Go Curriculum Guide: Curriculum Guide for Go in Schools
“As I reviewed the teaching of Go literature, I failed to find any curriculum examples that satisfied several contemporary elements of curriculum development. First, there was no comprehensive approach to the development of Go curriculum and lesson plans. Second, there was no integration with the academic literature that was currently focused on standards-based reform. For 20 years in the United States, every state has developed standards that define academic learning goals for K-12 students. Go educators have a virtual gold mine from which to extract the lessons not only of curriculum development but also of Go teaching in light of these standards. Unless Go teachers can translate the standards approach into actual classroom practice in terms of what and how they teach and how they assess student mastery of the fundamentals of Go, they will have little or no effect on the formal development of not only novice, and amateur Go players, but also of professional Go players in the United States. In the field of education, research shows that “many schools lack understanding of the changes needed [to achieve standards-based reform] and lack the capacity to make them” (Elmore 1999). On the other hand, many Go teachers have used creative and effective strategies to increase student engagement and learning about Go. These Go teachers should record and share such practices with others who may have difficulty helping students achieve high levels of performance in Go.
“Another objective of my constructing this curriculum guide was to introduce the concepts of curriculum mapping, and integration. Heidi Hayes Jacobs pioneered the concept of curriculum mapping both as a horizontal as well as a vertical articulation of the curriculum across all subject areas.
“I have planned A curriculum guide for go in schools for not only the unprofessional Go teacher, but also for those whose backgrounds were not in education. Contrary to some people’s opinions, they found that teaching was not easy. While they knew something about go, they knew nothing about the art and science of teaching. I have met many Go teachers who were engineers or mathematicians. One of them told me that this publication would help them understand how to equip themselves with the educational tools to both help and to motivate others to learn how to play Go. If the teacher were at or above a basic skill level in Go, he/she could use this guide to help him/her to organize his/her own teaching program. If he/she knew very little about Go, I have discovered many fine books on how to play go even for adults. I have used Go software, for example the American Go Association’s Go starter CD, and other beginner Go software programs, which gave the basic rules, and techniques of the game.” Gordon Castanza
Go Lesson Plans: Lesson Plans for Go in Schools
“Educators’ support for the use of lesson plans ranges from the structuralist to the minimalist. The structuralist develops a lesson plan very much like a cartographer constructs a map. On the other hand, the minimalist asserts that filling in the small 2” x 2” box in pamphlets, that their publishers title “Planning Book,” are sufficient for them. They eschew taking the structuralist approach because, they say, it takes too much time and work. Besides, they know what they are doing (even though nobody else could tell).
“I chose the structuralist approach because it provided an extensive foundation for solid lesson planning with essential characteristics that took the guess work out of how to get where you want to go. Furthermore, I wanted to demonstrate both to educators, and to lay people, that lesson planning elucidated the act of teaching. Lesson planning reveals to anyone who wants to know not only the intent of the lesson, but also how the educator will assess performance to determine whether or not they succeeded in the lesson. Consequently, my use of the structuralist approach conforms with the educational research findings that emanated from the “school effectiveness” research of the 1970s and 1980s. I became acquainted with Kathleen Cotton’s work when I was the Superintendent of the Chatham School District (CSD) in Alaska. I involved the CSD in the Northwest Educational Laboratory’s Onward To Excellence school improvement process. Cotton (Cotton, 2000) redacted three decades of research.” These plans were developed to align with the Washington State then existing Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs).” Gordon Castanza