In the normative idea of curriculum, curricula ideas (a mix of ontology and epistemology) are reduced to content (syllabus), and learning construed as a linear path from ignorant to knowledgeable, where the teacher is the one who knows.
This normative idea is reinforced through the technology of the Learning Objective. Having just taught a class on LOs and got the participants to re-work their courses in light of this I fell upon a different idea, that of Emergent Outcomes. Now, I know why Biggs has developed the idea of learning objectives – its intent was to design in equity and not let teachers privilege those who already ‘get it’ and neglect those who don’t.
But it all too readily becomes a closed circuit – as many participants in my class argued.
And that’s when I came across emergent outcomes. Emergent outcomes are conducive, I feel, to the connectivist approach and rhizomatic learning in that knowledge and learning are seen to emerge from the context of learning or practice. As is becoming clear to me from exchanges with folks who were on #rhizo14 learning objectives are multiple, located (initially) in each individual (and we know from experience that despite setting LOs for our courses all students will have their own and develop new ones as they go through).
So, as I slowly lean in towards #rhizo15 my objectives are loose.
I have a recent experience that taught me to be open and resist the desire to place too much apparent order on events. For a moment, during the recent #TJC15 (Twitter Journal Club) my attention was taken away from the buzz of tweets. On turning back towards the dashboard I realised that I was ‘lost’. But lost implied that perhaps I SHOULD have control. But, following Jacque Ranciere, what if I simply enacted openness, rhizomatic thinking, and waited to see what happened?
I stepped back, I waited, and a cluster of words rose up to capture my attention.
Let’s hope I can maintain such equanimity.