Does standardized government curriculum have enough flexibility built into what is taught to cope with rapidly changing technology? How is this incorporated? How could this be incorporated if a curriculum is lacking?

Open ended outcomes or outcomes that directly make reference to technology are few and far between in Saskatchewan mathematics curriculum. If we examine the mathematics curriculum from K-12, while some curriculum outcomes are marked with a [T] tag to indicate that technology could be incorporated, there are few direct references where the language directly requires students to use it.

No direct references to the incorporation of technology appear in K-4 curriculum outcomes. We see technology requirements begin to crop up in some outcomes starting in Grade 5 with SS5.7. This continues through Grade 6, with references in N6.1, N6.3, and SS6.5. The phrase “with and without the use of technology” starts to crop up. Curiously, it is then absent from Grades 7, 8 and 9 outcomes, but returns in Foundations and Pre-Calculus 10 (FP 10.7), Workplace and Apprenticeship 20 (WA 20.9), before vanishing from all other outcomes through to the end of Calculus 30.

Indirect references are more common (the T tag). The first one shows up in Grade 4, in SP4.1. There are 4 references to technology in Grade 5 (SS5.5, SS5.7, SP5.1, N5.1) and 5 references to it in Grade 6 (SP6.1, SP6.2, SS6.5, N6.1 and N6.3). Now we could go through the rest of the curriculum meticulously and document all of these uses, but long story short, these indirect references could be looked at (simply) as encouragements for teachers to incorporate technology into their instruction for these outcomes.

So while some curriculum requires the use of technology (teacher’s choice), most of the curriculum doesn’t. Technology also changes rapidly and curriculum does not. Curriculum revisions can take years of consultation with stakeholders, followed by years of adaptation and implementation within the system. Curriculum revision is also dependent on the commitment level of the government (and the funding they allocate towards it) to renewing it. Technology tends to be pushed forward in the private sphere.

I’ve taught in several different scenarios but we’ll use a specific comparison. Teaching in the K-12 sphere vs. teaching as a sessional lecturer. In the K-12 sphere, I am constrained with regimented curriculum outcomes that students must achieve and while I retain the professional autonomy to determine how to move students towards those outcomes, ultimately the outcomes are the same for me and other teachers of that subject regardless of our group of students. When teaching as a sessional lecturer, I am NOT given regimented curriculum outcomes. Instead, I am provided with the same overview of the course (according to what is approved at the university) and then I determine the course content and smaller learning objectives based on that (and what the course was previously).

I don’t think K-12 curriculum should adopt the same model for curriculum and course content as a sessional course, but I do believe there are some strengths of both systems that could be merged into a better model. Practically speaking, the skill level of a teacher in a subject area can influence their confidence and competence when teaching courses related to that subject. Having a skilled teacher provide instruction within their area is likely best for students. However, depending on your geographic location, school division funding and availability of resources, teachers may end up teaching courses outside of their expertise. A sessional instructor is hired for their expertise on a specific topic. A standardized curriculum is valuable if you end up outside of your comfort zone as you can source resources for it from other teachers in the division or province and know that the resources you are getting line up with what is intended to be taught. An open curriculum is valuable when the instructor is an expert in the topic as they can keep up with current developments in their field. The open curriculum has the flexibility to immediately incorporate changing outcomes, pedagogy and technology. While the standardized curriculum can still incorporate changes in pedagogy and technology, the outcomes themselves are fixed. Even if an outcome is outdated, teachers are still expected to guide students towards them.

Technologically flexible curriculum would likely incorporate certain outcomes that were more open ended or flexible. For example, in a history curriculum, this could be an outcome on current events. Science curriculum already includes some student driven investigation (SDS outcomes) which allows the curriculum to adapt to changing needs/areas of interest. I do think further adoption of these curriculum design elements by governments will be crucial in years to come (as our society continues to advance and more specialized instruction is needed). There are even “special project credits” where students can “create their own curriculum” as long as it is overseen by a qualified teacher/administrator. I think moving education curriculum requirements in a direction where the students themselves drive portions of their own curriculum. A special project credit on a piece of industry software in an area that a student wants to pursue as a career is one example of how increased adoption of curriculum flexibility can drive innovation in our society.

I would also argue that mathematics curriculum tends to lack this element. While some specialized instruction with technology (for example, the adoption of Geogebra or DESMOS as a core teaching tool in a specific classroom) does occur in classrooms, I have only witnessed this when the teacher has a high level of skill, both with mathematics and technology. And while the mathematics itself may not change much, the way it is applied in society seems to change frequently.

Providing some curriculum outcomes that allow the student to engage with the current field of mathematics (for example, a curriculum outcome that lends itself well to a research project on a mathematician, an overview of current mathematical resources or a specific example of how mathematics is used in society). Students could even engage with current mathematical tools and do presentations on how these tools are relevant to teaching and learning mathematics. Students could even design a curriculum of personal mathematics (with consultation from an instructor) that would be relevant to their own life. I don’t feel like the current state of mathematics curriculum is particularly bad either (there’s lots of good mathematical topics to engage with), but I do think there are areas that (with simple changes to curriculum) could generate student interest in mathematics, bring relevance to certain topics in mathematics, and allow students to engage with mathematics curriculum in ways that matter to them.

I think I could keep writing on this topic, but for now I’ll just post this.