Week 7- Summary of Learning Blog

During our final week of ECS 203, we were asked to create a final summary of what we have learned over this Spring Course. Even though it has been a fast two months of learning, throughout this journey I have encountered: epiphanies from my own schooling, realized truths about the curriculum, learned what Treaty Education is, and much more.

My Name is Baylee and this is my summary of learning!

Before taking this course, I understood “Curriculum” as the base and structure of learning and teaching for specific grades and subjects. I guess that is not necessarily wrong, but it is not necessarily right. I would not have imagined the political and biased opinions and intentions involved within the curriculum process as a whole. 

With a completely changed outlook on what truly makes up the curriculum, I would go at it from a different angle if I were involved in the making of one.  I would have content that is more Praxis model based, content that is more focused on the best interest of the students, teachers, and the community that surrounds us. I would like to include the opinions of actual teachers and those who have worked with students. I would want Indigenous representatives and Elders to be involved and to give us the proper understanding of teachings and lessons that are important to Indigenous culture, so that it can become important to everyone and taught correctly. I would like for there to be child and youth psychologists involved as well so there can be diverse and inclusive ways of learning integrated along with ways to achieve that. I would also like for there to be more instruction for educators, for there to be proper training on how to understand what is in the curriculum and how to get the information across to all the students they may encounter. I believe that there should be a way for teachers to ask questions and get more input on the content that they are teaching. Instead of there being a 50+ page document that educators have to read and create a lesson plan off of, there should be examples and direction to help the teacher teach.

I believe that a big part of being an educator is learning. We have to be constantly learning, learning to: adapt, change, grow, understand, admit to mistakes and wrong doing, to apologize, learn to healthily become better versions of ourselves everyday so we can help students do the same.

Part of growing always follows the fears of: what if I can’t help every student? What if I make a mistake? What if I am a bad teacher? 

I think that it is okay to have these fears. It is part of being human. Whenever these fears start to sneak into your thoughts, you have to make sure that you do not let your fears define you. Instead, you can use them as motivation to work towards being a better educator. Knowing that you have the best interest at heart and having the want and willingness to constantly be evolving, will only contribute to the betterment of who you are as an educator. 

Overall, this course has created a spark in understanding the conflicting opinions created by the curriculum and those teaching it that I experienced as a student and the curriculum as experience as an educator. I think that I will be a finer teacher after taking this course. I have a new understanding of what goes into the curriculum as well as what should go into the curriculum.

Week 6 Blog ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read and reviewed content that is based around mathematics as well as concepts from Inuit mathematics. What is the purpose of Math? While watching Gale’s lecture on Curriculum as Numeracy, she brings up the point that we have used and understood math- more specifically subtraction- ever since we were 9 months old. We are all Mathematical beings. Then there was the quote that “maybe math just isn’t for you” that Gale has heard, this is something that I have heard and said about myself my whole life. To see this, and to know that there is a new type of support coming from those teaching Math, gives me hope that there won’t be more students like me who start to sweat when the idea of playing a math game comes into question. Gale also quotes her definition of “Math” : “math is a study of a number of things, and it’s an exploration of a number of things, and its how to represent and talk about a number of things” she includes that math is about quantity- and relates this to more than just numbers. Patterns- its more than just repeating numbers. Relationships and shapes, they all have more importance rather than just from the numerical standpoint. Gale applies math to real life, not just assigning numbers to these concepts, but to realize the relationships these concepts have to everyday situations. Between all of the readings we discover the challenges pointed out with the Eurocentric way of teaching math especially when viewed through the lens of those learning with Inuit worldview teachings. One of the biggest differences was that it was about relationships and the whole body (Spiritual, Emotional, Physical and Intellectual). They also referenced how another way Inuit mathematics challenges Eurocentric math is the use of the calendar. Mentioned in Poirier’s article their calendar is not divided into set days like ours, it is neither lunar or solar; their calendar is based on natural, independently recurring yearly events. Another way that is expressed is that Inuit people have developed a system for expressing numbers orally and through oral traditions. Since their teachings are mainly oral, Eurocentric teaching methods, such as written form are not used. Recently I took a Math 101 class at the University of Regina. My math prof was one of the best, he taught me math in a way that made me understand it and come to like it. He taught my class math in all different bases, one of them was base 20, which is what the Inuit use. This gave me another perspective on Math as a subject.

