A
Critical View to the English Curriculum Alignment Process: Implications and
Future Perspectives
By
Rubén Lebrón León
© Rights Reserved, 2015
 |
| Reunión de facultad (s. XVI) |
“Capitalism is the
astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for
the greatest good of everyone” (Keynes, n.d.). Capitalism does definitely reshape the meaning
of democracy. Instead of justice for all, into justice to the few that can pay
the price of total control. This reality
also impacts one of the most lucrative business of our times, which is
education. It is from this perspective that we will direct our thoughts by
using a critical scope to understand certain realities. A critical scope within
Freire’s Critical Theory that unquestionably restructured the concepts of a
true democratic education. Paulo Freire’s ideas of praxis, dialogic, and
oppression will provoke questioning to begin a humanistic analysis beyond the
technicalities of today’s technological curriculum prescription trends.
We educators create a sense of awareness, by seeing how
education has become one of the most profitable business of our times. It is
within this critical perspective where we position our reflections by
establishing important concepts that will impact education beyond curriculum
perspectives. Recently, Puerto Rico’s Department of Education passed through a
curriculum revision due to the requirements of the so called Flexibility Plan.
According to the USDE (United States Department of Education) (2014), Puerto
Rico’s Department of Education made a pact with the USDE to receive an
extension of funds to be able to comply with the requirements of school high
academic performance. In order to comply with the USDE and the federal
government conditions, all the academic subject programs must have a complete
revision to be aligned to the initiative program called the Common Core. The
National Governors Association and the Chief State School officers (2010)
define the Common Core as a movement that promotes literacy skills and
understanding required for college and career readiness in multiple subjects.
This notion of Common Core is the one that provoke many
questions regarding the true motives of this initiative. It is no secret that
the Gates enterprises are the ones behind the funding of the Common Core
movement (Murphy, 2014; Reutzel, 2012; UNESCO, 2014). This leaves educators
with many uncertainties regarding whether or not this reality is a step forward
in education. Is this new trend in favor of students’ wellbeing for a
well-educated and democratic society? We can prefer to assume that this is the
true intention behind the Common Core initiative, but the facts are unavoidably
obvious. To acknowledge that the Gates family enterprise is in top of every
educational movement will lead us to understand the true motives of the Common
Core. We contemplate the truth about how companies will not provide funds out
of mere altruism, in a world where education is a political act of oppression
(Freire, 1970). Inside our capitalist reality economic gain is the principal
motive to any enterprise. If one dare to scrutinize
into the meaning of Common Core we can deduce that the goal is to prepare
students to be assembly line workers rather than critical thinkers with a
highly evolved sense to truly have the freedom to choose to go to college or
contribute to their society.
We believe that we have to establish what the curriculum
alignment process is. This definition will be in relation with one of the
subject matter of English. Then we will analyze the possible implications from the
philosophical, psychological, and sociological educational foundations from a
critical perspective.
Curriculum alignment
is essential to the development and improvement of a program of study and “can
be broadly defined as the degree to which the components of an education system
such as standards, curricula, assessments, and instruction work together to
achieve desired goals” (Case, Jorgenson & Zucker, 2004, p.5; Ornstern &
Hunkins, 2009). Alignment activities provide partners and stakeholders with the
opportunity to work together to identify when, where, and how extensively the
standards and curricular content associated with a program of study will be addressed.
According to Mausbach & Mooney (2008), foundational concepts inherent in curriculum
alignment efforts are opportunities for educators to participate in
professional development. Such efforts that enhance the opportunities for
instructors and content experts to work in teams to plan, review, and improve
instruction and work with instructional leaders. Engaging in both of these
efforts enhances the quality of alignment results and communication across
institutions involved in curriculum alignment process.
Alignment is also the
process of solving instructional problems that often require contextual flexibility
and openness to diverse sources of insight (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004).
Practicing designers must be versatile, it is commonly noted, readily adapting
to the demands of complex design situations by borrowing from a variety of
conceptual resources such as instructional theories, design principles, process
models, and larger philosophical frameworks (Christensen & Osguthorpe,
2004). It presents a challenge when it is constituted by the diversity of early
learning environments that have different traditions, values, and norms
(Feldman, 2010). This challenge is clearly visible when there is a presentation
of academic contents.
Reigeluth &
Carr-Chellman (2009, p.20) define content as, ‘‘The nature of what is to be
learned, defined comprehensively to include not only knowledge, skills, and understandings,
but also higher order thinking skills, metacognitive skills, attitudes, values,
and so forth’’. For instructional designers, this research suggests that using
instructional theory as an approach for instructional design has benefits. One
benefit is that it helps designers effectively judge the usefulness of methods
for a given situation. This leads to better instructional design decisions (Case,
Jorgenson & Zucker, 2004). Another benefit is that it can help designers
defend their design decisions. This leads to a more efficient and enjoyable
design process (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009). Managers of instructional
designers should use instructional theory’s core principles to assess the
quality of their designers’ decisions. Designers can defend their decisions
based on the principles of instructional theory, and guarantee a great learning
experience (Honebein & Honebein, 2014).
