Education Foundations: Assignment 1

With reference to one of these scenarios, how might knowledge of the philosophy and history of education help you understand your role?

Wayne (1)
Wayne teaches at an inner city public high school. While he is really excited about his new job close to the inner city suburb where he lives and went to university, he’s finding that not all the students share his enthusiasm for learning. Wayne really enjoys the subject matter of his senior classes and spends a large proportion of his planning time ensuring he has the depth of content covered. However he is finding that his class is falling into two groups. In one a group a number of apparently highly motivated students are intellectually pushing him. Another group seems to consist of students who don’t really want be there. Both groups are causing Wayne concern as it appears that the ‘motivated’ group don’t engage at a deep level and instead want to know the ‘correct’ answers, while the ‘less motivated’ group are difficult for him to engage.



Wayne is teaching in a public high school in a suburb he is familiar with. His students are divided into 2 different groups, neither of them respond very well to his teaching. In one group, students don't show any motivation for the subject. In the second group, if students appear more interested, their interest seems to be very superficial. Wayne is very passionate with the subject he is teaching and doesn't understand why students are not sharing his enthusiasm.

Why are the students divided into two different groups?

How can we explain the difference between the interest shown by each group?

What can Wayne do to improve the motivation of the students?

To address the first question, we have to look at the socio-economic profile of the inner city schools and the history of curriculum. At the beginning of the 20th century, the curriculum could be divided into three main categories: academic for professional and upper class, technical for working class boys, and domestic for girls (Mackinnon, 1997). Today the curriculum remains centered on the interest and the culture of a small group in the society represented by the inner city middle class.

Another aspect of the question is discussed by Campbell and Sherington (2006) in a study looking at the different interests and opportunities school has to offer to families in the 20th century. The urban middle class parents were more successful in capitalizing social and economic advancement of their children while the interests of parents from lower socio-economic status who wanted a possible advancement for their children were not represented in schools. In our scenario, the more motivated student group is typical of the first category (middle class families). They benefit from the support of their parents motivated by their own success at school and wish that same academic achievement for their own children. However, this does not always translate into a deep engagement by the students into a particular topic and may only present itself in a desire to achieve a good grade. They are also advantaged by a curriculum that favours a higher socio-economic class.

The less motivated student group is typical of the second category (lower socio-economic group). Their familiar culture and values are generally not represented in the curriculum and they don't benefit from the same family support. Parents of these students may not have a high level of education and this may translate into a lower priority for academic achievement for their children. As a consequence this may diminish parental support for their children's schooling.

This leads us to the last question. How do we improve the motivation of both groups of students?
In her article “What is Curriculum”,  Kieran Egan discusses the question of content as well as method and instruction of the curriculum. While teachers can be enthusiastic and passionate about their subjects, the transmission of knowledge will not be efficient and complete without use of pedagogical tools to engage all students at a deeper level. This is directly linked to the 7th provocation:  Should we teach students or subjects? In his study, Schulman (1987) addresses the question of the need for high school teachers to be experts in both content of their subject and pedagogy. He calls this: “Pedagogical Content Knowledge” or PCK. The pedagogy content is essential to ensure that all children learn effectively to the best of their ability independently of their social and cultural background.


References:
Campbell, C and Sherington, G 2006. The comprehensive historical high school: historical perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, Sydney.

Egan, K, 2003. What is curriculum? Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 9-16.

Mackinnon, A 1997. Love and freedom: Professional women and the reshaping of personal life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shulman, L 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no 2, pp. 4-14.