As everyone on this list surely knows by now, my primary interest is in
the content of general education. I'm here on this list because of the
stimulating dialogue, and I don't feel out of place because of the
frequent reminders that those who meet here recognize that everything
connects to everything, that what students do in school has much to do
with how they eventually function in business, industry, government, and
other institutions.
As at least some of you know, I'm trying to push the educational
establishment--surely the most conservative of all social
institutions--toward a different conception of the task at hand. (Sounds
less formidable to many teachers than "paradigm shift.") In that effort, I
write extensively, publish often, and talk to many educators.
Recently, after an extended exchange on a listserv subscribed to almost
entirely by educators, I got a batch of responses of the sort I hear far
too often: "We like what you say, but it's so complicated."
In response, for that list, I put together the following. I'd appreciate
all suggestions for making it more effective (or for alternatives serving
a similar purpose).
______________________________________________________
THE PARADIGM CHOICE IN CURRICULUM
The usual reaction to my proposal for curriculum reform is that it's
complex and confusing. In reality, it's far simpler than the present
curriculum. The impression of complexity may stem from the fact that my
presentations may be "cluttered" with comment about theoretical validity,
methods of implementation, scope and sequence, illustrative activities,
evaluation, or discussion of some of the many inherent advantages of a
supradisciplinary curriculum. Reducing the two approaches to their
essences may help clarify the differences.
MAJOR TRADITIONAL EDUCATIONAL-ESTABLISHMENT ASSUMPTIONS
1. Teachers should help students store knowledge.
2. Teachers should help students learn how to find knowledge to store.
MY ASSUMPTIONS
1. Teachers should help students learn to think clearly about what's
happening to them, AT THE MOMENT IT'S HAPPENING.
2. "Thinking clearly" requires a mental map that, as the data comes in, says
(a) "Only these parts of the data are important. Note them. Ignore the
rest," and (b) "Here's how those parts you're noting are related."
3. The teacher's primary responsibility is to help students become familiar
with their mental maps.
Note: Yes, the details of students' mental maps of reality are extremely
complex, idiosyncratic, and often inaccessible. But those details are
mere variations on a basic map shared by all the members of a society.
This basic, shared map is NOT inaccessible. The primary difficulty in
grasping it lies in its utter familiarity. However, with just a little
guidance, every kid can figure it out.
That's it. That's the whole of it. Everything else I write on this
subject is mere elaboration, an attempt on my part to (a) explain why
traditional disciplinary, interdisciplinary, thematic, or topical
approaches are so inadequate, (b) convince everyone that unexamined mental
maps are hazardous to life, liberty and happiness, (c) describe ways to
help students begin to surface their mental maps and "see" them ever more
clearly, (d) give every student "ownership" of his or her map, (e) suggest
ways to evaluate and upgrade the maps, making them ever more sophisticated
and accurate models of reality, and (f) show students how the maps are of
constant, everyday, practical use in thinking more clearly about
everything that happens, in devising creative solutions to problems, and
in understanding their own and others' thoughts and actions in the deepest
possible sense.
The gap between the traditional assumptions and what I'm advocating is
broad, requiring a conceptual leap that many are unwilling or unable to
make. But unless there's a fundamental flaw in my "Contentions 1,2, and3"
above, that leap must somehow be made.
______________________________________________________
-- Marion Brady GMBrady@aol.com