Week 8 - Process of Education Chapter 2
Bruner brings some interesting perspectives on how to construct curricula in Chapter 2 of the Process of Education. They start off by examining two ways learning serves the learner. Learning can be applicable - attaining skills or training that can be transferred, or it can be principles and attitudes - transferring ideas instead of skills.
The author asks how, or if, the two services of learning can be formulated into a school's curricula. If school curricula is to be structured around this approach, how will it be taught? They word this problem as "how to construct a curricula that can be taught by ordinary teachers to ordinary students that, at the same time, reflect the various fields of inquiry" (pg. 18).
When I initially read this sentiment, it reminded by of our week7 class discussion on how teachers teaching a subject they master might find difficulty conveying concepts within that subject to a group of students learning those concepts for the first time. The chapter expands on this a little later, but continues to state that the best minds of any discipline are ideally to be responsible for constructing a curricula " that will bring the fruits of scholarship and wisdom to students just beginning their studies" (pg 19).
Throughout the chapter, the author emphasizes the importance of learning fundamental knowledge about a subject, and goes on to state four claims about teaching fundamental structure of a subject:
1. understanding a subject's fundamental concepts makes the subject more comprehensible to learn.
2. the importance of detail in remembering that structure. If the structure is not detailed, the knowledge will be forgotten
3. Understanding of structure and the ability to transfer skills/ideas to other models.
4. Reexamining material to make an easier transition from elementary to advance education.
I thought that this reading was definitely a helpful resource when trying to develop or reform curricula. The idea that a student who is asked about a tide's relation to the moon will only recite information that is told to them in class is what I feel is a common issue in our curricula today. Lacking applicable knowledge or understanding of a subject, the learner will only be able to recite information given to them instead of transferring information to develop new models of a subject.
The author asks how, or if, the two services of learning can be formulated into a school's curricula. If school curricula is to be structured around this approach, how will it be taught? They word this problem as "how to construct a curricula that can be taught by ordinary teachers to ordinary students that, at the same time, reflect the various fields of inquiry" (pg. 18).
When I initially read this sentiment, it reminded by of our week7 class discussion on how teachers teaching a subject they master might find difficulty conveying concepts within that subject to a group of students learning those concepts for the first time. The chapter expands on this a little later, but continues to state that the best minds of any discipline are ideally to be responsible for constructing a curricula " that will bring the fruits of scholarship and wisdom to students just beginning their studies" (pg 19).
Throughout the chapter, the author emphasizes the importance of learning fundamental knowledge about a subject, and goes on to state four claims about teaching fundamental structure of a subject:
1. understanding a subject's fundamental concepts makes the subject more comprehensible to learn.
2. the importance of detail in remembering that structure. If the structure is not detailed, the knowledge will be forgotten
3. Understanding of structure and the ability to transfer skills/ideas to other models.
4. Reexamining material to make an easier transition from elementary to advance education.
I thought that this reading was definitely a helpful resource when trying to develop or reform curricula. The idea that a student who is asked about a tide's relation to the moon will only recite information that is told to them in class is what I feel is a common issue in our curricula today. Lacking applicable knowledge or understanding of a subject, the learner will only be able to recite information given to them instead of transferring information to develop new models of a subject.
Thank you for sharing. I also think Bruner's structural curriculum theory was definitely a helpful resource when trying to develop or reform curricula. As for your question, a student who asked about a tide's relationship to the moon will only recite information that is told to them in class is what I feel is a common issue in our curricula today. I think that students know this knowledge is the foundation, but if we can combine video or slides so that students have more sensory experience, more impressive, not just simple memory, so the teaching effect may be better.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your blog. I like the idea about applicable knowledge you mentioned and I agree that the curricula should contain this concept when it is constructed. From my understanding, the goal of education and curriculum of any subject is not just convey knowledge or information to students and let them remember, but to help students develop the skills or logics of thinking, learning, and solving problems in the future learning on their own. Then the curricula are required to be designed to serve students to further have ideas and skills to apply knowledges they learn through the curricula.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing. I really agree with you idea that "The Idea is a student who is asked about a tide's relation to the moon will only recite information that is told to them in class is what I feel is a common issue in our curricula today." I think that it really important for learners who should understand the content of learning not just to recite the informations. This is a essential aspect for them to do and for us as eduactors should pay more attentions on it too.
ReplyDeleteYour post raises some interesting questions. I want to focus on this particular passage:
ReplyDelete"When I initially read this sentiment, it reminded by of our week7 class discussion on how teachers teaching a subject they master might find difficulty conveying concepts within that subject to a group of students learning those concepts for the first time. The chapter expands on this a little later, but continues to state that the best minds of any discipline are ideally to be responsible for constructing a curricula " that will bring the fruits of scholarship and wisdom to students just beginning their studies" (pg 19)."
What if this is the problem with curriculum design? If curricula is only designed by the "best minds" (i.e. theoretical experts), then the curriculum is lacking the ability to generate applicable knowledge to first-time learners. This creates a huge disconnect in developing the next generation workforce as a larger education goal. It is also a challenge for educators to teach this information, I can't tell you how many times teachers could not answer questions raised by the text when students weren't making the question. I believe the make-up of curriculum design teams should be different. Who should decide what that looks like?