Cycle 2: So...what should the CONTENT of curriculum be?

The esteemed John Dewey wrote that the "logically formulated material of a science or branch of learning, of a study, is no substitute for the having of individual experiences.”   In the Social Studies, this sounds almost exactly like the premise for Inquiry Learning...something that we have been trying to use, albeit with limit success, in BCPS for years.

Perhaps that is exactly what the content of curriculum should be...inquiry.  While working my way through the readings, I noticed that they tended to fit into one mold or another, either pedagogical theory or curriculum reform.  Both of these are valid topics, of course.  Yet for some reason, my mind always wanders towards a question that plagues me...if it was that simple, why hasn't it been done by everyone.  The reality is that the diverse nature of education, and within the field, the diverse nature of instructional content make theory difficult to apply.  Inquiry may be the exception, though not without failings. 

What if the content of all curriculum, State or local, learned or given, was experiential?  Obviously not all of it can be, at least not the way that it is most commonly done.  Yet I wonder what my Social Studies courses would be like if I could genuinely say that the content of my curriculum was not just a list of unit topics and lesson plans, but was inquiry and learning through problem-solving.  Most of us know the power of this sort of learning.  Instead of a teacher (me?) presenting to the students information regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the students are engaged in solving a historical problem: did President Roosevelt know that an attack was eminent?  Did he allow it to happen?  The work done to solve those quandaries results in meaningful, student-centered learning that transcends the classroom.  Dewey later writes that “nothing can be developed from nothing; nothing but the crude can be developed out of the crude- and this is what surely happens when we throw the child back upon his achieved self as a finality; and invite him to spin new truths of nature or of conduct out of that.”  Again, isn't this the purpose of inquiry-base curriculum?

Sounds nice.  Possibly awesome.  Maybe even...epic?  OK, "epic" is getting so over used...like "powerful".  If I hear one more person say "Oh, that was such a powerful quote" I'm going to powerfully gag...but I digress.

Our failings with Inquiry based learning in Battle Creek Public Schools has not been on the theoretical end, it has been in the application.  This may be the reason that the content of all curriculum isn't inquiry-based.  One would think that the sciences and mathematics would certainly be laden with it, given the problem-solving nature of those subjects, yet at Central it is not the case. Inquiry-based learning is seriously labor intensive, and the more challenging the environment, the more labor intensive it gets until it may not be sustainable.  Battle Creek Central is a stereotypical urban school, where one finds all of the stereotypical urban school problems.  Classroom management is easily the greatest of these.  When I was younger, more energetic, and apparently capable of doing all teacher-ish better than anyone else, I could manage a classroom with such ease as to feature a curriculum full of inquiry.  You know what...I have no idea whether I did that or not, or even how I did it if my evaluations are accurate.  Maybe I have changed, the culture of my building has changed, the kids have changed, the amount of flouride in the water has changed...I don't know.  What I do know is that I cannot seem to integrate as much inquiry into the curriculum of the courses that I teach.  I wish that I had an answer as to why.

In Cycle 1, I stated that curriculum is "a capsulated package of the knowledge that humanity has acheived, discovered, studies and published over time."  That is, as was noted, far to general of a statement, but one that is in line with my idealistic nature.  In Cycle 2, I have made the claim that the content of curriculum should be inquiry-based.  Perhaps what I should have said is that the content of curriculum should be authentic learning, reagardless of the discipline or subject.  Though not as idealistic, I do believe that statement is in line with the intentions of Dewey's theories, and the variety of curriculum reformers offered this cycle.


Sources
http://inquirylearning.ca/

For those new to inquiry-based learning, this is a nice introductory site that lays out the theory and application of this model.
http://www.saskschools.ca/~bestpractice/inquiry/index.html

This site, as is the case with the next one, are examples of inquiry-based learning in action in a couple of different venues, including our friends in Canada (eh?).  I find that I learn best when I learn from others who are doing, rather that just telling me how something should work in the land of theory.  I'd much rather take a look at the land of "SO THIS ACTUALLY WORKS IN YOUR ROOM".
http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/inquiry/index.html