"The Problem of Common Sense" by Kumashiro. (ECS 203 Response)
In "The Problem of Common Sense" by Kumashiro, Kumashiro defines common sense as what everybody should know regarding the society and community they belong in. Common sense is the normalcy for different cultures where things are only done in a certain way that everyone follows. There are different views of common sense throughout other parts of the world. An example of common sense in Nepal was Kumashiro not cooking with rice, veggies, and lentils and the neighbours saying Kumashiro did not know how to cook because it was common in the Nepal community. In Nepal's schools, the lecture-practice-exam approach towards teaching was incorporated as common sense to the students and teachers in Nepal. Kumashiro is there to help share new teaching methods, but the students need clarification and question Kumashiro because they learn in ways that challenge their common sense.
It is so important to pay attention to common sense because it becomes the norm for different cultures' ways of thinking and learning and affects the education system. Kumashiro mentions that "common sense does not tell us that this is what schools could be doing; it tells us that this and only this is what schools should be doing."(Kumashiro, pg. XXXV) All individuals get into a habit of their common sense, and there is only one-way things should be done. Common sense needs questions to open new ways of thinking and learning. Common sense is different worldwide, and being aware of it is important. Hence, we can teach accordingly to meet the diverse needs of students instead of only being aware of our common sense. Common sense hides that there is oppression in the school systems. Kumashiro mentions Nepal's teaching method is well behind the United States' ways of teaching. Common sense in one place would confuse those of a different culture, but no common sense is considered wrong or the other.
The curriculum model Kumashiro encountered in Nepal was the lecture, practice, exam model. The students in Nepal were given the same textbook, which they were taught and practiced out of to get ready for the standardized test at the end. The end exam had questions almost similar to those in the students' textbooks, and to move on to the next grade, students had to pass this test. When Kumashiro tried teaching the students activities not from the textbook, they were worried it would affect them for their final examination. The students were so used to their common sense with the textbook that they would go ahead and ask Kumashiro not to teach in ways other than the textbook.
The curriculum models that are the "common sense" in our Canadian school system are the theoretical/syllabus model and the curriculum as a process model. Teachers should teach their students an extensive list of things from a book each school year. We have a syllabus' to show us the outcomes of the class we are taking and the order it goes in. The process model is what goes on inside the classroom between students and teachers and how the curriculum is implemented. The product's curriculum is also a model of the curriculum used in Canada. The curriculum in Canada as common sense to us is that we learn certain subjects at different times of the day and have to achieve an outcome at the end of the school year. There can be benefits and drawbacks to our common sense model of curriculum.
The benefit of having a syllabus is that it keeps the class organized for students and teachers. A syllabus is easy to read as it states everything you need to know for the outcome of the course. The process model is full of experiments. Any proposal at each school level needs to be tested. Students can experiment with the list of things they have to learn to achieve the outcome from the syllabus. In the product model, organization is a benefit to the curriculum. Behavioural objectives are formulated to provide a clear path to the outcome so everything can be organized. Teaching students from a list that has already been made makes teaching more organized for the teacher. Students have different ways that they participate with these models. In Canada, you find lots of hand on work and ways for children to experiment to learn.
The drawbacks to these models are that having a syllabus to follow for structure and time management is key when there is a time limit to get everything done. When there is already a list of the curriculum to teach, it is much harder to add what students want to learn that is not implemented inside the curriculum. There is a problem with teachers in the process curriculum because teachers' quality can be a weakness if they are up to little. They must be into their work for the process curriculum to help their students understand what they are learning. In the product model, there is a lack of pedagogic practice of objectives in the classrooms by educators.
Hello Morgan,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed this post. You went into great detail about the topics and it was thought provoking. I appreciated how you answered each question in depth and added your own input on many of the topics. I liked how you spoke about the specifics of what is considered commonsense in Nepal. I should have done the same in my own post. I especially appreciated your in depth look at inner workings of Canadian school systems. It was enjoyable to learn about the different types of curriculum models and I believe that you represent them well in your post. I had missed the syllabus style model in my own reading and I am glad that I got the opportunity to still learn about it in your post, thanks. Keeping in mind that the model of education in Nepal, as well as that of North American school, tend to follow strict guidelines and routines respite being praised as being different, how might teachers create environments that encourage models such as the praxis?
Thanks,
Andrew.