To achieve worthwhile
instructional outcomes, instructional designers must make good decisions
regarding the methods they use in their learning experiences. (Honebein
& Honebein, 2014). One way to expedite the alignment process is to build on
the curriculum that is already in place. However,
defining the specific curriculum is not always easy because the written
curriculum outlined in curriculum guides often is not what is being taught in
classrooms. Curriculum guides define what should be taught, but in many cases, they do not affect what
actually happens in classrooms. Jacobs (1997) describes curriculum guides as
usually "well-intended fictions." She concludes that curriculum
guides may actually encourage teachers to teach what they like to teach.
Individual teacher decisions about what to emphasize, made in isolation and
with good intentions, can actually contribute to a school's poor test scores.
In other words, the ultimate goal of the curriculum alignment process is to
ensure a process of refinement and depuration that will make educational
instruments attainable and appropriate both working and reference instruments.
It is in the working instruments that we should focus our
discussion. We have to refine our curriculum normative documents by examining
not just the instructional part, but the psychological, social, and
philosophical aspects should be a matter of constant analysis and revision as
well. This should be done in the service of a useful and practical English
curriculum and not merely as a requirement to comply with an economical pact.
This reexamination is crucial to constant academic improvement and
modifications (Jacobs, 2007). Furthermore, it is in this reflection that we
truly consider which is the future citizen profile that our educational practices
are pursuing to develop inside our school classrooms.
The process of curriculum development must be viewed as a
constant reformation of normative practices (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Whorthen
& Sandler, 1987; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009). To align curriculum is
clearly a collective action that responds to the interests of the students in a
true democratic education that it is web of social relations (Dewey, 1938;
Freire, 1994). Once this process is forced by other interests, we begin to
question education motives. This is the point where an intellectual
emancipation must happen. Not with violence nor with immobility, but to open dialogical
debate spaces (Freire, 1970) among educators to question if these new
prescribed curricula and how these curricula will improve the school teaching
process. Thus, knowledge emerges from a constant invention and reinvention
process (Freire, 1970). It is through
direct contact with students, as curriculum is delivered, implemented, and
assessed that educators become fully aware of the extent of the responsibility
in shaping the country’s future citizen. This responsibility cannot be taken
lightly, it requires a knowledge and empowerment action. This empowerment
involves a social consciousness of teachers to avoid the repetition of the
prescribed curriculum that will eventually reduce the teaching practice turning
it into a banking teaching model (Freire, 1970). Curriculum alignment process
must not be static, but rather be flexible to changes, and not abide by dates
or systematic structures as an element of the praxis of domination discourse
(as defined in Freire, 1970). Once teachers abide in and are controlled by
systematic agendas they become clerks, by reproducing someone else’s knowledge
(Ayers, 1992, p. 1; Freire, 1970).
By establishing what curriculum alignment is, we can realize
the importance of the implications that considering curriculum will have in our
students learning. We will propose psychological implications that must be
considered when we are aligning curriculum. However, at this stage of the
process, we are just beginning to understand the great repercussions and
responsibility that educators have in revising and analyzing the implications
of the possible psychological factors, to be considered in an English
curriculum alignment process.
Psychological
Factors
There are many implications when we begin to consider
psychological factors in education. In this case, not just theorizing about
education in general, but specifically when we are about to engage in
constructivist curriculum alignment. The
essence of constructivism is the development of dynamics where the individual
is responsible of elaborating his own knowledge in a progressive manner (Vygotsky,
1962). According to Vygotsky (1977), the learning process is also a cultural
development where groups of learners are able to contribute to elaborate ideas
and construct new knowledge. This notion of group knowledge development
automatically results in our first psychological implication. When we first
conceive curriculum, we accept that nature of teaching strategies and methods
must aim to develop collaborative and cooperative teaching strategies and
techniques. Although this is one assumption of developing teaching strategies
that involve group work, we are still considering individual tests, and keep using
assessment measures that will ultimately try to prepare the students to face a test.
Then we deeply reflect upon collaborative and cooperative teaching practices
and their relationship with testing.
Testing is one of many tools of assessment and measurement
(Richard & Rogers, 2001), but not the only means to determine either
student progress or knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Yet, we rely on individual tests
as the only criterion to determine the success in terms of academic achievement.
This educational trend goes beyond intellectual deceitfulness. Deceitfulness in
terms of learning skills when students are encouraged to function as a group,
but at the same time struggling to obtain an individual high test score.
However, we pretend to prepare students in a constructivist group environment,
when at the end the individuality of a test score prevails, just measuring the
actual development, but not the potential ability of improvement (Vygotsky, 1978).
