When I first began the course at the start of the month, I had [commented] that to me, curriculum is like drawing an Ouroboros; the snake devouring its own tail. The comparison is that like the artist contemplating to begin creating the artwork starting from the head versus the tail, discourse in curriculum follows a similar vein where the argument is over designing curriculum based on âwhat should be taughtâ versus âhow it should be taughtâ.
Egan (2020) commented on that former approach in our curriculum where we focused on delivering breadth of knowledge, at the expense of spending time combing the depths of select topics, had a negative impact on studentsâ engagement. He is clearly favoring a âhow it should be taughtâ approach with this mindset. Having students be able to discover discipline in engaging deeply with a topic will allow them to develop self-motivation and ultimately find joy being immersed. Yet this could be flipped around to justify a âwhat to teachâ approach by narrowing down the list of topics to what students are interested in, or what the teacher feels to be vital tenants of a course. Which leads back to my metaphor of the snake drawing. Curriculum (or course) design is circular in nature as it is difficult to isolate one view from the other if teachers are invested in the studentsâ best interests. At least, this was my original view.
In âProcedures of Power in Curriculum Discourse: Conversation From Homeâ, Blades (1995) illustrates how the curriculum designers at Alberta Education gave the final decision of âwhat should be taughtâ to representatives from post-secondary institutions. This happened despite having talks with various stakeholders such as teachers and practicing professionals, but curiously, did not include those who would be most affected by the change: the students. Given that BC has recently re-designed our curriculum, I canât help but wonder if similar exclusionary politics were involved as well. Luckily, us teachers have respectable amount of autonomy in our classroom and are not forced to strictly adhere to every part of the curriculum. However, this simply transfers that privilege of power from the ministry to teachers, where we have our own explicit and implicit biases. The most notable of which is how comfortable we are with inclusion of Indigenous ways of knowing.
Most educators were raised and trained in the predominant Western education system; many of us were uncomfortable implementing Indigenous perspectives into our classrooms. Donald (2009), humbles us by pointing out common fallacies used in resistance to teaching Aboriginal Education (AbEd): disqualification by lacking subject knowledge, fear of disrupting of current practices, or taking a neutral perspective as all views are equal. I admit, I have found myself using some, if not all, of these excuses in my practices thus far. The first rationale is faulty as many teachers are tasked with teaching subjects outside of their specialty or knowledge anyways. Recusing yourself from teaching AbEd is simply what Felman calls âIgnorance⊠nothing more than a desire to ignoreâ (Nahachewsky and Slomp, 2009). The second point frames Western and Indigenous education as being antagonistic with one another. This is born from the preconception that there can only exist a singular answer or one correct form of knowledge. Yet much like what we see in art or literature, there can be multiple explanations such as implied or inferred meanings which can further enhance our understanding, as opposed to devalue it. A similar comparison can be made from Western medication and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Growing up in an Asian household, Iâve been taught about TCM perspectives like how certain foods have specific properties and should be not consumed together if they are opposites. An example would be to never mix spinach and tofu. This interaction was eventually explained using Western scientific knowledge of how oxalic acids in spinach binds with calcium to form kidney stones. While the latter explanation is much more specific and âpreciseâ, due to our bias of science being holier than anecdotal stories, the TCM lens is still valid and has continued to be valuable over the last few centuries. This helps prove that Western education and AbEd can co-exist together to enhance our and our studentsâ understanding in âwhat should be taughtâ.
Shifting focus to âhow things should be taughtâ, this issue has become even more complex with our current restrictions living under the threat of Covid-19. Traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms pivoted online, and teachers raced to digitize their classroom in order to allow students to continue learning. This led to the realization of how schools are ill-equipped to adapt to the current level of available technology, as issues such as access to devices or even internet connection made it difficult to have a âgeneralâ approach to online education. At my school, we already offered blended learning so our students had a mixture of in-person and online classes, and should better adapt to the times. Reality was quite different as I discovered providing avenues for synchronous online meetings to substitute the regular in-person class time and keeping the rest of the class resources, were not adequate as students who performed well previously had started to struggle. I realized in reading Ted Aokiâs (1993) explanation of the âlived-curriculumâ and âcurriculum-as-plannedâ, that my current courses were framed largely around the latter aspect. There lacked the personal aspect, also called âlived-curriculumâ, which I would provide during in-person classes where the class community would chat about the topic, or off-topic, to help make the content more enjoyable and relatable. This brings us back to the Indigenous perspective of how individual identity being constructed by how they contribute towards the community. My isolated online class did not promote social connections between the students, thus isolating them from each other. Class engagement dropped as a result because they could not see how the material is relevant to them, or had the social outlet to at least collaborate to get through it. While the district believes simply providing generic online courses and resources would solve the issue of physically distanced learning, it fails to recognize those products are purposely created without considering the teacher nor studentsâ identities. Thus, it is incumbent for the teacher applying the course to recognize this âcourse-as-plannedâ and adapt it to also incorporate studentsâ âlived-curriculumâ. In essence, being able understand and plan around âhow to teachâ and âwhat to teachâ.
To summarize, curriculum has much more depth to what I had originally stated. The Ouroboros appears to have an oversized head and tail, disproportionate to the rest of its body. Yet if I consider the body as the bridge of discourse of details between the two aspects of âwhatâ and âhowâ to teach, the structure becomes more like the infinity symbol (â). Each loop would represent one of the aspects and all the considerations necessary within it, but then intersect with the other loop to create a holistic structure overall. Thus, in creating future courses, self-reflection will be paramount as I will need to cross-check whether I have successfully connected both views, and whether one has been emphasized over the other.
References:
Aoki, T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Spring 1993, Vol. 8, No. 3, 255-268
Blades, D. (1995) Procedures of Power in a Curriculum Discourse: Conversations from Home. JCT, 11(4), 125-155.
Donald, D. (2009). “The Curricular Problem of Indigenousness: Colonial Frontier Logics, Teacher Resistances, and The Acknowledgment of Ethical Space”. In Beyond âPresentismâ. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Sense. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460910012_004
Egan, K. (2020). âLearning in Depth in a Franciscan Friary Cell.â www.educationthatinspires.ca/2020/02/06/learning-in-depth-in-a-franciscan-friary-cell/
Nahachewsky, J., & Slomp, D. (2009). “Sound and Fury: Studied Response(S) of Curriculum and Classroom in Digital Times”. In Beyond âPresentismâ. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Sense. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460910012_013