Rola lekcji filozofii wobec programu nieoficjalnego w szkole

The Role of Philosophy Lessons in Context of Non-Official Curriculum in School Bohdan Chwedeńczuk has asked provocatively: what is the purpose of doing philosophy? We can treat this question as a philosophical one. Nevertheless in this article I would like to treat it as a question concerning education. Polish philosophical community basically agrees that providing philosophy lessons would be a valuable supplement for general education in Poland. However there is no agreement in case of how and what exactly we should teach in philosophy class. I argue that philosophy lessons are beneficial for students. My argumentation is based on critical theory in educational research, in which key theme is educational curriculum’s inquiry. I separate three kind of educational curriculum: hidden curriculum, null curriculum and informal curriculum. I’m going to argue that philosophy lessons are not only beneficial for future students’ lives, but also helpful for coping with school routine.

Skirmishes on the Border: How Children Experienced, Influenced and Enacted the Boundaries of Curriculum in an Early Childhood Education Centre Setting

<p>The notion of curriculum as contested was central to this thesis. In particular, the focus was on how children (aged from 8 months to 5 years) experienced and influenced the scope of curriculum and participated in the process in defining what constituted null curriculum in one New Zealand childcare centre. Qualitative methods were used to investigate this process of setting curriculum boundaries. Participant observations over five months yielded detailed observations, and these were supplemented by conversations with children which occurred in the context of a range of research strategies; children's perspectives have been foregrounded throughout. Data generation and analysis was guided by principles of the generic inductive qualitative model. Critical pedagogy and the sociology of childhood together provided the theoretical and methodological framework for the study, and 'strategies of dislocation' were devised to assist in seeing unfamiliar aspects in a familiar context. The central source of curriculum boundaries was found to be the assumed demarcation between adults and children; not only did this wider social norm influence the teachers, but it was also found to be embedded within the physical structure and organisation of the centre. It is argued this generational division conflicted with teachers' commitment to implementing sociocultural practices. The core of curriculum for children was found to be relationships with others. However, many relationships were characterised by a dialectic tension between a desire to establish relationships and be accepted within the community, and a desire to exercise control/power. It is argued that these two concerns were significant aspects of curriculum for children. Children's focus on gender and their individual interests also influenced the scope of curriculum, although children's ability to introduce interests depended upon how conducive the physical and social environment was to their expression. Teachers' and children's interpretation of what constituted null curriculum varied. Some aspects, and particularly the body, appeared to be null curriculum for all. Children used strategies of resistance to introduce new elements into the curriculum. Findings from the thesis are aligned with those of other recent qualitative studies in similar New Zealand settings and implications for the early childhood profession are discussed, particularly in relation to scrutinising the image of the child that is implied in practices, and challenging assumptions about the roles of adults and children, as a first step towards dismantling expectations that currently limit the potential scope of curriculum.</p>

Skirmishes on the Border: How Children Experienced, Influenced and Enacted the Boundaries of Curriculum in an Early Childhood Education Centre Setting

