A school, as defined by the S.C.C.E. in the document Catholic School (1977) “is a privileged place of integral formation by means of systematic and critical assimilation of culture”. Accordingly, the task of a Catholic school “is fundamentally a synthesis of culture and faith and a synthesis of faith and life: the firs is reached by integrating all the different aspects of human knowledge through the subjects taught, in the light of the Gospel; the second in the growth of the virtues characteristic of the Christian.” Therefore, the educational program in a Catholic school should be envisioned as a process aiming at students' transformation and learning. This principle seems to match the outcomes-centered curriculum model of Lorrain A. Oznar in Creating a Curriculum that Works. Essentially, the strength of the model may be in the outstanding opportunity of connecting educational outcomes and objectives with the educational philosophy and mission of a values-based and learning-centered Catholic school. As a result, the connection of these factors may provide suited conditions for the synthesis suggested by the educational document of the Church.
As Oznar suggests it, the outcomes-centered curriculum model works when change occurs in the mindset (output mindset) of individuals, and similarly when administrators, teachers, parents, students, and community collaborate by focusing on significant learning. As a result, it is expected that a shift will occur from isolated responsibility for learning toward the responsibility of the whole school community. The interdependence may prevent professional isolation of teachers, but at the same time well-defined outcomes and objectives focused on significant and measurable learning may transform the attitude of students so as to enhance their awareness of being responsible for their own learning. These are some of the very significant benefits of outcomes-centered curriculum design and implementation.
Further benefits of this model may be identified as increasing teacher creativity. Not only do we have to work collaboratively, but also we have to select rich content knowledge and to use a variety of teaching strategies in order to improve students’ learning. Subsequently, thanks to the outcomes-centered curriculum model, in our decision-making, at whatever stage of our work, we may focus on relevant content as well as choose adequate pedagogical strategies from a large pool of opportunities. Inherently, thinking from the significant learning perspective, teachers may see more clearly or objectively the needs of students, and as a result, adopt better teaching and learning strategies. In addition, higher objectivity will make possible for a teacher to predict more exactly the quality of learning and also to improve the process.
When fallowing the process of outcomes-centered curriculum, there are, however, to be considered some challenges as well. One of them may be, as a matter of fact, the quickly changing world, and also the increasing divergence in the needs of students. It seems to be a difficult process, when keeping the pace of change and adapting to as fast as demanded by the new circumstances. Concretely, in such a world may be a hard challenge to reach a working agreement among the many collaborators involved in the process of creating a relevant curriculum. The goals, and therefore the suited outcomes may differ in many ways.
As regards challenges that teachers may encounter, their role ought to undergo, in many aspects, a radical change. The way of working, planning, and taking decisions indicated by the outcomes-centered curriculum model demands a great ability of continual adaptation as well as to increase the value of pedagogical knowledge and skills. But, the task is even more complex when pedagogy is very much a changing knowledge. In addition, pedagogical creativity also means use of more complex strategies, which may demand more resources, and most importantly the scarcest resource, time. Furthermore, to change the professional isolation of teachers in order to adopt the more complex collaborative way of working could also be a hard challenge for many. I would be very pleased to read about teachers’ experiences of implementing outcomes-centered curriculum model. Which have the concrete advantages been and what kind of troubles may occur on the process?
Finally, it seems that the outcomes-centered curriculum model may not only change the way of thinking and relating in education, but also indicate the need of important systemic changes at organizational level. However, as regards significant learning, this model may hopefully help us to serve better and also to fulfill the purpose of Catholic school as “a place of integral formation”.
This is a very substantive critique. I agree with many points. Here are just a few ideas:
ReplyDeleteFirst, for the educator, especially those from the "old-school," collaboration must be a learned art. Pedagogical turf wars were not unknown in earlier days and to some extent are present during the current era.
Another issue is also significant. The impact of technology and information explosion has meant a loss of control over content. With the digital era, information is constantly replenishing, the sources seemingly interminable. This alone necessitates collaboration with colleagues. One simply cannot go it along anymore and be effective. Also, the marketing of information to students is a prerequisite which engenders collegial sharing of strategies, a key component of the output mind-set.
From my experience I have found that the truly great teachers, whether of an earlier era or not, always intuitively collaborated with colleagues; their search for knowledge enduring. In this way, collaboration is a time-honored tradition. It is just that in these times all, not just a few enlightened individuals, must share & seek information in order to remain relevant.
Finally, I would agree that there is a higher probability of objectivity in outcome-centered curriculum. The strategic planning is akin to that found in the business world, which has had significant success with this approach. Less subjectivity in pedagogy produces more clarity and predictability, always key aspects of meaningful teaching.
You asked, "I would be very pleased to read about teachers’ experiences of implementing outcomes-centered curriculum model. Which have the concrete advantages been and what kind of troubles may occur on the process?"
ReplyDeleteHere are my immediate thoughts. However, this is anecdotal. I'm curious what others think.
Advantages:
- There is higher student engagement.
- There are wonderful ongoing conversations with colleagues (even if you end up agreeing to disagree).
Disadvantages:
- The output model takes more prep time to set up than the input model because it likely involves more than the teacher lecturing/showing a video/doing a worksheet. (However, that is a bit of a bad excuse if the school can provide prep time.)