The Arts and Future Possibility. This article basically outlines what an aesthetic experience is and what can be learned from it. As an Arts Ed student I found this quite interesting. I also think it’s something important to learn about as the arts tend to go underappreciated in schools.
My nest step would be to find other articles about aesthetic experience. I was thinking about looking at articles by other scholars about Maxine Greene’s take on Aesthetic Experience. This should give me a more accurate view of the value of aesthetic experience and how to use it in schools.
The four models of curriculum described in the article are curriculum as a syllabus, curriculum as product, curriculum as process, and curriculum as praxis. Curriculum as a syllabus is good for keeping learning structured as it requires a set plan laid out in a syllabus. This model of curriculum also tends to rely on a text book which contains all (or at least most) of the information to be taught. However this model of curriculum doesn’t necessarily lead to a deeper understanding because it is so structured.
Curriculum as product is a more practical model of curriculum as it is intended to develop skills for real life. However while this model might be good for job training in a classroom students would miss out on a lot of knowledge about the world around them.
Curriculum as process is great for developing a deeper understanding of what is being taught. In this model the teacher encourages learning through interaction. It does require the teacher to be prepared and able to think critically, but by interacting with the students and conversing with them on the subject a deeper understanding is achieved.
Curriculum as praxis is a more developed version of the process model. In this model you still have that interaction and discussion, but you also have action and review. In other words you discuss, then practice, and then you reflect on what you did so as to build on what you have learned. This ensures adeeper understanding of subject material and can also help students develop skills.
In my own schooling the most common model was probably curriculum as a syllabus. Classes almost always had a set plan to get everyone through the semester and ensure everyone learns what they need to learn. Of course text books were also very common. Having the text book was nice as it was a constant point of reference, so if I was having trouble I could look back. That being said in my weaker subjects like math the text book was not much help as I often struggled to understand course material and instead would go to the teacher for help. Another common model was curriculum as praxis, which was most often seen in drama class. In drama we would often be taught something about performance which we would practice and then reflect on what we had done to better ourselves. This was also often done in preparation for a performance. We would learn the script, take the skills we had developed, practice/ rehearse, and then reflect to get ready for the performance.
In Kumashiro’s introduction common sense is defined as things people understand to be normal and go unquestioned. Kumashiro uses examples from both Nepal and the United States to demonstrate this. For the U.S. examples Kumashiro uses subjects studied in school as well as the timing of the school day itself. As these things have gone on for so long they are perceived as normal or common sense. It is the same for the examples from the school in Nepal. When new teaching methods were introduced the students immediately questioned them because they were not normal according to the students’ understanding.
It is important to pay attention to the “common sense” because of how it shapes our understanding of how the world works. People may not realise that something needs to be changed or how something can be improved because that something is seen as normal or common sense. Kumashiro mentions how new research and ideas on schooling are often dismissed by policy makers because they do not fit with what is seen as common sense.
Another reason to pay attention to common sense is that different people have different ideas of what is common sense. For example when the teacher tried to introduce new teaching methods in to the Nepal school the students became concerned they were going to fail because they thought they were not being taught properly. The students did not see the new teaching methods as common sense where as to the teacher these methods were common sense. Thus by paying attention to what different people view as common sense understanding can be generated between people.