<p>The notion of curriculum as contested was central to this thesis. In particular, the focus was on how children (aged from 8 months to 5 years) experienced and influenced the scope of curriculum and participated in the process in defining what constituted null curriculum in one New Zealand childcare centre. Qualitative methods were used to investigate this process of setting curriculum boundaries. Participant observations over five months yielded detailed observations, and these were supplemented by conversations with children which occurred in the context of a range of research strategies; children's perspectives have been foregrounded throughout. Data generation and analysis was guided by principles of the generic inductive qualitative model. Critical pedagogy and the sociology of childhood together provided the theoretical and methodological framework for the study, and 'strategies of dislocation' were devised to assist in seeing unfamiliar aspects in a familiar context. The central source of curriculum boundaries was found to be the assumed demarcation between adults and children; not only did this wider social norm influence the teachers, but it was also found to be embedded within the physical structure and organisation of the centre. It is argued this generational division conflicted with teachers' commitment to implementing sociocultural practices. The core of curriculum for children was found to be relationships with others. However, many relationships were characterised by a dialectic tension between a desire to establish relationships and be accepted within the community, and a desire to exercise control/power. It is argued that these two concerns were significant aspects of curriculum for children. Children's focus on gender and their individual interests also influenced the scope of curriculum, although children's ability to introduce interests depended upon how conducive the physical and social environment was to their expression. Teachers' and children's interpretation of what constituted null curriculum varied. Some aspects, and particularly the body, appeared to be null curriculum for all. Children used strategies of resistance to introduce new elements into the curriculum. Findings from the thesis are aligned with those of other recent qualitative studies in similar New Zealand settings and implications for the early childhood profession are discussed, particularly in relation to scrutinising the image of the child that is implied in practices, and challenging assumptions about the roles of adults and children, as a first step towards dismantling expectations that currently limit the potential scope of curriculum.</p>

Hidden, Null, Lived, Material, and Transgressive Curricula

Alternative dimensions of curricula fall outside explicit and official curriculum. There is much more to teaching and learning than the formal, planned curriculum claimed by many teachers, administrators, and organizations. Beyond and within the textbooks, lesson plans, tests, and standards exist hidden, null (or absented), lived, material, and transgressive dimensions of curricula (to name only a few). Hidden curricula are messages that are sent implicitly, for example, giving students numerical scores on a quiz and using those scores to assess students as successes and failures functions as a form of micro-tracking, ranking students’ success and achievement in relation to one another in a hierarchical range. This scoring and ranking system implies that students are in competition with one another, that self-worth is evaluated with a score. The action of scoring and ranking itself teaches the lesson and is woven into the fabric of schooling, though it is neither explicitly stated nor explicitly taught (i.e., hidden) that success in learning requires winners and losers at learning. Null (or absented) curricula are topics that are specifically not taken up in the official curriculum. For example, although Protestant Christianity shapes a hidden curriculum of many U.S. schools, religion is largely excluded as an explicit topic of study in most state schools. This fulfills a claim of separation of church and state and religion’s obvious absence reveals a null curriculum. Lived curricula are the lived experience of the learner. For example, a student might experience being bullied, and this would comprise part of their lived curriculum, teaching lessons that are learned, retained, and tapped into over time, long after the specific encounters have passed. Material curricula (a term the authors coin in this article) are the material effects that curricula have on the learner, and more broadly, the world. For example, the grades and scores that students receive in school have direct effects on the future opportunities available to them as people. This is a material curriculum of sorting students into social roles and positionings, with accompanying material outcomes (e.g., a student is denied entry into college and further denied a class of jobs and their corresponding material aspects, such as salary and—in the United States—health benefits). Transgressive curricula are defined through the prism of teaching and learning in resistance to something, in the refusal of something, in defiance of something, or in disregard of something. These alternative dimensions of curricula exist anyplace learning occurs, not just in schools.

What Do You Mean It's Not There? Doing Null History

What happens when a researcher arrives at an archives, only to find that the materials requested are not in the repository? This article argues that when applying Eliot Eisner's concept of the null curriculum (what is missing is just as important as what is present), the absence of materials is just as significant to a researcher as the contents of present materials. To accomplish this, it uses a case from a larger study of General Education Board (GEB) funding in the US West comparing the holdings of the Rockefeller Archive with those in the state of Texas. Ultimately, archivists and researchers should do null history to recognize that rather than setting limitations on the project, a lack of evidence instead can be used to expand the project by applying the principles of the null curriculum. This article is not intended to be an interrogation of the archives themselves, but another lens through which the researcher can view (and an archivist can prompt) both the holdings and lack of holdings. The article is not meant to argue the semantics around the absence of the phrase “null curriculum” from the fields of history or archives; instead, it is meant to open the door to conversations about silences and the power of the archive.