This is the point where we must carefully reflect and question testing purposes
from education companies, that hold the ultimate control on what is to be tested
and how it is tested. Thus, those who view education mainly as a profitable
business, create and manipulate data so they can justify the development of the
remedial programs and initiative for schools and teachers. Once again, they
prescribe curriculum remedies based on these tests scores, but at a very high
price to the school systems, both in terms at the resulting economic bonanza
for the private sector, expense of the public systems, and educational costs in
terms of students’ lack of learning. At the end, education becomes the new free
market of services and not the democratic and humanistic institution to serve
us all, but the powerful, the one in control of the systematic altruistic lie
(Freire, 1970) of improving curriculum.
This reality does certainly change the way that educators
conceive curriculum.
When we refer to language this is not different. Seliger & Long
(1983) Interaction Hypothesis states that
constant interaction and interpersonal communicative dynamics are the
foundations to develop linguistic rules through modified interactions (Brown 2007,
p.305). Students in classrooms possess different abilities and backgrounds, and
then language instruction activities should be developed using social
interaction activities. These activities must also be carefully designed by the
teacher in order to immerse the learner in a language social learning process
(Brown, 2007).
Even when assessment has a great impact in the teaching
process (Brown, 2004), testing still remains an important part in educational
trends. Thus, this reality is present and constant, English language teaching process
emphasize in the efforts of the groups and collective hands on instruction, but
at the same time we must also develop measures to prepare students to cope with
individual testing processes like a summative or standardized test.
Once we explore the psychological implications, we are able
to take our thoughts beyond the psychological domain and provoke further
reflection. To align curriculum has not only have individual or group
repercussions, but also social implications. It is during this exploration
process that we pass from the mind to the society effects and consequences when
postulating curriculum platforms, especially when these curricula creations are
forced by the Common Core initiative.
Social
Factors
We should
admit that the curricula alignment processes that are taking place in our
school systems are not originated from a genuine action to improve our
education. Those that advocate the Common Core State Standards assume that
high, uniform academic standards are essential to improving American students’
academic performance to prepare them better for college or career and to
enhance our nation’s ability to compete in the global marketplace (Murphy,
2014; Reutzel, 2012; McGuinn, 2015). However, surveys of teachers and the public
revealed growing opposition to the Common Core as it entered its first year of
implementation in 2014 (McGuinn, 2015). These same surveys also show that most
people do not know much about the Common Core and that much of what they think
they know is incorrect (Murphy, 2014; McGuinn, 2015). The opposition to the
Core does not emerge from a single source and is not confined to members of one
political party. According to McGuinn (2015) people dislike the Common Core for
different reasons. Yet, the most important reason goes beyond like or dislike
postures of different government sectors, but economic interests that are
creating unusual political alliances that have emerged from the Common Core
implementation and how they may play out longer term (Edwards, 2014).
The U.
S. business community has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Common
Core, arguing that higher academic standards are imperative to ensure that the
American economy has the high quality workforce necessary to compete in the
global marketplace (Mcguinn, 2015; Hacker in Edwards, 2014). The Business
Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and major corporations such as ExxonMobil,
Intel, and Time Warner Cable have funded Common Core advocacy campaigns
(Murphy, 2014; Edwards, 2014). This reality has triggered the fear of many
Americans, the fear of a powerful elite who dictates government policy over the
masses (Mcguinn, 2015; Murphy, 2014; Hacker in Edwards, 2014).
Another
social implication is the enormous funding that is suddenly invested to the Common
Core. This issue has also become a major
concern, where the government is spending resources in the Core rather than
addressing learning related issues such as poverty, safety, health, and other
out of school factors, affecting student achievement. However, there are other
concerns among teachers. There is a belief that teachers are not being given
sufficient training and resources to effectively instruct disadvantaged students
(Mcguinn, 2015; Murphy, 2014).
There must be a sense of criticism regarding our curriculum
platforms and these forcedly created educational laws. We cannot stop wondering
how our educational trends are financially originated from the most powerful
and dominant sectors of our society (Murphy, 2014). There is no doubt that
there are other powers that are influencing the government and their Common
Core creation that will have a great impact in our future society. Education is
certainly not a matter of developing citizens that could critically think,
learn and contribute to their society anymore, but the Common Core tries to
create an assembly line of workers that will serve the interest of a small
group of government people that are deciding what is to be learned, and not
certainly in the best interest of the students (Hacker in Edwards, 2014).
The process of revising our curricula to be coherent to the
Common Core initiative is definitely a worrying situation for us educators. All
of the sudden there is an initiative that tries to encourage one set of
standards that will measure all the students. This one standard principle of
the so called “race to the top” (Obama in Edwards, 2014) campaign surely
responds to Bill Gates and small group of investors that are undoubtedly
funding the government.
However, we have to wonder that there is a plan to align
education curricula in a way that the wellbeing of society will no longer be
the goal of educating for life (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2006; Dewey, 1938;
Freire, 1970). Instead we will educate to work and to serve the government and economic
interests.
Here in Puerto Rico we reluctantly abide by the Common Core
adoption. This is so because, we have also become dependent of funding in a
desperately need it to keep our school system alive. This reality makes us feel
vulnerable to imposed educational trends. There is no longer a genuine
curriculum revision to improve education, but a fast paced approval of a so
called alignment process disguised as the best intention to get our students
ready for career and college. Certainly, we need another type of school reform.