When it comes to single stories, or the “danger” of single stories, the Ted talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie she talks about how the characters in the books she read were usually white, eating apples, talking about weather that was different than she experienced where she lived, and drinking beverages that she never knew about. Basically, she read about monotone, copy and paste, lacking diverse stories, which means she would write about monotone, copy and paste, lacking diverse stories. The questions I have been asked is: which “single stories” were present in my own schooling? Whose truth mattered? What biases and lenses do you bring to the classroom? How might we unlearn / work against these biases? Similar to Chimamanda, the stories I read always involved white characters who had both a mom and dad that lived in clean big houses with a medium sized dog named Rover. This is only one truth that is being shared, however, I never got to read about everybody else’s truths, all truths matter. The best way for us to unlearn and to work against these biases is to understand why the stories that were read to us growing up (at least in my grade and school) have negative impacts on everyone involved. We need to understand, recognize, and change. In my future classrooms, I will have books that involve all family types, skin types, situation types, sexual orientation types, animals, and more. I want to have books and stories that are inclusive to all. I want every student to have a story they can relate to, whether it’s about skin colour, having two moms, or about the fact that they too have a dog. I want to involve all stories so that it pushes for inclusivity, kindness, acceptance, support, and love. 

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 5 Blog ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read and viewed a few different articles about Teaching Treaties, Treaty education, and On what Terms we can speak on. The main prompt going into this week’s blog was to address what we think the purpose is of teaching Treaty Education/ content when there are few or no First Nations, Metis, Inuit peoples present. As Clair mentioned in most of her classrooms, there was a majority of white students. She goes over a few concepts- Treaty Education and Settler Education. Both of the topics connect with the idea of having students understand the true meaning behind past histories, current time events, and future actions, and the impact of what they are learning has. Clair spells out while she is teaching that even 8 year old students in her class who had zero involvement with any type of residential schools- were not even born when residential schools were happening- are out here saying they/we need to own what has happened. That right there is one of the main reasons why we need to include more Treaty Ed. We as a nation cannot move forward and provide the proper respect to one another until the work is done. We need to learn the true harsh facts, and teach the true harsh facts, to not move past, but to move forward with the information that we have gained and set everyone up for an inclusive and understood tomorrow. Clair also mentions how Indigenous daughters feel a barrier between themselves and success. This is because we have not pursued the moving forward aspects, instead we have created a target. Instead of making those around us feel like they belong, we created a divide. How do we move forward? We need to understand and feel the past, we need to resonate with the grief and the shame, then we need to see how we can change that everlasting feeling into power and togetherness. Now we need to include these teachings into daily practice so we are not painting a target on anyone’s back, we are creating a learned history and a new path towards the betterment of understanding culture. We need to create a space where we understand where the treaties are and what they mean. What they meant before and what they mean now. We need to understand the feelings that follow being a Treaty person and what it means to be a Treaty person. We need to understand privilege and what it means to recognize and take accountability. We need to be constantly learning, we need to understand the proper terminology and know when we are crossing a line. We need to understand the diverse lifestyles and traditions and include them in our lives and classrooms. We need to move forward.

What does “We are all Treaty people” mean to me? When I first saw this question, I was at a loss, I was stumped, what does it mean in general? What does it mean to me? After watching Claire’s video, it made me feel better. What I know from my past knowledge is that being a Treaty person is about living on the Land that a Treaty was negotiated a long time ago. I am a Treaty 4 person, and we who live on the Treaty land are Treaty people. But I never gave it more thought than that. When watching the video On What Terms can we Speak with Dwayne Donald, I realized that I truly do not understand what it means to be a Treaty person, so how can I teach about it? To me after the viewings and readings, I have formed a new constantly growing/ adapting/ changing vision on what it means to be Treaty people, it means to respect the land that we are on, respect the history, respect those that we share this land with, that this is not our land- we do not own it- but we live on it and with it and its nature, and it is to push for a society with togetherness. One thing to note is that it is not a set definition, but a viewpoint that is not set in stone. We need to bring those together who have been torn apart, the communities who were forced to no longer exist. Bring together all of us as Treaty People. Dwayne mentions how we miss each other, how there has been a disconnect. How the true problem is not with the information, but with the relationships along the way. We need to understand that there has been a divide created through and it has continued to be formed the way we have been teaching. In order to move forward we need to address the relationships, and create a new strengthened bond. 

Now to respond to the email. Claire goes over how she sets up her classroom, how she wants everyone to feel included. Being a Treaty person and talking about Treaty Education, more than discussing the information. It is about discussing the relationships that have developed on this Treaty land, it is about understanding and creating a new environment that opens up a safe space to grow and rebuild the tensions and relationships. I want to create a space for the future students I teach, while involving inclusive language and atmosphere. A safe space for people to ask questions and become bonded to one another- not through obligation- but through a want and a care. 

Thank you for reading,

Best, Baylee

Week 4 Blog ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read a few different articles that gave an understanding of the three learning theories. The three learning theories were: Behaviourism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. Over the past few weeks we have been going over a few different types of models in the curriculum, in example: Praxis, Process, and Product.

