Historical Foundations of Teaching and Learning

Article 1 - (Illich, 2010)

In the article “Why We Must Abolish Schooling” by Illich (2010), he indicates that schooling, especially for the poor, aims to confuse process and substance. Furthermore, Illich (2010) writes that there is a misconception that the more treatment/schooling a patient/student gets, the better the results. Although this can be true in some context, it is not the reality for everyone. Just because someone doesn’t go to school doesn’t make them “uneducated”. Matter of a fact, some of the brightest minds in today’s world lack “prestigious” college degrees. 

Being a learner can occur and happen in a variety of ways. We aren’t just limited to being a learner in schools. In today’s tech savvy world, we can literally learn about anything within the click of a button. Some could say that we don’t even need teachers. Scary but true. 

Nonetheless, I would argue that being a teacher is the most important job in the world. We are extremely necessary! As a teacher in this generation, one of the most challenging things we have come across is teaching digital literacy. Yes, the students can type out a question and almost immediately get an answer via google. However, learning isn’t only about finding an answer. Learning is about discussing potential answers, acknowledging other people’s opinions/thoughts, and understanding that there may be more than just one correct answer. In my opinion, teaching our students to be open and creative when presented with an idea is true learning. Students need to use their imagination and think outside of the box instead of being confined to just one thing! If this is what school looks like, I don’t think Illich would recommend abolishing schools anymore!

Article 2 - (Tomkins, 1981)

Tomkins (2014) indicates that curriculum can be defined as a consistent measure of operational principals that ultimately determines what is taught and learned in schools. I am currently a teacher in British Columbia, and I can honestly say that our curriculum is quite progressive compared to other provinces. That’s just my opinion, anyway. 

If I have learned anything from this article, it is that curriculum constantly changes after a period of time. For example, this article discusses many of the topics and content that were previously studied in Social Studies. However, if we compare the curriculum today to the 1960’s and beyond., the differences are astronomical. For example, in today’s world of Social Studies, we teach and learn much more about the Indigenous peoples. Back then, the indigenous content was bleak and arguably incorrect/false. This why many of our textbooks needed updating! Furthermore, I do think it is important to note that just because a textbook says something, doesn’t make it entirely true. The notion of learning involves using content to create and generate discussion, experience, and reflection. Hence, teaching this type of content requires innovation and creativity. An example of what not to do is to generate a list of questions and have students copy down answers word for word from the textbook. In contrast, teachers can pose a couple of questions, break up the class into teams, and then have them debate about a particular topic. Of course, students will have to gain knowledge from the textbook, but they can discuss amongst their team to see what points of clarification are the strongest. By doing this, students are learning about the curriculum along with important life skills like communication, teamwork and more.

I honestly have no clue if I hit the mark with this post, but I am open to your thoughts and ideas in regard to this post!

References

Christou, T. M. (2012). The complexity of intellectual currents: Duncan McArthur and Ontario’s progressivist curriculum reforms. Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 49(5), 677-697. doi: 10.1080/00309230.2012.739181

Tomkins, G. (1981). Foreign influences on curriculum and curriculum policy making in Canada: Some impressions in historical and contemporary perspective. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(2), 157-166.