To solve this problem, I think we must first clarify the meaning of "of course".
There are broad and narrow meanings of curriculum.
In a broad sense, curriculum refers to the sum of all disciplines (i.e. teaching subjects) stipulated to achieve the training goal of the school or refers to the sum of various activities of students under the guidance of teachers. For example, middle school curriculum, primary school curriculum.
A course in a narrow sense refers to a certain subject. Like math class and biology class. In this way, the narrow curriculum has become synonymous with the teaching subject (discipline).
With the development of related disciplines and the in-depth study of curriculum essence, the connotation of curriculum has undergone profound changes. Curriculum not only refers to those explicit and formal teaching and education contents, that is, explicit courses, but also refers to those implicit and informal teaching contents that have a subtle influence on students, that is, implicit courses. Courses include all the in-class teaching contents organized according to the curriculum arrangement, as well as all kinds of extracurricular teaching contents organized in cooperation with in-class teaching; Courses are not limited to the static collection of subjects, but also include the overall arrangement of teaching order, process and time limit.
Therefore, in a nutshell, curriculum refers to the sum total of educational contents and process arrangements selected by schools to achieve educational goals, including various disciplines taught by schools and purposeful and planned educational activities.
Therefore, I think the significance and value of this course should be:
First, positioning.
Curriculum is the "guide" of all teaching activities. Our teaching activities must be carried out purposefully and in a planned way under the guidance of national curriculum to realize the development of talents, otherwise education and teaching will be aimless and meaningless.
Second, standardization.
With curriculum education and teaching activities, we can avoid "arbitrariness", combine the needs of talent development, standardize activities, and realize the all-round development of cultivating people.
Third, it is restrictive.
Under the background of open education and teaching, it is not reasonable to say that "restricting" education, but from another function of curriculum setting, I think the function of restricting is also somewhat off topic.
The so-called "restriction" is to make the activities more meaningful, that is to say, the content, subjects, class hours and other contents of the course are actually to guide educators to better realize the purpose and significance of education in a "restriction" way.
Of course, this does not include blind and unchanging implementation, which has changed but never left the general direction of "curriculum"
2. How do most course workers define courses? What about you?
As mentioned above, "course" refers to the total number of subjects that school students should study and their processes and arrangements. Curriculum is the planning and design of educational objectives, teaching contents and teaching activities, and the sum of the implementation processes of teaching plans, teaching outlines and many other aspects.
In addition to the above-mentioned "summary" concept of "curriculum" that is beneficial to educators, I want to talk about two other aspects of the curriculum from the narrow level of adapting to local conditions, which is beneficial to the development of our school itself:
First, school-based curriculum
Twenty-four years of junior high school Chinese education and teaching, after many national education reforms, has shirked its responsibility: the lack of Chinese literacy in primary schools has left me or our junior high school Chinese educators "helpless".
Please imagine: facing a group of children with an average score of less than 40 points in the class, facing nearly half of the students' basic literacy is a problem. Teachers, with course materials in their hands, face all kinds of activities, and everything is "seriously shrunk".
Every time we discuss, many kind friends encourage us to "start from the basics" and "start from the needs of children" ...
At this time, I have thought of the great necessity of school-based curriculum. Still think about the timeliness of the development and application of this course.
Second, the generative curriculum.
In nearly ten years of teaching, I feel guilty to say that teaching goals are often difficult to achieve. Because there are too many problems in the generation of classes.
I have had an informal survey: first, because of the "isolation" of curriculum learning; Second, schools in remote mountainous areas ignore non-main courses (except Chinese and mathematics), which leads to students entering junior high school with a "blank brain".
Sometimes I will say rudely: For such students, the content of education and teaching involved in the course has to be "started from scratch", and the development and application of the detailed "generative course" determines the quality of education and teaching.
3. What have you learned from comparing the education in China with that in Northern Europe and Hongkong?
For the first time, I watched Teacher Xu Li's "Excellent Imagination of Future Courses" and subscribed to her professional courses (more than 20 classes, need to listen to the recording again). Looking at the education in northern Europe and Hong Kong is very enlightening.
First, open comparison.
I feel that Nordic education is basically a fixed "don't teach anything", and education and teaching are very casual, which can be better done: there is no fixed method for teaching and no fixed method for learning. Teachers are relaxed and students are happy. The most typical ones are: playing at school and playing in middle school; Learning is playing, and playing is learning.
I can't help but envy and "fantasy". If this can be done in remote mountainous areas or places with conditions, students will not be tired of learning under the condition of insufficient awareness and poor foundation, and the problem of dropping out of school will not happen frequently.
China's "Hong Kong-style education" can be said to be institutionalized education (just like ours in Chinese mainland), and what they pursue or embody is "illiberal freedom".
I think: not being free is also a kind of freedom. Freedom is not to do whatever you want, but to do nothing if you want. Only by guiding students to distinguish right from wrong and defining their goals in life can such education be meaningful.
The mainland seems to be lacking in these aspects, which is worth learning from Northern Europe and Hong Kong.
Second, many people in the mainland can't imagine.
(1) Education is too purposeful.
Because of their strong purpose and aggressiveness, teachers and students in China are too tired in education and teaching, and the content and homework are endless.
(2) The difference is too great
Under the strong role of "compulsory education balance", regional differences are still very large. Judging from parents' cognition of students' behavior and educational decision-making, the differences in different regions are prominent, which leads to different goals and arduous tasks.
Of course, the country is very big, and differences are inevitable. What we can do is try to narrow the gap.