COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAM DELIVERY:
|
|
Community participants in the evaluation project helped us to see that for many members of rural communities, 'distance education' is really the opposite of how it is conventionally defined. For them, distance education occurs when community members have to leave their communities -- travelling distances in order to access education and training. Using the Generative Curriculum Model, education is both spatially and socially 'closer to home', keeping students in close proximity to sources of knowledge and support in their own ecologies. Community-based education: What's in a name?
The implications of basing a program in the community and involving the community throughout the delivery emerged in the evaluation project as one of the most distinctive features of the Generative Curriculum Model -- distinguishing it from 'good, constructivist, participatory pedagogy.' Instructors at mainstream campuses who were asked to comment on the model and compare it to their own teaching experiences pointed to the difficulty of 'doing' generative curriculum in programs where students are at a distance from their home communities. The absence of community in traditional university education - and the exclusion of community even in some programs that are physically located in the community - create major challenges for making professional training relevant: students are not practicing with and receiving input and feedback from the people who they are training to serve. This comparative view of varying educational terrains came sharply into focus through the evaluation project. In their accounts, many participants in the evaluation research pointed explicitly to the links between community-located program delivery, which enabled community inclusion in the education process, which led to community development. When the community is allowed entry into the education process and invited to play meaningful roles, the impacts of the training do not end inside the classroom; community members carried the training program with them into the broad ecology of children's lives. I believe that if I had taken these 17 students and offered the program off reserve, we would have had a success rate of 20 or 25 percent. So what is the difference? Is it because we offered it here? That's one reason, but I think it is mainly due to the generative curriculum. What that implies to me is more than just a book curriculum, much more than academia. I think it is a total involvement of the community in ways such as bringing in Elders, making the community part of this. The way it was offered was unique. See also
|