First I am going to go over Behaviorism. In my opinion, Behaviourism connects most with the Product curriculum model. The Product model is not the most student interest based, it is more focused on the end results/ outcomes of the student. When it comes to Behaviorism, this involves a repetitive structure based on measurable aspects of human behaviour. Some strategies used when it comes to Behaviorism is Classical Condition which was discovered by Pavlov. This includes training the individual with a stimulus paired with a routine or action to lead the individual to have an automatic response to the stimulus. This to me is very robotic. 

When it comes to individual experience and these concepts, I never thought too much about how structured I became as a student in my early education. When it came to our daily routine, right in the morning when the song “O Canada” came on we would immediately stop what we were doing and stand for the anthem with our arms by our sides while standing quietly or singing along. From grades K-8 we did this robotically. 

Next is Cognitivism. I believe that Cognitivism connects the most with the Process model of curriculum. The Process model is very middle ground when it comes to the two other models described in this blog. There is a strict structure, however, what is included in the structure lets students and teachers have a little more freedom in the sense of content. The overall experience is based on aspects other than just certain types of academia, which includes activities and student response- there is still a curriculum goal involved with this type of model. This connects to the Cognitive theory with the idea of touching on all types of learning: thinking/cognitive, feeling/affective, and doing/psycho-motor.

When I look back and try to remember where this model and theory was involved in my education, I think about one specific health class in grade 6. When I was around 11/12 years old, myself and my other classmates had to hollow out an egg, give either “him” or “her” eggs a name, and design it like how we would want our future babies to look (assuming that everyone in that room would want to have children one day). When I was younger, I really enjoyed this activity and had fun with it. There were specific goals in the curriculum that had to have us be  taught about how one day, you will have a child, which will happen if you have intercourse, as well as teaching us how babies are important and you have to be careful with them. 

Finally I will talk about the Constructivism theory. This Theory in my eyes connects the most with the Praxis curriculum model. The main purpose with Constructivism theory, similarly to the Praxis model, they both focus on the best interests and ideas of the students, teachers, and the community around them. This includes learning that is more diverse with its teaching methods, its content, and goes at the pace of the individual student while allowing them to form their own thoughts. 

This one was a bit more tricky for me to make connections to, after a while of trying to think up a past experience, I could not. They all connected to the Product and Process models more. This is pretty unfortunate and eye opening to me. 

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 3 Blog for ECS 203

During this week in ECS 203, we read Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools by Levin, B.. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction  (2008). 

The first thing I wanted to point out that I noticed right away was how it mentions that politics and curriculum go hand and hand. Not long after, it says how “Tinder (1991) describes a political system as “a set of arrangements by which some people dominate others” (Levin, 8). To me this shows some red flags. “Most policy decisions in education, including curriculum decisions, are made with little or no public attention” (8) To me, this is another red flag. When I think about education, I think about teaching students life skills and knowledge while providing a safe environment. I do not think about a place that includes the interests of the government, and not of the community, all while the people living in it are having to fight for survival. 

There was a highlight on research being a factor when it comes to building the curriculum, however, it only goes so far. I believe that research is a key part of building a foundation to which we can better the education for future students/ people. Taking the time and looking up what works and what does not work in the school setting so we can create a more accommodating environment where everyone can be happy and successful should be the main goal. 

Throughout the article, there was also a point brought up about teachers disagreeing with the decision process when it comes to curriculum. There was mention of it being Teachers vs experts. What makes teachers’ opinions on the matter invalid? Instead of it being a person vs person situation, it should be person + person vs the problem. Working together to form decisions that benefit all. 

“Curriculum decision processes depend on governance systems” (17). Not on students. Not on Community. Not on learning as an individual. Depends on governance systems. 

Another red flag.

We also went over the Treaty EducationOutcomes and Indicators Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2013. One of the first things I read that really stood out to me was “The Ministry of Education respects the federal government’s legal, constitutional, and fiscal obligations to First Nations peoples and its primary responsibility for Métis people.” (3). The words legal, constitutional, fiscal, obligation, to me make it sound like a chore. When this is a beautiful topic for students and staff to be learning about. It should have to be a legal obligation, it should just be in the curriculum. Another thing to note, the goal section was barely even half a page. I am sure that there were multiple tensions based on the Treaty Education Curriculum, which is why the words legal and a half page of goals were written out.

Overall, I believe that curriculum should be based on the students and what they need. Not about what the government needs. 

