Curriculum Making as the Enactment of Dwelling in Places
Tóm tắt
This article uses an account of dwelling to interrogate the concept of curriculum making. Tim Ingold’s use of dwelling to understand culture is productive here because of his implicit and explicit interest in intergenerational learning. His account of dwelling rests on a foundational ontological claim—that mental construction and representation are not the basis upon which we live in the world—which is very challenging for the kinds of curriculum making with which many educators are now familiar. It undermines assumptions of propositional knowledge and of the use of mental schemas to communicate and share. At the level of critique, then, dwelling destabilizes contemporary ideas of curriculum as textual, pre-specified content for transmission or pre-defined objectives or standardized activity. The positive claims of dwelling are equally challenging, for these are that the world is a domain of relational entanglement in which an organism can be no more than a point of growth for an emergent ‘environment’, and meaning only inheres in these relations. The paper articulates how differentiation (of learner, salient meanings, knowledge, skill and place) are possible in such an ontology, and how curriculum making can be understood from this perspective as being the remaking of relationships between these.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aoki, T. T. (2005). Curriculum in a new key. In W. Pinar & R. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a New Key: the collected works of Ted T. Aoki. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.
Biesta, G. (2004). Mind the Gap! Communication and the educational relation. In C. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 11–22). New York: Peter Lang.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cameron, J. I. (2004) Some implications of Malpas’ place and experience for place ethics and education. Environmental & Architectural Phenomenology Newsletter (Winter).
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning, media, architecture, pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gough, N. (2004). RhizomANTically becoming-Cyborg: Performing posthuman pedagogies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(3), 253–265.
Gough, N. (2007). Changing Planes: rhizomatic play in transnational curriculum inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(3), 279–294.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.
Grumet, M. (1995). The curriculum: What are the basics and are we teaching them? In J. L. Kinchoe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Thirteen questions reframing education’s conversation (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.
Hart, R. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan, UNICEF.
Hung, R. (2008). Educating for and through nature: A Merleau-Pontian approach. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(5), 355–367.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2006). Rethinking the animate, re-animating thought. Ethnos, 71, 9–20.
Ingold, T. (2008). When ANT meets SPIDER: Social theory for arthropods. Material Agency, 209–215.
Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.
Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). Back to the basics of teaching and learning: Thinking the world together (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Jones, O. (2009). After nature: Entangled worlds. In N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman, & B. Rhoads (Eds.), A companion to environmental geography (pp. 294–312). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Knudsen, A. J. (1998). Beyond cultural relativism? Tim Ingold’s “ontology of dwelling” Working Paper: 7. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Latour, B. (2000). The Berlin key or how to do words with things. In: P. M. Graves Brown (Ed.). Matter, materiality and modern culture. London: Routledge, pp. 10–21, p. 20.
Mannion, Greg, & Adey, Claire. (2011). Place-Based Education Is an Intergenerational Practice. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(1), 35–58.
Mannion, G., Fenwick, A., Nugent, C., & I’Anson, J. (2011). Teaching in Nature. Commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage: Report Contracted to University of Stirling.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
Osberg, D., Biesta, G., & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 213–227.
Pedersen, H. (2010). Is ‘the posthuman’ educable? On the convergence of educational philosophy, animal studies, and posthumanist theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(2), 237–250.
Pinar, W. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Somerville, M. (2010). A place pedagogy for ‘global contemporaneity’. Education Philosophy and Theory, 42, 326–344.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinneman.
Thrift, N. (1999). Steps to an ecology of place. In J. Allen, D. Massey, & P. Sarre (Eds.), Human Geography Today (pp. 295–352). Oxford: Polity.
Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: natures, cultures, spaces. London: Sage.