Whenever people talk of ideal teachers, students, or ways of teaching students, they talk Utopia. The process of teaching cannot be made perfect, it can only be improved. The results depend on both the teacher and the students, still, the key element is the atmosphere, which must be created by the teacher.
Van Brummelen talks about the important things that most of us know, but that is as far as we have to do with them. The idea is kept in our minds; it gets rustier each curriculum and remains untouched.
However, there are some changes to improve the situation.
The four curriculum orientations suggested by Van Brummelen are rather intriguing in terms of their individual approach and the hidden similarity between them.
At first, I would like to talk about each of them separately.
The first one, which presumes traditional learning, provides the basis for further learning. It gives the common concepts to create the overall idea of the world and its values, the sciences that contribute to the world cognition, and makes the view open and complete.
The next structure of the curriculum is the Cognitivists, or Mastering, Orientation. This one is aimed at practicing the obtained skills and is characterized by a strong and clear structure, which is subdivided into several steps. This one is close to the previous structure, but it works on the knowledge already obtained with the help of the previous orientation.
The fourth structure is the Experiential Orientation. The head idea of this one is that the students should learn on their own, without the teacher’s unnecessary intrusion. This is quite close to the idealistic concept of studying, but then comes the question of the role of the teacher in these studies. Is it just about drawing a plan for the students to keep to? The point is rather doubtful and it presumes the ideal students as well, which is impossible. Compared to the previous two, this structure is harder to put into practice.
The fourth one, which is the Christian Orientation, seems to be the most impossible of all. Its idea of the students taking the knowledge through the filter of the Bible is an interesting one, but, again, it recruits mostly the believers and it means a certain influence of the Bible concepts and notions. In an ideal world, this would lead to total understanding and compassion, along with the empiric and theoretic research concerning the world and all the living things within its boundaries. However, there has always been a little difference between religion and church. The latter could take too much influence. This is a matter of trust, and people have not yet reached the stage of trusting in each other.
Compared to each other, those orientations seem absolutely different, yet they are all about the learning process and they are trying to make it better.
Touching upon the problem of responsibility teaching, I think it must be somehow acknowledged by the students themselves. There should not be anything like the “okay-I-will-learn-that-God-only-knows-what-for” thing, and it must be taken as a part of their culture and morals. This is by no means “taking the definition for granted” (DEeBoer, 63).
The teacher’s role at this point is extremely important (Watson, 41). This is when the teacher becomes a model for the students to follow. And, taking examples of the teacher, they will form their own concept of responsibility and its necessity.
Actually, it is not that the students will feel the essence of the responsibility right from the start. But as they grow, they will take the things that they have been taught for granted. And that is how they will make decent people
Works Cited
DeBoer Peter P. Educating Christian Teachers for Responsive Disciplineship. Christian Studies Today. New York, NY: University Press of America, 1993. Print.
Watcon, Keith, Celia Modgil, Sohan Modgil. Power and Responsibility in Education. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1997. Print.