A ”good student” as defined or used to align with common-sense, would be able to follow the societal norms and expectations of what and how schooling should look like. This also includes the exceptions on how the students would act in this system. For example, in some cultures a “good student” would be able to sit at a desk, and listen to instructions. As compared to another culture, were a “good student” is excepted to move around, interacting with both peers and teachers to learn collaboratively. Either, example would define a “good student”, according to the common-sense roles in that said classroom and or community / culture. Students are more likely to be looked upon and classified as “good students” if they are born or grew up in the dominate society they are taught under. Students who are familiar with the costumes and expectations of the society they live in, will most likely understand the outcomes wanted from their school settings. However, that’s not to say ever student who is born into the dominate society is classified as a “good student”. For example, in North American school’s practises in the past, and still at times today had expectations for students to sit quietly and listen. However, for some students, ones who may have trouble focusing for long periods of time, needing breaks, may be looked upon as disruptive or be classified as a “bad student”. This “common sense” perception seen in schools and the expectations of students is limiting the learning possibilities. It is often hard to see and understand different learning need / styles but this common-sense perception should not be an exclusive teaching method. When a society, has an idea of the way in which the members should act. It is often hard to meet these expectations, to follow these set norms of the society, especially in an educational setting. However, at the end of the day it is up to us as teachers, to ensure all of our students have opportunities to learn, no matter their learning styles. Therefore, as future educators it is important to question the “common sense” set out by a society, and open our minds to different thinking, learning, and teaching practices. 

As I started my research for the assignment, a critical summary. The work of Lee Airton 

caught my attention. Lee Airton, is an Assistant Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies in the faculty of Education at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. Dr. Airton, has written many researcher papers, and the book, Gender – Your Guide: A Gender-Friendly Primer on What to Know, What to Say and What to Do in the New Gender Culture on gender-sexual diversity and queer theory in the Education system. Dr. Airton serves as an advocate for LGBTQ and gender fluid youth. In 2017, they were acknowledged for their work and received the Youth Role Model of the Year Award from the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity. Dr. Airton continues their work, and advocacy, they show and support all individuals and peoples’ right. 

            Dr. Airton research article, Leave “Those Kids” Alone: On the Conflation of School Homophobia and Suffering Queers had drawn my attention, which highlighted a subject I wanted to learn more on. The article examines queer youth, how they are coping in the present-day school system. It also goes beyond queer youth and look at the “queerness” in the school system and what that means. These concepts where described from very different perspectives. Queerness is asking us as educators to look at the subject instead of the individual. With this in hand, the door opens for anti-homophobia education to become impactful. 

            My next steps, is to find additional articles on the subject of Queer Theory in the curriculum. These articles could possibly serve as additional background information to Dr. Airton’s article. However, I would like to ensure a broad base of knowledge in order to have a comprehensive overview to this subject matter. With this review and subject matter being of great importance to enable my growth, I plan to use my time to conduct a in depth look at this topic. To have ample opportunity to recognize and assimilate what this research is examining and how, in order to continue on my educational path.

Curriculum development from a traditionalist perspective is widely used across schools in Canada and other countries. Think about: (a) The ways in which you may have experience the Tyler rationale in your own schooling; (b) What are the major limitations of the Tyler rationale/what does it make impossible; and (c) What are some potential benefits/what is made possible. Be sure to refer to the assigned article in your post; you may also include information from lecture if you wish.

Education and teaching have been tied to organization, and a systematic process related to curriculum theory and practice. The Tyler rationale has contributed and is widely recognized to the development of curriculum and instruction, still being used today. This dominant theory focuses on four basic sections, which are setting objectives, selecting learning experiences, organized instruction, and evaluating progress. In the article, Curriculum Theory and Practice, by Mark K. Smith, the article acknowledges the idea of curriculum and how it has been understood and theorized over the years in the teaching profession.

Going back to my elementary and high school years, which was not that long ago. I can say I did experience elements that echoed The Tyler rationale. I was taught subjects through systematic lessons in which the end goal was a formal examination administered by the teacher, graded and recorded. In addition, when I talk to my parents, there are similarities but also variants to this process that occurred in the generations that divide us. They talk about writing province wide examinations, regulated, administered and mandatory in all grades by all students. They gathered together in auditoriums, the day of the exams and everyone sat down to write these exams, grade specific and again province wide. As they describe this, I realize this type of systematic curriculum still continued for me. Teachers taught lessons/units and we as students studied the material, learning, and cramping the information as unit tests loomed in the air. This repeated over and over, in every subject and every grade. Eventually, every once and awhile there was an approach used that was familiar in these steps but also different. There was a divergent step or option, we the students were offered varying objectives to choose from, other than a formal, sit down exam. I remember in grade eleven, English Language Arts, the end assignment was given but this time there was an opportunity to the assignment. Presented to us were four options to complete the unit/lesson. In addition, if there was something, we thought would be an alternative, the student could review this with the teacher, get approval and use it for the assignment. This of course would have met the objectives and curriculum set forth but it did involve the learners themselves. So, learning is planned and guided but there was support being offered for the learners to be involved with planning.

Going back to The Tyler rationale, its platform can and has been criticized because of limitations and how it could have a negative impact on the learners themselves. Having everyone, no matter their unique learning styles, sit down and write a test could prevent true evaluation of each individual’s knowledge comprehension. For example, students that are not good test takers, ones that have test anxiety, writing formal tests could make it difficult to understand what they really know. On the other hand, even with limitations like these, there also are benefits to formal testing. Formal testing, may provide valuable information as to where students fit alongside their peers. Also, it will gauge were your students are aligning with other students in the province. This benefit will allow teachers to better support and adapt the learning needs of the learner. The Tyler rationale therefore will bring supports but also will carry cons that would need to be recognized by the teacher, especially when the educational needs of future learners continue to develop and evolve.  

Respond to the following writing prompt: How does Kumashiro define ‘common sense?’ Why is it so important to pay attention to the ‘common sense’?

In the article, The Problem of Common Sense, Kumashiro defines common sense, as what “should be” something that appears to be “a norm” or a standard for the society, (example summer break). Common sense in education is what the dominate society has set, in what students “should be doing’, and “should be learning. When, this common-sense approach is used, it reflects traditional normalcy provided only by the perspectives, experiences of certain people in the society at large. When schools look at teaching what “could be” instead of “should be”, views and questions of normalcy are confronted and could be viewed as abnormal, useless and dismissed.  This adoptive perspective of common sense has become so ingrained, routine and commonplace, that is has gone unquestioned for so long. 

Common sense is important to know and understand as it will guide decisions and develop perspectives. It is vital to go beyond the normalcy of the established perspectives of “common sense” established only by certain groups of people in society. Yes, common sense gives comfort because of the humanistic need for normalcy, but define normalcy. Understand that bias will exist, develop a common sense that will foster the norms of differences, that will support perspectives of all, go beyond all isms (racism, sexism….). Challenge the “status quo” by adopting a diversified “status quo”. This will allow a universal feeling which comes from knowing what “common sense” looks like without oppression or bias. Challenge what “common sense could be and by paying attention to the traditional “common sense” will foster knowledge, along with learning that will become in all purposes an “inclusive sense”.