It is inside this turmoil of Core demands that educators must empower ourselves
with our education, and lead a reconstruction resistance to our prescribed
curricula (Freire, 1970). Thus, schools should become more than centers of
academic content transmission, but centers of deeper dialogical discussions
(Freire, 1970), regarding whether the type of curricula that we are receiving
is the best for our students.
Schools should be sanctuaries
where teachers group together to discuss and plan by themselves how to solve
the school problems both academic and social. In terms of curriculum alignment,
the invitation is to receive the material, get together, and discuss how
curricula can be modify, adapted, having the power to produce changes, as free
as possible from laws, pacing calendars, and circular letters. This is real empowerment;
this will indeed constitute an emancipation of the intellect (Freire, 1994).
After examining both psychological and social implications
of aligning curriculum process, we realize the great importance of a true
academic reform. A reform that can receive changes from inside the classrooms
teachers. This implication surpasses the
simple thought of predicting educational goal outcomes, but it is the process
of vital decisions that will impact the future of that citizen from the
classroom, and school community. It is in this way that we can begin to
recognize the oppressive discourse of accepting curricula reforms as they are
prescribed (Freire, 1970). We should understand that real change comes from our
communities, from our classroom (Freire, 1970). Thus, assent our capacity of resetting our
minds and get solutions in a genuine collective way.
During our third implication, we will be examining the
philosophical implications that will determine the course of our future
educational system. By understanding our philosophical implications, we will be
able to assume a critical posture regarding the prescribed Common Core
curriculum alignment process that already took place in our educational school
system. .
Philosophical
Implications
We should accept that education is a constant revising and
inclusion process to incorporate philosophies, experiences and teaching
practices (Dewey, 1938; Kumaravadivelu. 2006). Since the creation of the No
Child Left Behind Act, educational companies have acquired lucrative contracts
offering professional development services. Based on this reality we must critically
question the quality of this professional development, and wonder how these
companies train our educators. This is a very valid concern, when we meditate
on education companies and their intentions of improving teacher practices, but
at the same time keep offering the same services, and managing to perpetuate
their rewarding existence. Tragically, educators are immersed in a type economic
control turmoil in which the government plays an oppressive role (Freire, 1970).
Trapped within these neo-liberalistic realities, teachers are in the obligation
of developing a critical sense beyond prescribed curriculum education (Freire,
1970). This type of development requires more than formal training, but
dialogical spaces for educators to develop and use the best from each
educational philosophy, teaching approaches and experiences (Freire, 1970).
This necessity of a new refocusing of philosophies responds
to many realities inside each classroom scenario. In the case of language, we
cannot visualize our classrooms as the optimum teaching setting
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994). Teachers certainly need a sense of knowledge
empowerment to first understand the essence of each educational philosophy and be
able adapt to teaching techniques beyond prescribed tasks or content. To be
able to understand educational philosophies to create methods, resources, and
use them effectively. To be capable of modifying, respond to each teaching
solutions to each particular and unique school reality (Tarone & Yule, 1989;
Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
Many teachers reflect on how language teaching methods are
not based on the realities of their classroom, but are artificially
transplanted into their classrooms (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, pp. 162, 166).
Teachers are in a state of partial or no instructional autonomy, in a situation
where curricula are already traced and planned from the approach to the daily
class technique implementation. Due to this reality teachers are forced to
elicit teaching techniques that adjust their daily practice and in some way,
comply with the state curriculum demands. There are other educators that try to
comply with the prescribed planning, and keep questioning themselves if they
are providing authentic and significant learning experiences (Kane & Bejar,
2014; Nunan, 1991). Pennycook
(1989) believes that current language pedagogy is a matter of different interpretation
configuration depending on teachers’ capabilities, experience, social dynamics,
political, and philosophical factors. However, teacher interpretations are
indeed valuable but not useful in isolation. It is by sharing and consulting
these experiences that educators will not only be empowered with their own
knowledge corpus, but will design unique teaching procedures to be applied in
their own schools (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It is within
this reality that educators must embrace an eclectic posture of practice in education
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
According to Brown (2002, p. 13), the teaching process
essentially consists in three basic principles of diagnosis, treatment,
assessment, and determine proper curricular practices for learners. This
principle is a tad far from reality where there is no diagnostic, but pre and post-tests
to gather data about students’ cognitive competences. Teachers surely are the
most indicated professionals to diagnose (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). However, the
capacity to diagnose demands well-trained teachers. To be able to diagnose, to
adapt to each situation, to be eclectic in their practice, teachers must
realize how education philosophies have a significant impact in everyday
classroom instruction decisions (Tarone, Yule, 1989; Weideman, 2001). Not just to understand constructivism,
behaviorism or pragmatism, but to understand curriculum schools as well. From Spencer
and Hostos Academic curriculum to Tyler’s Technological curriculum, teachers
will be able to better understand how curricula has become a totally prescribed
and imposed implementation with no power of receiving modifications nor to
evaluate its effectiveness. However, we should understand that there are
virtues in each curriculum school and their place in education history and
evolution, but at the same time to understand their disadvantages. This
knowledge will capacitate educators to better comprehend today’s education imposed
oppression status (Freire, 1970). This level of reflection will make educators
realize the necessity of developing the best of judgments when using prescribed
curriculum materials in their classrooms. All of this curriculum insights will capacitate
teachers to select the best from the given curricula to have a better teaching
practice reflections, becoming more capable to be eclectic (Kumaravadivelu,
1994).
