Eisner identifies paradoxes in educational philosophy. A stated goal of the curriculum could be to train initiative, an important trait for success and a sign of responsibility. At the same time, the structure of assessment and rewards encourages the opposite, blind compliance. This is an example of an unintended effect of part of the curriculum. The next side-effect is destructive competition. Pre-meds must go from cutthroat students to colleagues working together to save lives, and medical schools are starting to recognize this mismatch, and are implement assessment policies to encourage this cultural change.
Almost a century ago, Mumford wrote a scathing critique of materialism which echoes loudly in the AI-marketing blitz we're currently weathering. The forces that drive us towards vapid consumption and deplete our autonomy are more powerful than ever. Can I structure my lesson plans to reward initiative and reinforce personal autonomy? I can try.
The new BC curriculum breaks down its overarching goals into 3 synergistic categories. Knowing certain things, the ability to solve certain problems, and the understanding of relational concepts are given equal weight. Inquiry-based learning is a curricular policy to encourage initiative. Developing inquisitiveness has hidden benefits beyond just getting higher test scores. It's a fundamental intellectual orientation with profound consequences.
Great reflection on how traditional grading structures often reward compliance over the very initiative we claim to value. When designing lessons within the BC framework, how do you manage the balance between required content coverage and giving students room for true inquiry?
ReplyDelete