“A hierarchy is based on the understanding that the things in a lower level are given significance meaning, and value by the next higher level” (p. 233, Nelson & Stolterman). While power is always/already negotiated and contested, all structures of hierarchy can be problematized as sites of potential oppression -e.g., racism, sexism, classism. Nelson and Stolterman’s education schemes are no different. Based on their diagrams, we would pose the questions that follow: Can’t the internalization of knowledge be important in its own right? Why is making/producing -e.g., painting- more important than acting/doing -e.g., dance? Are we okay with identifying people with only routine expertise as incapable of being creative and innovative? Do people really need to be held accountable to everyone else when taking risks? Why can’t learners start asking important questions from the very beginning? What does courage mean when taken outside of the context of class, gender, race and other constructions of identity? Is there a place for serendipity, intuition, and disruption?
Another problem with hierarchical schemes is that they create standardized and fixed trajectories. “Desired outcomes, in other words, ends are made visible and are successfully achieved with mindful, intentional aiming” (p. 243). But such schemes tend to result in the types of changes that Cuban refers to as incremental rather than fundamental, for they largely leave “intact teaching routines that students’ grandparents visiting these schools would find familiar.” (Cuban, p. 7) Curriculum hierarchies perpetuate business-as-usual and are therefore implicated in the propagation of capitalist-meritocratic ideology. As Cuban puts it:
“Incremental changes are amendments to current structures, not deep changes to or removal of these core components schooling…Incremental changes-including creating new academic; courses, extending the school day or year, reducing class size, raising teacher salaries, and introducing new reading or math programs-do not alter the basic structures of public schools. They correct deficiencies and improve existing structures. They are add-ons. Many promoters of change in schools call such changes “tinkering,” usually in a dismissive way, because they want “real reform” or fundamental reordering of existing structures.” (p. 3).
On the other hand, Nelson & Stolterman analogy of baking a cake (p. 236) illustrates their view of education as formulaic and outcomes-based. But not every proficiency and mastery is demonstrable, sometimes the process is more important than the product, and often it is the unpredicted outcomes that turn out to be the most exciting and important. Furthermore, the outcomes-based model leads teachers to reduce learners to being merely instrumental to program outcomes rather than viewing them as individuals entangled with multiple constructed/contested identities and possessing their own goals. The qualitative action research design model posited in IDEO gives teachers more room to build relationships with learners which can lead to all sorts of amazing things.
“Qualitative research methods enable the design team to develop deep empathy for people they are designing for, to question assumptions, and to new solutions. At the early stages of the process, research is generative — used to inspire imagination and inform intuition about new opportunities and ideas. In later phases, these methods can be evaluative—used to learn quickly about people’s response to ideas and proposed solutions.” (p. 32)
In an attempt to design an educational activity which embraces the importance of process over product/outcome, student lessons would not be teacher driven -i.e, top-down, but driven by student knowledge and interests. Student identities can be acknowledged when they select their own research topics and design and implement their own projects. The teacher provides support and guidance as needed. Teachers can approach group work in a more structured way at the beginning, but lessons can always be liberating in giving students important choices and in assessing the process of collaborating at least as much as a notion of ideal completeness. After a couple of practice sessions even this diminished level of hierarchy should begin to disappear, how much depends on factors such as learner age, and the instructor’s role mostly becomes one of technology and presentation expert. What this means in terms of changes to teacher education programs is another question.