Eclecticism can be a way
of teachers selecting what works within their own dynamic contexts based on
sound theories and research knowledge (Brown, 2002). Principled eclecticism
challenges teachers in that any decision making must be based on a thorough and
holistic understanding of all learning theories and related pedagogies, in
terms of the purpose and context of language learning, the needs of the language
learners, how language is learned, and how and what teaching is all about
(Brown 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). To be eclectic demands commitment of
becoming a constant self-regulated researcher as well as good transmitter, to
share, and understand teaching practice knowledge concepts (Kumaravadivelu,
2006; Richard & Rogers, 2001). This knowledge sharing and peer transmission
will also create a critical awareness to teachers in acknowledging that
educational changes and teaching practices must be in constant discussion to
determine teaching practice effectiveness (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Thus,
approaches and methods cannot be distant theory of possible application, but the
essence of daily reflection and practice.
In recent years, many have stated that here never was and
probably never will be a method for all classroom teaching procedures (Nunan,
1991, p. 228; Pennycock, 1989; Kumaravadivelu, 1994). In other words, there is
no such thing as a teaching method that provides absolute effectiveness in all
language skills, but instead revising, modifying and evaluating teaching strategies
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
This
premise in time has been called Language Post Method Era. According to Kumaravadivelu,
(1994, p. 29), Post Method can be defined as the construction of classroom
procedures and principles by the teacher based on his/her prior and experiential
knowledge and/or planned teaching strategies and techniques application. The
post method also creates awareness that as long as we are caught up in the web
of method, we will continue to get entangled in an unending search for an
unavailable solution, awareness that such a search drives us to continually
recycle and repackage the same old ideas (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 28). There
are also limited spaces for teachers to consult one another. The isolation and
lack of consulting periods among colleagues has caused the reliance on recycling
of teaching techniques to solve the immediate situation of planning and
delivering teaching sessions (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). To embrace a true eclectic
philosophy there must be other spaces for teachers to create study groups and
coordinate genuine strategies according to students’ needs. Curriculum fixed
designed material is too insufficient and restricted to successfully explain
the complexity of language learning and teaching as its application and
principles are also said to be obscure and exaggerated respectively
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
The
eclectic nature of the Post Method trend can help educators to reconsider their
practices as a consequence of many years accepting prescribed language curriculums,
instead of criticizing them in order to get the best of them, assuming a
critical posture to create our own educational reforms to achieve a genuine
perspective of our teaching realities (Freire, 1994). Language teachers need to
elaborate their own construction of reality and create their own literature,
instruments of teaching within their own school reality (Zembylas, 2005;
Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It is within this assumption that many educators receive
professional development separating theories from applicability, and sharing an
enormous repertoire of teaching techniques yet to be applied in each classroom.
However, this practice of sharing sometimes is a desperate call to ignore the
essence of each language teaching approach, design and procedure (Richards
& Rogers, 2001). It is also the flaw of many professional development
topics which only emphasize on possible teaching techniques, not explaining
which method or which approach, or how to theorize about the applicability and
the implications of the given seminar or workshop (Zembylas,
2005; Newman, Samimy, & Romstedt, 2010).
Beyond
adopting an educational philosophy, it is certain that the eclectic model
welcome most of the educational philosophies. Even so, to be able to understand
and use the best of each philosophies implies a vast knowledge of each theory.
In this venture of developing and capacitating teachers’ minds to be able to
theorize about their practices beyond prescription is more than an implication,
but empower educators to build a sense of educational hope (Freire, 1994). It
is with this sense of hope that we look up to the future and elaborate
curriculum considerations that must be present in curriculum revisions.
Considerations, Future Perspectives
After examining the postulated implications,
we are able to consider and formulate future perspectives that must be present when
conceiving curriculum; future considerations, and possible reflections that
must be contemplated when engaging in curriculum creation and alignment. In our
case and reality, the term revision and consideration could be a symbolic
hypocritical and deceitful act to educators. The motives of our curriculum
alignment efforts are based on a requirement to comply with the government
demands to align our framework, our standards, and expectations to be as
similar as possible to those established by the Common Core initiative. Even
when the process of standard creation and alignment could be full of restrictive
conditions, there is a unique experience to collectively reflect and benefit
from the alignment process; in this case, the revision of the English language
curriculum. During the process of considering, reflecting, and working with curriculum
material, we should recognize the vital importance of social interactions and
collective function of the learning process. In a more academic reflection, we
can refer to acknowledge the significance of Vygotsky’s ZPD when conceiving
teaching approaches, and procedures (Richard & Rogers, 2001; Hayes, 1997;
Brooks & Brooks, 1993).
