Chapter 5: Curriculum as a Framework for Discovery

Kutz, Groden and Zamel present curriculum in Chapter 5 as the creation of an environment, inspired by studies of cognitive/intellectual development and SLA, which fosters in students both engagement and responsibility.  The authors discuss conflicting views on the relationships between language and thought (does language shape thought or vice versa…?) before coming to the conclusion that “language and thought are related and interwoven in complex ways, that that the development of new ways of thinking and new uses of language (including writing) are deeply interactive” (p. 79).  In other words, learning fancy language does not lead a student to deeper and more complex thought, and on the flip side, the use of simple, non-standard or “error-ridden” language does not indicate a lack of deep thinking.  What can take place, however, is writing which supports the interaction of language and thought, reflection, the expression of complex ideas and “the sort of dialectical and metaphorical thinking [the authors] hope to foster.” (p. 79).

With this theory in mind, Kutz et al. present ideas about the academic discourse community and bridging the gaps between the diverse cultural, linguistic and social backgrounds of students and the discourse of the “academy.”  They wish to engage students in the academic community through discussion, inquiry, argument, thought and the construction of knowledge in meaningful contexts.  It is assumed that:

• Students bring to the classroom cognitive and linguistic competence
• Language is rooted in thought “and can only be acquired in association with the ideas and meanings [language forms] will be used to express.” (p. 81).
• The acquisition of language involves acculturation, participation in a society, and learning to use language in its appropriate forms
• Writing, like language, is acquired in meaningful contexts. 

The framework for this curriculum rejects restrictions set forth by traditional SWBATs, SLOs and the depositing of predetermined knowledge into students minds. Instead, students should have the opportunity to construct knowledge through active inquiry, working their way through ambiguity and complex processes.  “When we conceive of curriculum in this way, writing becomes a means through which students keep track of their perceptions, questions, proposals, explanations, trials, discoveries, frustrations and conclusions—a means, to an end in itself” (p. 83).  “The end” in this type of curriculum simply involves ideas, questions, interpretations and understandings.  Students and teachers both participate in this environment to reshape and challenge it. 

According to Kutz et al. effective writing curricula includes the following:

•      Enough structure to support ss in their intellectual inquiries; opportunities to practice a variety of language uses and forms
•     A focus on a particular topic, which is challenging and important. The work is intense and engaging and provides intellectual experiences.
•     The courses are interdisciplinary.
•     There is opportunity to gain insight into cultural perspectives.  Students representing marginalized populations see their own cultural perspectives in course material.
•     Work in the classroom is linked to work outside of it.