Category: Uncategorized (Page 1 of 2)

a) When looking back upon my time in elementary and high school, I can see the attributes that it formed for my world view. Major contributors to this would mainly be my friends and teachers. I like to think of my friends to a high caliber, but looking back, many made choices and believed things that I would disagree with today. Some even to the degree where I feel that it could change our relationship. Growing up in a small town, I understand that world views are not very diverse, and people tended to gravitate to the one that was the most popular. This ‘contest’ of opinion is something that I feel has allowed me to attempt to look for more than one story, as I never wanted to conform to one side (although this obviously happened). Teachers also were a major impact in shaping how I see the world. I feel as if everyone has had some really bad teachers, and as bad as they were for me at the time, they proved to be beneficial for me. Bad teachers allow me to see the problems with the education system and society today. They reflect the ignorance for the future, as they don’t feel the need to ensure the next generation is properly educated. Conversely, good teachers are what I remember as being the most influential to me. They reflect the change that is being made in the world, and in terms of how see the world, this is one of my highest priorities. 

    Biases have formed as a result of my upbringing and education. My entire life up to university had followed a line that is very stereotypical of a white male. There had been very little diversity in my life, and I think without prior knowledge of the importance of diversity, my biases would most definitely follow me to the classroom. Primarily, my knowledge of what is ‘normal’. I continue to find it challenging to see other ways of life being what others consider to be normal. I embrace the value in learning new things and understanding other perspectives, but I still find an unconscious bias towards believing what I believe to be right. I want to make sure that my students are secure and comfortable with their environment, and unlearning this bias will have a great effect on this. One way I feel could result in unlearning this unconscious bias is to stop generalizing ideas, people and the way people think. This is something that I feel is an incredible task, as generalizing is just something that people do and is virtually unavoidable. However, to work towards being the best educator I can be, I will need to work at avoiding making assumptions. 

b) Single stories were a major contributor to what I knew in high school. Things such rumors were the most prominent to me. Due to the small number of students in my school, when something was said, it really made no difference if the truth came out. Not everyone knew the specific person so their side of the story was seldom heard. This resulted in whatever they said having little to no chance of diffusing. In essence, the only truth that mattered what was originally said, as the full story never reached everyone. This led people to be continually impacted as rumors were often associated with labels. Single stories also allowed for ignorance in my school. Many conversations with those who I knew did not have a big effect on what they thought, as they believed their one-sided opinion was the only opinion to be had. The result of this was prejudice spreading in its own miniature cycle, one that probably started long before I was in school and will continue if educators do not influence students to deter from single stories. 

When looking back at my own math education, it seems to me that it did include oppressive aspects in what was taught. My math teachers in high school were very inclusive in their practice, so at first, I couldn’t see any inequity. When revisiting what I had been taught and remembering the way that I learned, there are definitely aspects of eurocentrism. Mainly, example problems played the biggest role. In my earlier years, where diversity wasn’t reflected on as a major priority, the examples focused on problems of the majority. Even in my last years of high school, the math problems where still majority based, although there were some questions that used international problems. For me, this stuck out to me as the most prominent form of inequity to the minorities, but I feel as if my teacher, who was very focused on diversity, allowed for discussions about how math was taught around the world, and was open to new methods that may be culturally different. 

 Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas surrounding math in many ways. One way is teaching math in the language of the Inuit people – Inuktitut. They teach math in Inuktitut until grade 3, where they switch to English. I feel as if this creates a foundation for these students, as learning math is already not an easy task. Students who immigrate to Canada at a young age are put at a disadvantage, as they have to learn math, as well as English at the same time. Another way is the basis that they use for math itself. Math in public Canadian education is a base ten model, wile the Inuit model is a base twenty model, with a sub-base of five. This is due to the cultural differences between the Eurocentric model that Canada has adopted, and the Inuit model. Both serve their cultural purpose in their own environments. I find it hard to picture a mathematical world where we don’t use base ten, but this is solely due to me being so accustomed to it. The one major way that I felt was most pivotal on the influence of mathematics education was language. Inuktitut is a language that is based on three vowels and fourteen consonants. Furthermore, it is a suffix-based language. This is very different when compared to English, where there is five vowels and twenty-one consonants. This language change acts as a barrier for Inuit students, and I can imagine it being very difficult to learn a new language to expand upon my education of a subject I had already started to understand. 