In the function of acquiring a second language, Vygotsky’s
ZPD will definitely give us the cognitive realities of our learners. The
learners’ capacity of developing their cognitive capabilities through the
interaction with their peers, adults, and environment stimuli (Vygotsky, 1978),
is surely the principal thought that educators should first have in their minds
when considering instruction. Once we recognize this reality we can understand
that every instructional approach and assessment process must follow the ZPD
principle. Classroom activities must be designed to be interactive, promoting
constant interaction (Hayes, 1997; Zembylas, 2015; Honebein & Honebein,
2014; Bruner, 1966).
There is also a mediation process that occurs during the
interaction learning process (Bruner, 1966; Bandura, 1986). The mediation of
meaning happens when the student is engaged in constructing new meaning
schemas, thus these mediation is a negotiation of understandings that happens
when the learner is engaging in both direct and indirect instruction. Thus,
when mediation is happening there is a cognitive accommodation that serves the
learner to build his/her own linguistic concepts and be able to understand them
(Bruner, 1966). Hence, the student with
this new formed language knowledge is ready to build more knowledge over that
acquisition that already happened during the mediation process (Vygotsky,
1978). This negotiation does not only happen in the language classroom, but all
around the learner. This is the time where the scaffolding guiding instruction
process (Bruner, 1966), has the greatest importance in language teaching, not
just guiding, but providing the appropriate classroom atmosphere so the
language learning process can truly take place (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1966).
There is much to ZPD, that there is an imperative
responsibility to specify in our frameworks regarding how we must guide our
students to think and develop language knowledge beyond memory or knowledge
corpus prescription, but to be able to apply that knowledge in multiple
situations, to adapt, and to create new knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Once educators
acknowledge ZPD as pillar principle to cognitive development, we will be able
to examine new curriculum material. This includes teaching strategies and
assessment measuring.
However, we refer to ZPD and the social nature of language
teaching and learning process, we direct our reflection to the use of testing
as an absolute measure instrument. Yet we keep responding to train our students
to respond to the absolute standardization, but more seriously, we are at mercy
of the Common Core and its intentions to dictate what to know and what is to be
learning, and prepare students to become the best working force ever. But one
thing remains, in this pursuing of excellence, if we are compromising the
humanistic aspect of education. We should question if there is a national
mandate to align curricula and standards to become ready for career, but are we
aligning and developing standards in the best of the students’ interests or
somebody else’s? It is in this questioning that we aim our future perspectives and
thoughts. It is necessary to reflect upon possible consequences of having
businesses ruling the destinies of our people rather that education curriculum
creation as an equal pact with the government.
Conclusions
After examining the psychological, social, and philosophical
implications we were able to realize that our immediate education future is
certainly submitted to economic interests. More specifically, the notions of
creating and aligning curricula that are reduced to accountability exercise to
justify standard revisions and curricula alignment. It is indeed worrying, the
way that the Common Core initiative has become a forcing action of dominant
business classes to control what is to be taught to our children. This imposition
of the Core campaign should raise the most serious questions regarding how
democratic our education has become. It is a responsibility that goes beyond a
mere revision and constantly revise curriculum instruments as the conceptual
essence of what is to happen in our classrooms. Even so, revising and aligning
curriculum will become a fake process far from the academic prominence that
these processes demand. Both Freire and Dewey reminded us that education is a
political act, but beyond this foundation, modern days politics are summited by
a sovereign monarch called neoliberalism control. This control is the one that
it is not own by the government, but by the enterprises that are financing the
political parties in the United States of America. Instead of the land of the
free which we can assume that education is included, the concept of democracy and
democratic government in the service of the people is a long passed dream.
There is a sense of hope regardless of these thoughts about
the Common Core and educational reforms like curriculum alignment. Durable and
significant changes do not come from the top of the government or any other
place, but from our communities and schools (Freire, 1994). The classroom
teacher has the most powerful influence in students’ lives. This is the
starting point from which many of our changes should come from. Instead of
waiting for the system to indoctrinate our schools, it is time to get organized,
and begin our mind emancipation (Freire, 1970). We can surely empower ourselves
with our own educational reforms that will certainly suit the needs of our
students to contribute to society, rather than prepare them to race to the top
manipulative slogan.
Our race should be to guide and edify honest human beings,
citizens that are able to collectively serve their society. Yet, we have
recognized the importance of social interaction as a benefit, but at the same
time forced to training our students to take a standardized test to enter in
the free market race of the Common Core goals.
