The first is the same question that we try to tackle each week, but I think it is worth answering again. Who in the Learner Center ideology decides what should be taught in school? Schiro (2013) says that it is the learner's interests that determine the course of the curriculum with the careful observation, facilitation, and creation of a environment conducive to learning. Is there a larger aim beyond the learner's perspective that determines what is taught in schools? Is there someone out there who makes decisions about the curriculum?
Schiro will say that the LC ideology sees people as "naturally good, curious about their world, and desirous of constructively interacting with their world" (2012, p. 115). While those that adhere to the LC ideology would agree that this is true, what it wasn't? What if you have a "bad apple" of a student or group of students? Do they get to have the same opportunities as a group of students in another classroom? Would they be considered behind in the curriculum?
As I was reading this week, I felt like I could see a lot of areas where the Learner Centered ideology is in stark contrast with the Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency Ideologies. But on what issues do you think they would agree?
Lastly, Noddings touches on the topics of educating for home life and educating the whole child in this weeks readings. If we look at the landscape of our schools where we work, I can't help but notice that the learner center ideology for curriculum is largely snuffed out by other concerns. Since we live and work in a education system that believes strongly in things like standards, STEM education, "prescribed penalties" and policies, how does the learner centered teacher function in the current world of education? There were many examples from Schiro that highlighted really interesting units of study for the elementary classroom (Pond Water), but what could this look like our secondary classrooms? How do we stretch the discipline from within, as Noddings suggests, without ruffling too many feathers?
This is probably a good start!
Full disclosure: I love the LC ideology and I agree that it would be an "ideal" school model.
ReplyDeleteThe question about who decides what is taught is a tricky one... my first instinct is to say that the students determine what is taught. The examples provided were very student-centric - even the one created by "experts" (Pond Water) was developed out of an interest the students had. Is there something else guiding how the teacher develops the class curriculum? I would think it would be personal philosophy... but to be a teacher in this case you would have to agree with this LC perspective.
I took some time thinking about your "bad apple" question, Cacey, and I really think - I REALLY do - that having such a learner-centered classroom would basically eliminate most of these issues. We are not penalizing the child for having a bad day - we would offer alternate options for them... what do you want to work on today, I can see that you are having a hard time doing <>. If there is a behavior issue, the child makes reparations for it in a developmentally appropriate way... part of the children owning their governing policies. I think the possibilities here are amazing - think of that kid - THAT one - who always had a hard time at school.... wouldn't allowing them to explore their own curiosities eliminate most of that issue?
Flexibility around personal philosophy seems to be one of the positives in the LC ideology. In educating the whole child, Noddings brings up some good thoughts on incorporating things like history, civics, science, etc. into the discipline/subject being taught. It seems like being a "jack of all trades" is really key in the LC ideology. Teachers would need to know a little bit about a whole lot in order to help students explore their interests. It sounds like it can be really rewarding, but also really taxing. I wonder where teachers in the LC ideology find balance in their lives? It seems like it can be hard to do without exhausting themselves to the brink of burn out.
DeleteI agree with you on the "bad apple." When the LC classroom is set up with democratic norms and expectations, there is more of an onus on the student to take responsibility for their actions, emotions and learning. Since they have been invested in the classroom policy making, I think students tend to care more.
Feeling a little guilty here, because I'm having a hard time being neutral. Here, share my kool-aid! :-)
Delete*Gulp*
DeleteSure is tasty!
I cannot think of anything that scholar academic, social efficiency, and learner-centered ideologists would have in common - other than they are all doing what they think is best for students. I think this is something we lose a lot when considering other perspectives... everyone truly believes what they are doing is the best possible pathway.
ReplyDeleteI was also considering how we might become more learner-centered in the midst of a social efficiency world. Problem-centered learning and guided inquiry are two things that I think are moving that direction. I think secondary schools would look much more like elementary schools in this case - maybe you would have specialists? You've developed an idea that is beyond my understanding in math? Or my understanding of science? Go work with *this* teacher. Great thing to ponder!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if American public schools can be truly learner-centered because of the emphasis on standards, testing, etc. or if they will always be somewhere on the continuum. Would truly LC schools have to be created by a private donor or charter? It also seems like the LC teacher may have to have a split personality to exist in the LC world and the world of accountability where we live.
DeleteThis is a good question. I think that Noddings addresses this early in her book - how do we compromise? Should we compromise?
DeleteHow do we have a revolution in education without a revolt?
I think any ideology would think about those questions.
DeleteI wanted to take a moment to address a question you pose in your last paragraph, "Since we live and work in a education system that believes strongly in things like standards, STEM education, 'prescribed penalties' and policies, how does the learner centered teacher function in the current world of education?" I think the best answer I have right now is one that Dr. Reeder shared with me when I asked her a similar question (but regarding my own position in Higher Ed). You elbow out the room where you can.
ReplyDeleteExample: in my own teaching (one class in particular) there are departmental exams and a departmental curriculum pacing guide. I follow these items, as it is part of my job. I am expected to chalk-talk style lecture from a study guide, which is just really a collection of problems. I refuse to do so. As it is an expectation and not a requirement I have personally deemed that this is where I can "elbow out" room to teach in a significantly more inquiry-based method, and I do. I imagine stories like mine are not all too uncommon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs an aside, I think finding space to operate within their values is something that a teacher will likely naturally try to do when they are in an environment that doesn't mesh with their ideology (not just learner centered).
DeleteI wonder how many teachers are doing this? Or if this is a thing we can quantify at all. This is an interesting relationship between the enacted and written curriculum, and I know that in some places this is encouraged and is not in others.
DeleteI think you hit on a good point in that no matter the dominate ideology, many teachers find themselves teaching to what they believe to be best for their students.
Delete