Navigating different meanings in the planning process
Day one of Session Two now behind us. Spent most of the day reviewing work from last spring and the work the task force has done since our last session. Funny how the most seemingly innocuous things seem to trip you up. In our task force meeting or workshop, we were again going over broad, conceptual frameworks for thinking about program and curriculum planning. We had chosen the word “topic” to identify the content areas that would be identified through the needs assessment process. Most of the discussion of the frameworks seems fine and perfectly understandable to everyone – except for the word “topic.” How, they wondered, is that similar to or different from “subject”? For them, curriculum planning revolved around a subject and made little sense without a “subject.”
It took us a while, and feeling like we were bogging down, to come to a mutual understanding regarding what it is we were identifying through the needs assessment process they had carried out. Kris and I felt caught off guard by making the assumption that they would naturally relate topic to subject. Although we ourselves had actually struggled with naming what it is comes to be identified through such a process (program “ideas? content areas? Subject matter?), somehow we lost sight of the fact that members of the task force might also struggle with such a naming process.
But the bogged down feelings were destined to return. In our afternoon meeting, I am talking about the “Tyler rationale,” and his idea of selecting “learning experiences” to effectively address the objectives that have been identified for the curriculum. Feeling quite puffed up about how I was carefully explaining his particular use of the term “learning experience,” and how he seems to include content or subject matter in his use of them, I led the group to what I thought was a broader and more enlightened understanding of the term that was inclusive of but not restricted to subject matter. Again, everything going fine, until we ask, “Are they any questions about this?” One participant asks, “Can you explain how you are using the term “learning experience?” “What!” I said to myself. “Is she kidding?” After that superb exegesis of the term, she has the audacity to ask such a question! I tried again, pretty much repeating myself. Some nods now of recognition and understanding. But another question. “Does your use of the term, “learning experience,” include the learner’s prior knowledge, the knowledge that they bring to the learning setting?”
Well, you say, that should have been your clue here that there was more than meets the eye. When is a wink not a wink? Sure, I replied, growing somewhat weary of what seemed like an analysis gone terribly awry, and we expand my already expansive definition of the term. Seemingly satisfied now, the group is ready to move on. Turns out, though, in a conversation at break that, for the Vietnamese educators, the idea of learning experience has a precise meaning, referring to the learning and knowledge that the student has acquired prior to arriving in the educational program, what we in the states would refer to as prior knowledge or experience.
In all seriousness, though, these feel like mini-lessons in our life course on cross-cultural experiences. It is quite easy to coast along, feeling all smug and erudite, and it only takes one or two of such instances to remind one of the land on which one stands.
Almost all of the original group of 20+ are back, and on the heels of the exhausting process of proctoring the national university entrance exams, and some still in the throes of grading the exams. It feels great to see them all again, and like we just left yesterday. Imagine getting 20+ faculty from a major university in the U.S. together for seven solid days of collaborative work, not once but twice in six months. Can’t quite pull the image into consciousness? It is truly amazing to us.
It took us a while, and feeling like we were bogging down, to come to a mutual understanding regarding what it is we were identifying through the needs assessment process they had carried out. Kris and I felt caught off guard by making the assumption that they would naturally relate topic to subject. Although we ourselves had actually struggled with naming what it is comes to be identified through such a process (program “ideas? content areas? Subject matter?), somehow we lost sight of the fact that members of the task force might also struggle with such a naming process.
But the bogged down feelings were destined to return. In our afternoon meeting, I am talking about the “Tyler rationale,” and his idea of selecting “learning experiences” to effectively address the objectives that have been identified for the curriculum. Feeling quite puffed up about how I was carefully explaining his particular use of the term “learning experience,” and how he seems to include content or subject matter in his use of them, I led the group to what I thought was a broader and more enlightened understanding of the term that was inclusive of but not restricted to subject matter. Again, everything going fine, until we ask, “Are they any questions about this?” One participant asks, “Can you explain how you are using the term “learning experience?” “What!” I said to myself. “Is she kidding?” After that superb exegesis of the term, she has the audacity to ask such a question! I tried again, pretty much repeating myself. Some nods now of recognition and understanding. But another question. “Does your use of the term, “learning experience,” include the learner’s prior knowledge, the knowledge that they bring to the learning setting?”
Well, you say, that should have been your clue here that there was more than meets the eye. When is a wink not a wink? Sure, I replied, growing somewhat weary of what seemed like an analysis gone terribly awry, and we expand my already expansive definition of the term. Seemingly satisfied now, the group is ready to move on. Turns out, though, in a conversation at break that, for the Vietnamese educators, the idea of learning experience has a precise meaning, referring to the learning and knowledge that the student has acquired prior to arriving in the educational program, what we in the states would refer to as prior knowledge or experience.
In all seriousness, though, these feel like mini-lessons in our life course on cross-cultural experiences. It is quite easy to coast along, feeling all smug and erudite, and it only takes one or two of such instances to remind one of the land on which one stands.
Almost all of the original group of 20+ are back, and on the heels of the exhausting process of proctoring the national university entrance exams, and some still in the throes of grading the exams. It feels great to see them all again, and like we just left yesterday. Imagine getting 20+ faculty from a major university in the U.S. together for seven solid days of collaborative work, not once but twice in six months. Can’t quite pull the image into consciousness? It is truly amazing to us.
posted by John at 2:54 PM
1 Comments:
Good point. What we are quickly finding out is how much we take for granted or assume with regard to common knowledge about terms. These are all educators and so it is easy to assume we share a similar conceptual way of ordering our work. Yet, even yesterday we had a fascinating discussion about what we meant by "program goals" and "program objectives." It turns out they use the same words for both terms and so they mean the same thing. What is revealed in this confusion is not just a difference in words but a difference in conceptualization. Kris and I were wondering the same thing about their struggles to understand the terms "gap" and "potential."
The difficulty for us is in trying to anticipate around what words this confusion might occur. Proceeding as you suggest is a good idea but also runs the risk of being a bit patronizing, if they aready have clear conceptions of these terms. In other words, in seeking to meet the participants where they are, we want to build on what they already know while finding a common conceptgual "language" in which to do this work.
Post a Comment
<< Home