Our first psychological implication, made us realize the importance
of how learners do not only learn by receiving direct academic input, but the
interaction with others is also a vital complement for them to develop their
intellect. We can also state that our education should evolve beyond testing
and individual measuring. We should reflect upon the effectiveness of that
collective and collaborative work in our instruction versus the imminent
reality of competence and individuality included in our English and other
subjects’ curricula. This represent a double discourse on how our students keep
perceiving instruction as a cooperative and collaborative process vis a vis the
individual test score outcome significance. Tests are one of the many elements
of the assessment process (Hayes, 1997; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Honebein
& Honebein, 2014; Brown, 2004), but modified, and not be considered testing
as the only decisive mean of evaluation as in our education system. For
example, in our current English Curriculum document most of the assessment
measure instruments are stated to document and monitor students’ improvement.
This same document contains beautiful explanations of these assessment
instruments intentions and how they should be applied. This is a point in which
the English Curriculum source is a deceiving working instrument. It ends to be
a mere book full of suggestions and ideas that summarize the idea of tests, but
emphasize in peer and group dynamics. If we take our thoughts to the deepest of
reflections, we realize that there is indeed an education dichotomy about
teaching the informational content for the standardized test or develop literature
and include a more humanistic part to our instructional venture.
Inside our social factors, we were able to dismantle the
essence of the Common Core intentions and how it is perceived by the
communities. However, we unraveled the small groups of the U.S. corporate
sector that are behind the finance of the Common Core, and how this initiative
is the motive behind our curriculum alignment process. The most powerful and
disturbing argument is the essential question of what is the long term goal of
the Core, and alignment revisions. The forced implementation and the vast
amount of money owns the government policies to create and conceive plans to
tell the people what to know and to become drones rather than educated
citizens. There is also the notion of democracy that U. S. promotes behind
basically in all courses of actions, in this case education. It is in this
argument when we evaluate the role of the “stakeholder” when we are considering
standards and curriculum alignment. We should accept that stakeholders are not
a real part in the decision making when aligning curriculum, but witnesses to
reluctantly comply with the already paid education reform.
After the psychological implications and social factors, we
examined the necessity of at empower ourselves with educational reforms. We
realize that curriculum changes belong to classroom teacher as a vital
component of his/her community. To beginning this process, we must have the
tools to critically modify and adapt the received prescribed curricula
material. In the case of language teaching, we should embrace an eclectic
philosophy. The understanding of this posture is hugely reasoned by
Kumaravadivelu and his Post Method ideas of practical teaching. Kumaravadivelu’s
ideas transcend the necessity of becoming eclectic, but invites all educators
to aspire to become experts in their own disciplines.
English curriculum must also be abided from the eclectic
perspective. Those educators responsible of reforming, revising, and aligning
curriculum must be prepared beyond the teaching procedures; they must be highly
knowledgeable of the educational philosophies, curriculum principles and English
language teaching procedures (Richard & Rogers, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
This knowledge will empower and justify pedagogic decisions that later will directly
have repercussions to the student learning process.
Once we consider all these implications we are able to rethink
and search for instructional solutions from the very beginning. Here in Puerto
Rico English teaching implementation has seen as forcedly chaotic to implement
language policies (Pousada, 2008). We should formulate solutions from the very
establishment, but always having the capacity of critical view to face
prescription discourses, and develop a true sense of criticizing and constructing
our own realities (Freire, 1970; Foucault, 1980). Not just proposing and
implementing policies, but before implementing, start to think in long terms.
To include authentic instructional material, created in the same school
scenarios (Zinkgraf, 2003). There are so many implications in wrong educational
decisions that it is imperative to plan and implement curriculum by properly
aligning curriculum and considering all its components. Not just elaborating
expectations, or standards, but considering and realign the curriculum
framework all over again. Taking our thoughts and reflections into the ultimate
educational goal, is to consider the type of citizen that we need.
Regardless of the proper procedures of deep reflection to
elaborate curriculum, there are due dates when trying to elaborate curriculum.
There is also the existence of educational institutions to certify curriculum
processes, making very difficult to take a long time before considering
establishing new curricula. There is also politics involved and other interests
in education (Freire, 1970) with strict agendas that elaborate and establish
curriculum in fast haste without even considering a necessary model for
implementation or curriculum evaluation process (Whorthen & Sandler, 1987).
It is in this reality where teachers should imperatively develop the best
possible curriculum to understand many realities, but at the same time be able
to design teaching strategies that better serve their school communities.
Language teaching follows this same type of educational
situation, in terms of developing operational perspectives to better choose
from the prescriptions that they are meant to use. To be able to consult other
professionals, to grow and learn from their collective interpretations and
experiences (Freire, 1996), to develop proficient language users that could
contribute to our society. This idea cannot be formed within our school’s
organizations. To have the opportunity of discussing curriculum, we have to
provide meetings where our own colleagues are the ones in charge of their own
professional development. This critical view is meant to understand that to own
knowledge is to have the capacity to conceive real venues of opportunity beyond
the curriculum boundaries.
