Beauchamp vs Posner - who would i side with?
I must admit, I found the presentation of Beauchamp fairly dry (the material...not you Graham!). I understand the value of the statement "We must know what curriculum is before we discuss curriculum theory." However, as Graham alluded to, theorists can at times use arguing semantics as an easy way to get published and i think the debate between Posner and Beauchamp teeters along that line.
It seems that what Posner argues as Curriculum Theory Beauchamp would argue are two separate fields....curriculum theory and instructional theory. I think Beauchamp, if asked to elaborate, would certainly argue the importance of instructional theory as well as perhaps another specialized field of Assessment theory.
A couple questions i would have for Beauchamp would be...
1) Does he feel curriculum theorists can perform double duty as instructional theorists?
To clarify...does he think that a person should sit down first (put on a hat saying curriculum theorist) and decide "What is to be taught?" after which the same person should (after changing their hat to say instructional theorist) think of "how might this taught?" Furthermore, should the same person (after changing their hat a third time to say assessment theorist) investigate how the instruction could be assessed?
OR
Would Beauchamp feel that the jobs of curriculum, instruction, and assessment development /theory be done by three separate specialists?
If he does, i would beg the question....does it not seem impossible to be a specialist in one without intense knowledge of the other two components?
This line of twisted logic leads me to side with Posner and perhaps begins to point to where on the spectrum i sit in the futile attempt to define curriculum.
The field of curriculum includes the need to consider how it will be instructed and assessed.....so says Mr. Wiebe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just read your comment about my grade 8 public school idea.....yeah, I don't think they'll give me funding for that one!!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I was reading your post, I'd gave me a bit of a negative thought about administrators. Like you, I believe you have to have knowledge of theory, instruction and assessment, but also some understanding of the content in the curriculum too. I agree, it's hard to be in charge of something without understanding it to its fullest degree....well, don't get me wrong,it can be done, many do it, but I don't see how you can be successful at it. Which brings me to administrators...it is a challenging place to be in taking advice about instruction and assessment from a person who has never seen the inside of a classroom. With that said....there are many song writers who are lyrically and musically brilliant who can't hold a tune or handle an instrument...
Do you think that too much consideration of instructional implications would cause curriculum devleopers to leave out interesting or important learning topics? Should instructional considerations guide curriculum development or should it be the curriculum itself that guides the process?
ReplyDeleteI haven't thought about this until Tuesday's class, so these are just early thoughts along the way, but so far I'm thinking perhaps curriculum and instruction could be separate...
ReplyDeleteI think that if teachers are good at what they do, they should be able to take anything and figure out an interesting way to teach it. To me, that's one of the fun parts of the job! I say give me a list of objectives/concepts and let me run with them! It would allow schooling to be tailored to specific needs of students for one thing. I would think that being told grade 1 students needed to understand the senses would be enough! There are so many ways one could teach the senses - this would allow for teachers to take student interests into account, as well as their own. It would also allow them to apply differentiated instruction more easily, as no one would be telling them to teach the material in a specific way.
Hey Ryan...I once asked a prof what was the sense of all this research when so much of it seemed to be stuff and nonsense...here is his paraphrased response..."I agree, but perhaps it is the process that is important, because during that process occasionally something gets published that is useful...(he figured about one in a hundred)...also when I read the comments people post I think the research has another mission, which is to cause us to think...agree, take contrary positions...it doesn't really matter...what we all seem to be doing is making a schema of the concept of curriculum...currently I can't envisage curriculum theorists and instructional theorists leading separate lives...I have sensed in the past, however, that this is the case as some of the stuff included in curricula that I have taught made no sense whatsoever given the clientele of my classroom...I like Ashley's response here
ReplyDeletea quick reply.....
ReplyDeletei agree with Ashley one her point that a skilled teachers should be able to take any outcome and find and interesting way to have it "Realized" by the students. So, in that case, i can certainly see that Curriculum theorist and Instructional theorist could operate indendently of each other.
As Manitoba Curriculum documents include more and more emphasis on Assessment....do you think that the same division of tasks could occur between instruction and assessment? Should the province provide standard tests for all students to complete?
Provincial tests seem to imply that the province in taking responsibilty for Curriculum and assessment theory while placing the instruction theorist title on the classroom teacher....any thoughts?
PS. i realize that LOTS of assessment happens on a daily/weekly basis before provincial exams....but the is increasing pressure on how that daily assessment is supposed to happen.