The Naturalistic Approach to a Comfy, Cheaper, and Multifunctional Couch

     Lately, I have been learning about the ways to revamp a school's curriculum.  Call it fate or destiny, but this curriculum development course has me thinking about the various ways I make changes in my own life.  Most of the time, I know that a change needs to happen, but do I really ever break down the reasons why they need to happen?  For example, I have recently made a major change in my diet and have become vegetarian and pescatarian.  My blood type is Type A, and I know that Type A's are vegetarian by divine design, with the added consumption of fish.  I didn't arrive at this conclusion by reason alone or by reading a book about it.  I began to think about the killing of cows, chickens, and pigs.  I began to consider how they must feel when they see their offspring killed or their parents.  Quite frankly, it left a rotten taste in my mouth.  I have read numerous books on the benefits of eating veggies and fish only, so I had the knowledge of why it was a great choice to make the switch, but I never considered how the animals I was eating may be feeling.  Knowing that I had consumed a hamburger that came from a screaming cow, well, let's just say I won't be making that same mistake again.  

    Curriculum changes need to arrive in the same way.  The input of all parties needs to be considered.  Teachers, parents, administrators, and students need to bring their thoughts, ideas, and opinions to the table of curriculum change.  Several other factors need to be considered, also.  Test scores, time spent on lessons, and relativity to students overall are additionally helpful.  Data helps these changes to make sense.  Of course, humans are not machines, but the time teaching and learning in the classroom needs to be productive and well-spent.  A lesson about photosynthesis may not be relevant to Eskimo Indians living in the Arctic Circle, but a lesson on survival in the tundra may be.  The curriculum needs to reflect what is relevant and useful to its students.  

    I particularly like the naturalistic approach.  I like looking at other alternative methods for the change that is needed without doing a costly curriculum change.  Would there be a less expensive way to fill in the gaps of learning by offering teachers, parents, and students other learning resources?  Teachers are the ones who will be delivering the lessons, and students will be the ones who will be learning what is presented to them or required of them.  Ultimately, it comes down to these two and their needs.  Offering students the opportunities to learn in new ways, not only broadens and deepens understanding, but it also creates a responsibility for learners to own their education.  For example, community businesses can become involved in offering extra credit to students for things such as money management, smart shopping choices, buying a car or home, etc.  Students building a bench in the community park, rather than the city council paying and installing one is another approach that could fill in the gap in understanding civic duty and engagement.  

The linear process of the technological approach is great, also, but there is always a possibility that something may be missed when progressing from one step to the next.  Additionally, each step takes time and therefore hinders the initiation and progression of the next step.  The technological approach is great when the need has clearly been identified, but the data is required to justify the change. Personally, I don't believe that you can have both in the same process. In my opinion, the technological approach hinders the creative flow of the naturalistic approach.  

Ultimately, the approach that is used comes down to your choice of couches.  Will you buy a sofa that looks great or will you buy one that has multiple ways in which it can be used, for a fraction of the price? Go for the comfy, cheaper, and multifunctional couch! You won't regret it.