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 2 Blog for ECS 203

During class this week we went over some chapters from the two readings: Kevin K. Kumashiro’s Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice and A History of Education, by F. V. N. Painter. While reading these two pieces, multiple different types of perspectives came to mind. Here is a brief summary from my eyes when reading parts of the History of education which was published in 1886. To start off there are an abundance of terminologies and ideologies that in today’s society would be extremely controversial to go over in the classroom. There is an overuse of the word man, and plenty of references to God. There are also mentions of characteristics like being strong and brave, being the most important when looking at male students. The word discipline also comes onto the scene when talking about how one should be educated. It further goes on to teach those reading it about racist stereotypes, that are unfair and unjust. When information that is taught to sponge-like youth, when it is incorrect, it creates this domino effect of misleading information being spread throughout the population and generations.

On a lighter note, Kevin goes over some of his teaching experiences with specific kids and lessons. An Overall summary is about teaching children in a way that is a good fit and recognizing that all students learn differently. Us as educators have huge impacts on the students we teach. 

Some questions arise: what does it mean to be a good student according to “common sense”? From the traditional standpoint of what a “good” student looks like, would be expecting a child to sit still, and think what we want them to think. One thing to note is that it is not about what we want them to think, but about what we are taught to make them want to think. In other words, we are taught to become robots to make more robots. Robots do not have creative thoughts of their own, or have trouble sitting still in class, or struggle to wait their turn. Unfortunately our curriculum has become very copy and paste. Only recently are we starting to notice a change in welcoming inclusivity of those who think or learn differently. 

Now this gets into the more controversial side, however, sometimes- like Kumashiro mentioned- unfortunately sometimes you have to learn things that make you uncomfortable. Painter describes the most privileged students as those young white men who can speak proper English and will one day have a wife in the kitchen. In Kumashiro’s, he mentions how there were always the students who stood out, not intentionally, but because they could not “sit still”. That is where I believe some educators are stuck nowadays, similarly to Kumashiro, teachers have it instilled in their mind that if they cannot get a student to sit still and listen to what they are teaching, then they are a bad teacher. Unfortunately nowadays, a “good” student is a student that will sit at their desk, speak when spoken to, do their work- while exceeding the teachers expectations, all while playing like how a student should play. So if you cannot be “good” does that mean you are a “bad” student? The answer is no. It is outright sad to think that some students think that they are being bad all because they are not capable of sitting still.  Why is it a bad thing to regulate by wiggling- being “bad” with efforts of trying to be “good”. Why is it that students have to change and control their natural feelings to self regulate to our “norms”, why do they have to change but we don’t? 

Our belief of “common sense” is for children to conform to our strict expectations, when really, we should be flexible to fulfill the needs of all of the diverse learners.

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee

Week 1 Blog for ECS 203

During my ECS 203 class this week I read both The problem of common sense (From Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI). and Smith – Curriculum Theory and Practice. While reading these pieces, it definitely gives a different perspective on how others view common sense, Kumashiro writes it as “common sense does not tell us that this is what schools could be doing; it tells us that this and only this is what schools should be doing.”. Now to highlight the words could and should, this reminds me of a lesson I learned about in highschool and traditions. We went over the story called The Lottery by Shirley Jackson,

*Graphic and Trigger Warning Ahead*

Throughout the short story, when I went over it with my English class, the theme of tradition came up: even if it is tradition, does it mean it is a good thing? The winner of the lottery in the story ends up getting stoned to death by the rest of the community, all because it is tradition, to this community it is “common sense”.

*Graphic and Trigger Warning Over*

This relates to the idea of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”. Why do we have to follow what we should be doing, instead of what we could be doing? When I went to elementary school, we all sat in rows and were expected to sit quietly while the teacher educated us, this was common sense throughout all of my K-12 education. Now going through my education degree, I have been constantly changing my “common sense” and my new education has been showing me what is actually broken about that kind of system. There was a lack of inclusion and justice.

At the school in Nepal that Kumishiro taught at, he expressed that the curriculum model is exam and test based. Genders are separated and crowded into their spaces. Students prefer a strict, quiet, academic based classroom where if students have behavioural outbursts, they should be hit.

While reading through Smiths Curriculum Theory and Practice, the idea of common sense through this reading breaks curriculum down into “interaction of teachers, students
and knowledge.” There is more relationship building and evaluation of what the true best interests are for the students involved. It is more than just copy and pasting information from student to student assuming that they all learn the same way.

Now there are both pros and cons to this model. When using a more cut and dry method of teaching, limiting distractions, and putting the pressure onto students to know the information or they will not pass onto the next grade, this creates an environment when those who know the information are able to go further and learn all the information provided. The cons are that these students are going to struggle to find interests in anything other than school and the information provided at school. This is also a con for students who struggle to learn in this type of environment, many students learn in a variety of ways. It is hard to get to know what students really need when the main focus is on only the academic portion.

Best, Baylee