Structure or Flexibility? Order or disorder? Creativity or prescribed actions? These traits of curriculum planning should not be an either-or proposition. Students at all levels would benefit from the use of technological and naturalistic curriculum development.
Technological development is straightforward and utilitarian in its approach. It does not rely on creativity or flexibility to develop a unit of study. The technological approach is objective-driven, not student-driven or teacher-driven. For example, I would use the technological approach in teaching cursive handwriting. I would assess the need (cursive handwriting), determine the objective (which style of cursive handwriting and at which grade levels), select learning activities, such as handwriting modeling and practice, and select materials, such as handwriting practice sheets. This process would give teachers and students an efficient means to introduce and practice cursive.
On the other hand, naturalistic development focuses on the learners, teachers, and cultures, and their diverse needs ahead of learning objectives. This approach is experience-driven, not objective driven. The quality of the learning experience is at the center of this model. Students are inspired to think, create, and grow holistically when this model is employed. The engagement factor has the potential to be higher, as well as the authenticity of the learning. Students are exposed to a wide variety of materials, and individual learning styles are embraced. This model can also be cross-curricular and integrative. I would encourage this approach to be applied in large doses for social studies, art, and music studies, as well as included in reading, science, and math curriculum development.
To apply an analogy, technological curriculum development and naturalistic curriculum development can be compared to cooking. When the objective is to satisfy hunger, technological development of curriculum looks for an efficient, straightforward plan to meet the objective. For example, when hunger is determined to be a need, technological development determines that food must be served, so a menu must be selected, and then materials purchased. Building a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich would be a suitable activity, and white bread, peanut butter, and grape jelly could be easily obtained at the market. The assembling of the sandwich is straightforward and efficient. Serving the meal requires the most basic supplies, available in any kitchen, such as paper plates, paper napkins, and a glass of milk. The outcome is satiated hunger, without a great deal of creativity, and with a minimal use of materials. Food allergies, preferences, and dietary restrictions are not considered. One type of bread is made available, and the meal may be served at a lunch counter. The quality of the dining experience is not valued.
Naturalistic curriculum development also seeks to meet the objective, but through the development of creative, quality dining experiences. Materials may be less common, more creative, and in greater quantity. The dining experience is considered, not only consuming the food. The meal may consist of more than one course, such as appetizers, main course, and dessert, and the allergies, dietary restrictions, and preferences of the students partaking of the meal are considered. The menu is detailed and balanced. Gluten-free or keto options may be available. The dining table may be set with serving pieces, candles, and a full complement of flatware, tableware, and drinkware. Table linens are included, such as napkins, and a suitable tablecloth that has textural and graphic interest. Flowers may be added as a centerpiece to increase engagement.
I believe that there is room in a school year for “meals” of each type in an elementary classroom. Thoughtful planning is the key, and students will benefit from diverse learning experiences that cater to a variety of learning styles.
No comments:
Post a Comment