There are many thoughts that comes to our minds when facing
education realities. One is the sense of duty and commitment to education and
the other is how to do the best to our profession inside a monstrous static
education system. Instead of the education system truly improving education,
there are these economic interests behind every decision. We teachers have no
other venue but to use the eclectic approach as a very pragmatic practice. To
accept eclecticism as an approach that lives us space to critically analyze
curriculum and use the best of what we received from alignment processes and
somebody else’s ideas of delivering instruction as standard as the Core and
local educational systems attempt to implement. However, this education point
of view is not just for our teaching practices but to constantly examine and
question the usefulness of everything that is given from the educational
system. All of the sudden we start to think if this situation will have a
solution, or if it is a part of our capitalist system where money dictates and
everybody follows. Follows the government, follows the education system, and at
the end teachers obey with no question or critical capabilities.
There is no doubt that Freire invites us to act beyond
Dewey’s notion of education and democracy. Instead of idealizing education we
can open the spaces to reconstruct our own educational scenarios and assume a
posture of self and collective professional improvement. Then we will be able
to use what is best for our classrooms and deal with curriculum prescription.
It seems that it will be a long time before our educational policies change to
truly serve student’s needs. We educators can do the next best task, which is
to elaborate the best leaning experiences possible inside our schools scenarios.
References
Ayers,
W. (1992). The shifting ground of curriculum thought and everyday practice. Theory
into practice, 31(3), 259.
Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of
models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of personality and social
psychology.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations
of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH
Freeman.
Kane,
M. T., & Bejar, I. I. (2014). Cognitive frameworks for assessment,
teaching, and learning: A validity perspective. Psicologia Educativa, 20(2),
117-123. doi:10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.00
Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for the constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Brown,
H. (2002). English language teaching in
the ‘post-method’ era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment.
In J. Richards and W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology
of current practice (pp. 9-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667190.003
Brown, H. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices San
Fransisco: Pearson Longman
Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5nd ed). San
Fransisco: Pearson Longman.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton.
Case,
B. J., Jorgenson, M. A., & Zucker, S. (2004). Alignment in educational assessment. Retrieved from www.pearsonassessments.com
Christensen,
T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004).
How do instructional design practitioners make instructional-strategy
decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.
Dewey,
J. (1938). Experience and education.
New York: Collier Books.
Edwards,
H. S. (2014). Core Crash. Time, 184(7), 40-41
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
New York: Continuum.
Freire,
P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New
York: Continuum.
Foucault, M. (1980) Questions de la
meâthode. In Michelle Perrot
(ed.)L'impossible prison: Recherches sur le systeáme peânitentiaire au xixe
sieácle. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Hayes,
H. (1997). Mapping the big picture:
integrating curriculum & assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: Association
for supervision and curriculum development
Honebein,
P., & Honebein, C. (2014). The influence of cognitive domain content levels
and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Educational
technology research & development, 62(1), 53-69.
doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9322-5
Keynes,
M., J. (n.d.). Brainyquote.com.
Retrieved from BrainyQuote.com web site:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnmaynar137774.html
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method
condition: Emerging strategies for
second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1),
27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From
method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGuinn,
P. (2015). Complicated politics to the Core. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1),
14-19. doi:10.1177/0031721715602229
Mooney,
N. J., & Mausbach, A. T. (2008). Align the design: A blueprint for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for supervision and curriculum development.
Murphy,
T. (2014). Tragedy of the common core. Mother Jones, 39(5),
36-68.
National Governors' Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO).
(2010). Common core standards for English language arts &• literacy in
history, social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC:
Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-art-standards
Newman,
K. L., Samimy, K., & Romstedt, K. (2010). Developing a training program for
secondary teachers of English language learners in Ohio. Theory into
practice, 49(2), 152-161. doi:10.1080/00405841003641535\
Nunan,
D. (1991). Language teaching methodology.
Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Ornstein
A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2009). Curriculum
foundations, principles and issue. (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pousada, A. (2008). Functions and
valorization of language in Puerto Rico: Introduction.
Centro journal, 20(1), 4-11.
Pennycook,
A. (1989). The concept of method,
interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 589- 618. doi:10.2307/3587534
Reigeluth,
C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In
C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common
knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching 2nd
Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Globalization,
flattening the world and the common core standards: Coincidental convergence. Retrieved from http://earlychildhoodeducation.usu.edu/files/uploads/Globalization.pptx.pdf
Seliger,
H. W., & Long, M. H. (1983). Classroom oriented research in second
language acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, MA 01969-1599.
Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). (2004). Cooperation
agreement between United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
and Microsoft corporation. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/strategy_microsoft_agreement.pdf
US
Department of Education (2014). Flexibility plan: Puerto Rico. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/prrenewalreq2015.pdf
Vygotsky,
L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet Psychology. Original work
published 1929.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and
language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Weideman, J. 2001. Designing language
teaching: On becoming a reflective professional.
MS. Bellville: University of the Western Cape.
Whorthen, B. & Sandler, J. (1987). Educational evaluation: Longman: New York
& London.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Teaching with emotion: A post-modern
enactment. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Zinkgraf, M. (2003). Cuando se vuelve necesario desarrollar una
conciencia lingüística crítica en la enseñanza de un idioma extranjero. (Spanish).
Educación, lenguaje y sociedad,
1(1), 315-333.
