“It is what we know already that often prevents us from learning.” – Claude Bernard.
I believe that it is important to individually asses each process of curriculum planning in order to gain insight on the possibility of adopting a dual system.
The naturalistic approach focuses on the learning experience and the abilities and learning styles of the individual student. Glatthorn et. al. states that “the naturalistic process attempts to be sensitive to the political aspects of curriculum making. It places greater emphasis on the quality of the learning activities. It attempts to reflect more accurately the way curricula have actually been developed. It considers cognizance of the way teachers really plan for instruction” (220). Therefore, we discover that this process is much more user-friendly and provides many liberties for both students and teachers. It is less rigid than the technological process with an emphasis that is placed upon individual differences and the quality of the learning. Objectives are still established and need to be achieved, but teachers are given the freedom to achieve those objectives using whatever methods they see fit and are most comfortable using. The limitations, unfortunately, would be the fact that some teachers simply cannot or do not have the desire to deal with the freedom to construct meaningful learning opportunities for their students. I believe that this process would be more beneficial and useful with younger students in elementary school.
The technological process relies on objectives to guide the learning process. Therefore, the main purpose is for all students to achieve the same knowledge and skills. “The technological process is used to describe any curriculum development model that emphasizes the importance of defining terminal learning objectives early in the process and then identifying the steps needed to accomplish those objectives. While the technological process has many variations, it tends to be a rational, systematic, ends-oriented model. It is the process that is important” (Glatthorn et al, 214). Its systematic nature and its efficiency make it the preferred process in most industrial and military training, but one must now evaluate how that can be portrayed in a primary or secondary school context. I believe that the structure of the technological process allows for students and teachers to obtain crucial technological skills through project based learning. This hands on approach guides an individual to follow and use a specific process or steps to achieve and end goal. Thus, limiting inquiry and creative abilities. In addition, it restricts teachers to implement diverse activities that cater to a broad range of students who come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. I believe that this process would most benefit students who are in high school in which they can learn about technology within a specific field of study or in a post-secondary class.
In Sum, I believe that we should adapt a dual curriculum development in which we implement both naturalistic and technological processes. As we advance further into modern society, it is inevitable that an individual must obtain technological skills. However, this does not mean that the lessons that students receive need to be so regimented, one dimensional, and polarized. In fact, if we are able to adapt a program that is able to implement the freedom and inquiry part of the naturalistic approach that promotes equity and allows kids to see technology as a fun and engaging device that can help shape our world; I believe this will only provide more educational opportunities. “Technology offers teachers unique opportunities to link students with real-time information and diverse multicultural perspectives. Clearly, then, as we prepare students for new beginnings and shifting global dynamics in the 21st century, the need for more creative ideas and solutions is becoming even more pressing (Glatthorn et al, 232). The issue now is getting every teacher proper training that promotes the usage of this dual model curriculum. Unfortunately, in the United States the majority of secondary education systems are teacher and subject based, and therefore a transition to this dual process would be an absolute nightmare. Not to mention that every state, and every district within those states have different policies, beliefs, and views on what works best. For me, a dual immersion program implementation in all schools around the United States would be the most favorable decision. However, we are far from making this happen.
Glatthorn, A.A.; Boschee, F. Whitehead, B.M., and Boschee, B.F. (2019). Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Comments
Post a Comment