Eisner's ideas were an excellent orienting source for me. I have been hearing about the "hidden curriculum" since the beginning of this program, and this provided important grounding information. In general, I conceptualized many of Eisner's ideas as the broader, curriculum level of the reflective and unreflective teacher theorized by Grant and Zeichner. Particularly in the second half, about the null curriculum, Eisner asks the reader to consider whether omissions in curriculum, either in content or intellectual processes, are the product of ignorance or intentional action. For me, this echoed Grant and Zeichner's call to interrogate school policies and practices to weed out traditions that have outlived their utility.
To return to the hidden curriculum, though, I find it interesting how aware we are about how environment shapes the learning process; yet, classrooms and schools look very similar to how they did 50 years ago. I attended a school that was very similar to the one Eisner described. There was no seating designed for comfort, I only experienced privacy in a bathroom stall, and the classrooms were assigned by like subject. Especially when I reflect on this last point, I wonder how this organization would have discouraged me from routinely interacting with students with alternative study focuses. I spent most of my time in the "math and science" hallway, but I rarely passed by the singular art room at the back of the school. When we organize by convenience, we miss underlying messaging. In this case, I'm thinking about scale (hallway vs. classroom) and location (central vs. difficult to stumble upon). I recalled this experience when I stopped to consider Eisner's point about the subliminal messaging of teaching Art on a Friday afternoon. This scheduling makes it seem like Art does not require focused attention and is less intellectually valuable. Of course, this would have shaped my early ideas about the centrality of certain subjects and the extraneity of others. Art was being portrayed as a hobby or reward, not a rigorous subject.
My takeaway from Eisner is to consider the hidden curriculum when designing my future classrooms. As Esiner says, the hidden curriculum doesn't necessarily have to be negative. If we consider the totality of the learning experience (scheduling, seating, time/place allocation, etc.) often and with an open mind, the hidden curriculum can enhance the explicit one.
You raise an interesting point about how the physical organization of schools, like the subject-specific hallways or the timing of classes, can shape students’ perceptions of the importance of different subjects. I wonder, how do you think we can redesign classroom spaces or schedules in a way that promotes more interdisciplinary interactions and values all subjects equally? What might be some practical steps schools could take to avoid reinforcing the hidden curriculum in these ways?
ReplyDelete