It is well known for us teachers that all our practice depends upon one single aspect: learning objectives. Therefore, every decision we make, in terms of methodology, materials, planning, etc. should be influenced by explicit goals we set according to our context. The design of the curriculum is not the exception. Wiggins (1998) makes it clear in his chapter ‘Backward Design’ that the objectives must be the starting point when creating or reviewing the curriculum to be followed.
Wiggins states that the process of designing a syllabus should be carried out following three steps. First, it is necessary to identify the desired results, having a clear idea of what we expect our students to know or be able to do. Second, “acceptable evidence” should be determined, i.e. it must be clear how we expect our students to demonstrate they have actually learned. Finally, learning experiences and instruction are planned. In this stage we should think of the most suitable instructional activities as well as the skills our students will need in order to accomplish the objectives stated previously.
Although this process makes a lot of sense, and seems to be the most appropriate way to design, it implies a massive change in common teaching practice. My experience, which is not very extensive, tells me that unfortunately things are usually done quite the opposite. Generally, this is not because teachers are not willing to do things in the best possible way. My feeling is that, in most cases, teachers are not given the time or conditions to improve their practices. On the other hand, it is easier to do things they way they have always been done, and it is sad to observe that some teachers are reluctant to changes, even when those changes may mean professional growth.
Regarding my own context, I can say that we, as English department, have tried to move in that direction, adapting our institutional curriculum and trying to see objectives as the core of our teaching. It is a process that takes plenty of time and effort, but it is definitely worth it.
I agree with you in the sense that teachers usually are afraid of changes, we do the same and follow the same format for ages. It is really goo that you and your school are trying to do thing in a different way.
ResponderEliminarI also agree with you, since according to what I've seen most teachers tend to follow the same way of planning their lessons because it takes them less time, and being very honest I think that in many cases teachers want to do different things but sometimes at the place they are wonrking, they don't receive the support to do it.
ResponderEliminarStuck in a moment (U2)
ResponderEliminarIn my personal experience, I have learned that when working for some good schools it may be very difficult to change what is being done. It is the teacher the one who has to fit in and not the other way around. I say this because I completely agree with you, but I feel ashamed right now for being one of those teachers who “get stuck”, because I can see the problems but it is impossible for me to do anything about them. As soon as I try to do something different, I am informed that I must do everything the same way as my colleagues. Are we going to grow old the same as certain other colleagues because of a great salary and safe job? Are we going to get stuck forever just because we feel comfortable there?
I agree with all comments, but the one that I liked the most was the previous comment made by Marcelo. I really believe that backward design is a very effective tool for teacher to improve their jobs. The problem is that you don't have all the time you need to apply it because you have to do so many things already. On the other hand, when you try to do your class in a different way and you know that in that way your classes will mean something for your students, you are not allow to do it because the institution where you work said so.....Here is when you start feeling "Stuck"....and it sucks!
ResponderEliminar