This is a summary of 4 out of the 8 cultures of the curriculum (Joseph, 2011).
What I learned
Educating through occupations emphasizes preparing the students for meaningful work. Connecting to the Canon centers on the breadth of knowledge that has stood the test of time with the hope of having this knowledge as a resource for understanding complex problems. Developing self and spirit believes in the capacity of the student to independently seek knowledge and make sense of the world. Finally, constructing understanding emphasizes learning as a sociocultural activity experienced through students’ and teachers’ perspectives and experiences which then lead to knowledge construction.
I noticed that educating through occupations is named as training for work and survival in the previous edition of the book. This, I believe, takes into account the call for integrating meaningful work and training for work as one of the critiques for this culture of curriculum.
What are my questions for its future direction
Educating through occupations envisions the vocational curriculum as grounded not only on technical know-how but also on its ability to impact socioeconomic activities through meaningful work. This is current progress that has been evident in the findings of Vinden, (2020) – constructivist, canonical, and 21st-century progressives emphasizing critical thinking and teaching beyond hands-on learning advocated by the experiential cluster.
Vocational curriculum dates back to its emergence in the industrial revolution in the 19th century. However, the waves of innovation indicate that advances in technology led to 50% less of the time it took for another breakthrough to happen compared to the seemingly slow progress in the early and mid-19th century. This now poses a challenge to technical-vocational educators to keep up with this exponential development. Are there any movements or theoretical discussions on how to revolutionize vocational curriculum to keep up with the information age and emerging artificial intelligence? How is this movement going so far – is it still led by the industry as what has been depicted in history, or is it now a collaborative effort of various stakeholders?
Connecting to the Canon emphasizes the power of knowledge to transform oneself and influence others through the use of the intellect of great minds and scholars. Canons are considered canons because they withstood the test of time – a quality that is distinct from the other 3 curricular cultures. I’d like to mention Natalia’s idea that different cultures have different canons. This leads us to two implications of choosing what is considered canon. On the one end, there is the deceptive version of canon – using the teachings and ideas of the dominant culture to enculturate the students and let them see that what they are learning are universal and fundamental truths. On the other end, there is a constant call to increase the representativeness of canons in one’s discipline – if cultures have their own canons, then it also has a wealth of knowledge that everyone can learn from. This, I believe, is the case of Eastern and Western thoughts in different disciplines.
The interesting question then – how does this culture of canon change over time? How do we know that a discipline’s paradigm shift takes into account representativeness? What do you think of this article claiming that the paradigm of education should shift into an education that focuses on sustainability (a focus on post-constructivism)?
Developing Self and Spirit believes that a student is intrinsically motivated to learn. I’d like to put forward the idea that I learned from Robyn regarding the importance of context in terms of the learner’s interest in learning. A child (a student) knows his/her own interests; however, the interest (and the direction) in the context of academic learning may require more guidance than pure interest. This is where the scaffolding of teachers plays a vital role. What then are the concepts and principles that are helpful in self-directed learning, given that leaving the student to explore on his/her own may not be as fruitful as having guidance from a teacher? Zuckerman (2003) pointed out that a student transitions from interpsychological independence (ability to ask help from an expert) to intrapsychological independence (ability to work on the task without help) – the emphasis on the cooperation between the student and the teacher to activate learning. What then are the conditions and contexts wherein self-directed learning is most fruitful and productive?
Constructing Understanding rests on the power of one’s thoughts and experiences in constructing and reconstructing knowledge. Most constructivist theories – although having varying views about the learner – put the student at the center of learning. This means that a teacher’s role is to create a learning environment that provides an opportunity for students to interact and learn from each other and make meaning out of the concepts they learned. However, with learning as a social activity, it is not only the student that learns and works to learn but also the teacher. Hence, the learning dynamics of both the teacher and the students may be more important than just student-centered learning. With this, I argue that both the teacher and students involved in the learning dynamics are at the center of the learning process. What then are the conditions that make the learning dynamics impactful? Because students bring with them their own thoughts, perspectives, and sociocultural experiences in the learning process, how then would a constructivist approach take these into account in the teaching-learning activities (this is the direction of my paper)? Will the constructivist approach remain a guideline for teaching and learning and will not be prescriptive in how teaching and learning should be?
References
Joseph, P. B. (Ed.). (2011). Cultures of curriculum. Routledge.
Vinden, S. (2020). An exploration of British Columbia’s TVET instructors’ perceptions that influence their curriculum choices (Doctoral dissertation, Education: Faculty of Education).
Zuckerman, G. (2003). The learning activity in the first years of schooling: The developmental path toward reflection. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pp. 177-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840975.011
flowjame 