I can learn many things about the curriculum through the PPT materials on the BB. First, there are five curricula: Official, Operational, Hidden, Null, and Extra Curriculum. I can understand the four curricula, which I am familiar with, but I don’t know well what the extra curriculum means. Next, there are three possible approaches to curriculum development: traditional, learner-driven, and critical (A. Prevedel, 2003). Of them, critical approach sees education as a distinctly political act, and curriculum development as functioning in personally or politically empowering ways. This approach comes from Freire (1972), who thinks that learners should actively create knowledge as they participate in learning by taking “critical look” at who has power and what impact of them on the society and the curriculum, and through this process each individual gaining power can make a difference in the world. The remarks are impressive: teachers may find that they draw upon all three approaches when they make create a curriculum. The important point is that teachers be conscious of why they are choosing to use each approach. In addition, curriculum design is not a linear process, but multi-faceted, and processing ones. Finally, there is conflict between Teacher-Centered and Learner-Centered Curriculum (A. Waters, 1986). Nature of syllabus is serial and linear, segmental, and pre-determined, on the other hand, nature of language learning is holistic, developmental, and unpredictable.
Here are three questions, which are from the PPT materials and related to the textbook.
1. What does it mean to “define the context of your teaching”?
According to Graves, the author of the book, Designing Language Courses, teachers should have lots of information about everything that is seemingly related to teaching and learning context as much as possible so as to design a curriculum fitting the context, which is like architects should begin with specification before designing a house. So “to define the context of my teaching” means that I, involved in the designing a curriculum should know about the essential questions such as which level of students? What is the purpose of learning English? What are the students’ sociocultural, socioeconomical, and sociopolitical background? How long is the course? etc, and then design the curriculum depending on the students’ needs and considering the situation to be successful in making a structure and ultimately teaching.
2. Why is it important to define your particular context of teaching?
Knowing how long a course is, its purpose, who the students are, and how it fits in with other aspects of the curriculum helps us to make decisions about content, objectives, and so on (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.17). A clear understanding of what is possible within a given amount of time will allow us to be realistic about what we-teacher and students-can accomplish. Knowing what equipment or support is available will help us make choices about how much and what kind of material to prepare (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.17).
3. What does “problematizing the context”mean?
Defining your context is an important step in problematizing your context. The term problematizing comes from Paulo Freire (1973). It means looking at something that is taken for granted and taking it apart to understand it, challenge it, and act on it (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.20). I have to look at, for instance, what I know about the context and define what the challenges I should cope with such as too big class size, diversities of students in one class, too short class hours, lack of resources, too disinterested or too interrupted attitude of administrative department, and so on. And the reason why teachers should problematize the context is that to make the course more successful.
References:
Here are three questions, which are from the PPT materials and related to the textbook.
1. What does it mean to “define the context of your teaching”?
According to Graves, the author of the book, Designing Language Courses, teachers should have lots of information about everything that is seemingly related to teaching and learning context as much as possible so as to design a curriculum fitting the context, which is like architects should begin with specification before designing a house. So “to define the context of my teaching” means that I, involved in the designing a curriculum should know about the essential questions such as which level of students? What is the purpose of learning English? What are the students’ sociocultural, socioeconomical, and sociopolitical background? How long is the course? etc, and then design the curriculum depending on the students’ needs and considering the situation to be successful in making a structure and ultimately teaching.
2. Why is it important to define your particular context of teaching?
Knowing how long a course is, its purpose, who the students are, and how it fits in with other aspects of the curriculum helps us to make decisions about content, objectives, and so on (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.17). A clear understanding of what is possible within a given amount of time will allow us to be realistic about what we-teacher and students-can accomplish. Knowing what equipment or support is available will help us make choices about how much and what kind of material to prepare (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.17).
3. What does “problematizing the context”mean?
Defining your context is an important step in problematizing your context. The term problematizing comes from Paulo Freire (1973). It means looking at something that is taken for granted and taking it apart to understand it, challenge it, and act on it (Graves, Designing Language Courses, 2000, p.20). I have to look at, for instance, what I know about the context and define what the challenges I should cope with such as too big class size, diversities of students in one class, too short class hours, lack of resources, too disinterested or too interrupted attitude of administrative department, and so on. And the reason why teachers should problematize the context is that to make the course more successful.
References:
Graves, K. (2000). Designing Language Courses: A Guide For Teachers. Heinle: Boston, MA
Antoaneta Bonev. (2008). Module 2 Curriculum for TESOL.ppt. Retrieved from http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/09/why-american-schools-are-failing/
Hi Ji Hae,
ReplyDeleteGood summary of the reading and very interesting article. Because I am from different background (I am from Europe), I can confirm that the problems Americans face regarding education are international. Do you think they somehow apply to the Korean context?
Nice to meet you, Dr.Bonev!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for delaying my response of your questions due to my busy last and this weeks. I'm working for an private institute (in Korean hagwon), where we instructors usually are super busy for about three weeks having students prepare for their mid-term exams. :-)
I think educational problems Americans have been facing now are not that different from those of Korea in terms of students in that Korean students also chat with each other, if it is not possible, textmassage with each other, go out of the classroom, and even sleep during classes. I think it is partly due to influencing from the development of Internet and media. Students are so familiar with the instant impulse of the media that they cannot stand seemingly boring instruction and lectures.
However, in the wider perspective, the problems are quite different with each other. I've heard that U.S. government are worring about the rate of dropout, but in Korea the rate of dropout is relatively low, so it's not that problematic. The second problem is that the rate of illiteracy, which is not a problem here in Korea. And Korea is not multicultural and multiracial country, so in education, we are not concerned about it. However, in English education in Korea, Korean parents are too enthusiastic, which doesn't exist in U.S. In conclusion, I'd like to say that Korean educational context and that of U.S. are quite different, so it's difficult to say that the problems Americans face apply to the Korean context.