Curriculum Writing

Response to Curriculum-Writing
Erik Andersen

Along with seven other students, I worked on planning a lesson set for the B.C. Science 10 curriculum. Our approach, as recommended by our instructor, was to first determine five major themes that ran through the curriculum. These were: the scientific method, how and why things change over time, problem solving, integration of concepts, and discovery and science history. We intended to base as many of our decisions as possible on the five themes.
We broke the course into five units, the first of which was an introduction to the course. I had hoped that Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs) from different sections of the curriculum could be brought together in the same unit of the course. For example, factors limiting cell size (cell biology section) could be covered in the chemistry section. This could be done because the PLO in question related to more than one section. Cell size is limited largely by chemical factors. This mixing of learning outcomes would address our theme of integration, provoking students to think about interrelationships between concepts covered.
As it worked out, however, the divisions present in the curriculum were maintained in our unit plans. Not only that, but, for the most part, the �chemistry people� in the group did the chemistry lessons, �biology people� did the biology lessons. Thus, integration was not achieved in the way we had hoped. We had five full days to work on the project, as well as a morning during the Symposium. For the Science 10 group, this meant that the project would have to be carried out quickly. I speculate that if we had had another five days, we would have found ways to cross over to each other�s disciplines and to properly integrate the course. However, treating the sections of the curriculum as discrete made the job easier, so we may still have hesitated to mix PLOs even so.
As mentioned, my group took the time constraint seriously and hurried to finish the lessons. We were focused on getting a binder full of lessons rather than reaching a higher level of course planning. I think we would have been better off accepting that we wouldn�t be able to complete the lesson set and arrange the units in a satisfactory way. We could then have paid more attention to the process, which I think was the most valuable part of the project.
The process is more valuable than the product because, while the latter may be used, when the circumstances are right, in a Science 10 classroom, the former may be drawn upon whenever a course is being planned. Different students require different classroom structures and teaching modes. If one lesson is written, it may be used some, but not all, of the time. As well, it seems to me that planning one�s use of instructional hours on any large scale is futile. In my School Associate�s Science 10 blocks, it happens often that a lesson takes place over two blocks on separate days, usually with a day in between. As well, material is often covered more quickly or more slowly than expected. In general, lessons become part of a continuum rather than discrete sections of time. The point is that a teacher must be extremely flexible in his or her presentation of curriculum.
I am not arguing that creating lessons is a waste of time. For student teachers in particular it is an important process. But I would think that hurrying to plan units so that discrete lessons - with specific information fitted into one-hour time slots - could be worked on is a mistake.
The project we worked on was very open-ended; this was both a blessing and a curse. The information that we began with was quite abstract: and IRP and a set of criteria written by our instructor. There was no learning style to adapt to and no assessments to tell us if our teaching was effective. Because of this, we had a carte blanche and could design lessons however we wanted. This was often our downfall, as we dove into the material that interested us so much. I was working on a lesson about cell reproduction and decided to focus on mitosis and meiosis. I decided to simplify both processes a little, but was assured that understanding the segregation of chromosomes was important. I suppose this was because chromosomal segregation was something that I personally associated with cell division and thus felt was an essential aspect of those processes. Later, I realized that there are just a few concepts really needed for an understanding of cell division. And though I think it is important for someone to have developed some thoughts about cell division, a key driving force in life, in grade 10, I am not 100% sure.
This time is one of great doubts about curriculum. I�m not sure what we really want students to get from schooling, even though I believe that education is paramount in the making of a life that is worthwhile to the one living it. At this point, the best approach may be to have faith in those that create the curriculum and in those that teach it. Everything seems questionable now, including the idea that doubts such as these are the domain of student and rookie teachers, not of experienced ones.