Blog Post 2 - Everything Old was Once Something New!

The idiomatic expression “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!” has been a favourite of mine for as long as I can remember.  I’m a traditionalist at heart, and would say that my teaching philosophy began firmly in the academic rationalism stream.  Certainly, when I first started teaching in the early 2000’s, I leaned heavily on a tradition-bound framework emphasizes the cultivation of “the child's intellect by providing him with opportunities to acquire the most powerful products of man's intelligence”(Eisner & Vallance, 1974, p.12).  In other words, clear content goals, standards, programs, and instructional materials, followed by tests to assess mastery.  I was wary of anything that didn’t look like the way I had learned back in the 80’s.

While I still believe there is value in this approach (in moderation, of course), experiences throughout my career, and in particular PME 810 (Integrated Planning, Instruction and Assessment) have gradually won me over to a more balanced approach to instruction and curriculum.  The baby and bathwater idiom became a bit of a crutch and an excuse not to innovate, and was a mantra that I didn’t really fully believe in anymore.  Currently, Pratt’s ideal resonates with me: “…in an ideal world, teachers would not adhere to only one perspective of the curriculum; they adopt concepts from the different curricular conceptions to fulfill commitment to human well-being” (Pratt, 1994, in Al Mousa, p.29).

In “There’s too much to teach: Cultural wealth in an age of scarcity”, J.R. Martin explores the value of both the old and the new in establishing what she calls ‘cultural wealth.’  The fight between traditionalists and reformers often results in each doggedly hanging on to and asserting the superiority of either ‘the old’ or ‘the new’.  Martin makes the point that “just as it is a mistake to turn one's back on the wealth generated by the new scholarship, it is unwise to dismiss old, indigenous practices and know-how out of hand” (Martin, 1996, p.5).  In other words, don’t get stuck in either rut.  

Martin also recognizes that due to the abundance of cultural wealth (which she defines as cultural content ranging from artistic and scholarly products to institutions, rituals, beliefs, skills, and values) we need to realize that there are multiple educational agents responsible for imparting the plethora of knowledge that exists, and is worth imparting to the current generation.  Schools, home, museums, churches, workplaces, vocational institutions, and communities need to shoulder the burden as well, as partners.  In other words, she encouraged educators to have open minds in their approach to both content, and the purveyors of that content.

Maybe I’m stretching the metaphor a bit, but perhaps we should acknowledge that the baby and the bathwater are both important.  We shouldn’t be afraid of tried and true methods, just as we shouldn’t shy away from adding more innovative approaches.  Martin notes poignantly that “those old roles and responsibilities were themselves once brand new” (Martin, 1996, p.9).

I think this is a good start in my journey, and in future posts I hope to relate my learning to my overarching question about the place and value of technology in the classroom.

References:

Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37 (Master’s Thesis).

Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Martin, J.R. (1996). There’s too much to teach: Cultural wealth in an age of scarcity. Educational Researcher, 25(2), 4–16. doi: 10.3102/0013189X025002004