The 7 Characteristics of Living Things

Yippee!! Another term and another class has begun! We spent the better part of two days talking about “lived- curriculum” and narrative inquiry.  When I sat down to plan the science lessons for the week, I started to see parallels between what I was planning and what the cohort had been talking about the day before. The science lessons that I was planning are about Living and Non-Living things.

 There are 7 characteristics of living things. Living things:

1.       Breathe/ respire

2.       Reproduce themselves

3.       Excrete by-products

4.       Experience movement

5.       Respond/adapt to environment

6.       Consume energy for food

7.       Grow 

As an educator, I often hear talk of “lived curriculum.” Is then educational curriculum a living thing? Does it do each of these 7 things? Or, is curriculum a non-living thing? Inanimate? Or even dead?

 How do the 7 characteristics of living things apply to curriculum?

1. Breath and Respiration

The Oxford English Dictionary gives two definitions for the word inspire. 1) to “fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative,” and  2) to “breathe in (air); inhale.”

The origin is as follows:

“Middle English enspire, from Old French inspirer, from Latin inspirare 'breathe or blow into' from in- 'into' + spirare 'breathe'. The word was originally used of a divine or supernatural being, in the sense 'impart a truth or idea to someone'” 

Does our educational curriculum fill students and educators “with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative?” Does it breathe life into our learning, expanding our desire to explore and learn more? 

2. Reproduction

When new curriculum is written, is it an exact replica of the previous curriculum merely packaged in new fonts, designs and language? Or, is does the new curriculum contain some of the DNA of the previous curriculum plus new DNA from a more modern source? Does it copy or even resemble the parent document, or does it rebel from its ancestors by introducing and trying new things? Does it do all of these things all at the same time? 

3. Excretion

Is there a tangible and measureable product that results from teaching this curriculum? More specifically, does this curriculum result in lasting learning experiences and behaviour changes that are functional in a student’s future? 

4. Movement

Is the curriculum portable? Can it be taught anywhere at anytime? Is this curriculum accessible in the classroom, in the computer lab, on the playground, in the park, at home, or on an experiential trip? Is the curriculum culturally accessible to everyone in the intended audience? It is accessible to all demographics, sexual orientations, genders, learning styles, ethnicities, or abilities? Where does the curriculum take us physically and mentally? Does it “move” us emotionally?

5. Response and Adaptation to Environment

Does the curriculum respond and change accordingly with world events? Does it respond and adapt to evolving technology? Does it respond and adapt to a more worldly and social-media savvy student population? Does it prepare students to survive in an ever-changing world?

6. Feeding

What is required of educators and students to keep the curriculum alive and breathing? Are there resources needed? Is there time and mental and physical energy needed? Does the curriculum feed off its deliverers like a parasite, sucking their energy and enthusiasm? Are the expectations too lofty for the students? Or is there symbiosis with the educators, students and curriculum alike giving and taking from each other? 

7. Growth

Does the prescribed knowledge in the curriculum lead to further exploration? Is there a ripple effect of learning, discovery and exploration? Does it allow educators and students to grow as learners, problem solvers, thinkers, doers, seers, be-ers?

The answers to each of these questions are, of course, subjective and a matter of perspective. In my mind, educational curriculum is a highly regulated set of documents that are the intellectual property of the government. It is written through consultation with educators, government employees and sometimes students and the public. It is highly regulated so that all students can be assessed in a largely similar way. It is highly regulated so that we CAN compare apples and oranges and so that we CAN put square pegs in round holes. Whether intentional or not, curriculum serves to assimilate and enculturate the student population by deciding what they need to know.

I believe in a “lived curriculum”- one that is more elastic and organic than traditional curriculum. A lived curriculum allows students more autonomy in choosing what they learn. It allows both students and educators the freedom to follow passions and curiosities, to not worry about “covering the curriculum” word for word. A lived curriculum is an authentic curriculum as it is one that follows the inspiration of students. It contains both old and new curricular DNA, yet may rebel and seek out new, uncharted territory. A lived and authentic curriculum “excretes” the product of lasting learning experiences and behaviour changes in the students. It is accessible to anyone anywhere because it is THEIR curriculum. It has the freedom of movement because any situation, exploration or curiosity can become the curriculum. An authentic and lived curriculum is one that adapts and changes with the world, with the population and with technology. It is in symbiosis with educators and students, each giving and taking from each other. It allows for growth of the students and educators, who are themselves, students.

How an educator presents the curriculum is paramount to its “lived-ness”, authenticity and vitality. Allowing oneself and one’s students to move freely within the framework of the Prescribed Learning Outcomes can generate a lived curriculum. One can still “cover the curriculum” when exploring the unique and seemingly off-topic inquiries of students.  Students and educators who learn through a lived curriculum will be far more prepared for world outside of education as they will know how to adapt, think for themselves and follow their interests.

Is then educational curriculum a living thing? Does it do each of these 7 things? Or, is curriculum a non-living thing? Inanimate? Or even dead?

The choice is yours.