I feel as if my education provided me with limited opportunities to learn about citizenship. The three types of education were not mentioned during my education, although the values of each were taught subconsciously. During school, my understanding of the three types of citizenship had never been looked at consciously until now. I can remember teachers teaching students to become personally responsible, participatory and justice oriented, but not what they are outright. Primarily, citizenship was addressed in my education as more of an identity, which permits rights for people of certain citizenships. Out of the three, I believe personal responsibility was the aspect of citizenship that was stressed the most. This was mostly done through the social studies and history curriculums, as it could be considered that politics is a priority for Canadian students to learn. Informing students of how politics work is something I believe should be a priority, as politics has its roots in every other career and social sector. Personal responsibility is always being addressed in schools, through class activities to community service projects. This type of citizenship allows for students to encounter and relate to real-life situations of inequality and need. It can teach important traits such as empathy and urgency for change, as well as promoting integrity and hard work (in both themselves and others).  Contrarily, this creates limitations for those who feel the need for responsibility in order to address problems in society. For example, the marginalized groups in society are still taught to be personally responsible, but there may be social, financial or health-related restrictions that create difficulties in fulfilling what they are taught.

Dear whom it may concern, 

Education of such a thing like treaty education is a task that is associated with many obstacles. Personally, I think that people who do not believe in treaty education are simply not willing to learn about anything that may oppose their own beliefs. Social Studies 30 – a class that revolves around Canadian history – is something that is heavily influenced by the treaties. Due to this, I think that treaty education is something that should be a priority in Canadian education. The fact that your students, who are presumably all at an age where the understanding of why treaties were put in place and the lasting effects of them, do not comprehend why education like this is important is astonishing. In my own opinion, the purpose of treaty education is to ensure that society is educated about the lasting effects of the treaties, and how they have shaped Canada today. When remarks about relevancy are said, I find it difficult to understand why it is not important. Students and teachers alike experience the positive or negative effects of treaties every day, as the people of Canada are all treaty people. This means that as a person living in Canada, everyone inherits the outcomes of treaties. I would recommend that you emphasize this to both your students and coop teacher. If this does not work, I would also like to recommend showing them actual stories from people who have to live with the negative outcomes of treaties, and how it shapes the world they live in. One way I think you could do this would be through an activity where students can write a mock letter to someone who has had these negative experiences. I feel this allows students to connect with a real person, which hopefully triggers consideration of some sort.  I also have attached some resources that I have used to develop my own understanding of why treaty education is so important. 

Good luck in the future,

Dan Manson

• We are all Treaty People.
• “On What Terms Can we Speak?”
• Claire Kreuger’s blog here
• Claire Introduction
• Mike & Claire 

1. List some of the ways that you see reinhabitation and decolonization happening throughout the narrative.

            There are many examples of reinhabitation and decolonization in the reading. The first opens in the title of the first paragraph, A Return to Traditional Mushkegowuk Ways of Knowing. Through colonization, indigenous culture has been stripped as a result of assimilation conducted by European settlers. By reintegrating indigenous ways of knowing, such as that of the Mushkegowuk Cree peoples, those with a background that they cannot fully identify with are given an opportunity to do so. I also found the research components of the paper very insightful. The author incorporates research in order to show how colonialism resulted in the stripping of culture for indigenous peoples, by asking how indigenous communities perceive some of the Mushkegowuk Cree ways of knowing. One other evident piece that demonstrates decolonization and reinhabitation is the reasons included on why they chose to teach many different generations together to talk about the issues of land and water rights. By incorporating indigenous ways of knowing and talking about how such resources are consumed allows for a shift in their minds from ‘dominant ideas’ to ideas that are individual and are based on what one deems moral, rather than what society does.

 2. How might you adapt these ideas towards considering place in your own subject areas and teaching?

            My major is biology, and I would want to allow for students to explore the curriculum with a more individualistic approach. Students may have different beliefs, but I feel that theories should be explored. I would want students to feel welcomed to express their culture, but also be open to learning about theories that are a part of the curriculum. I think that many students may feel as if their beliefs are disregarded in science classrooms, due to teachers teaching theory as a fact rather than what it is – a theory. 

            My minor is physical education, and to incorporate ideas that consider place, I would like to allow students to explore how physical education is taught around the world, and the many ways that cultures within Canada teach as well. Physical education can be looked at from many perspectives, and I think the knowledge that can be taken is beneficial to every student. 

Before Reading:

            I think the original idea behind creating curriculum was to industrialize education. Since education serves such a large role in forming intelligence, traits, skills and so on, I think that its sole purpose was to fulfill this role in order to conform to what those in power want. This would mean creating ‘cookie-cutter’ citizens though the education industry. As time progressed, I think the curriculum slowly evolved to not only relay information deemed as useful to society, but also reflect national agendas and serves to create political presence.

After Reading:

            School curricula now looks to be an array of what is needed to be known in order to succeed. The majority of career paths that one may take influence all sectors, allowing for a well-rounded experience for students. This, however, is perceived by me as an ideal rather than a reality. The creation of curriculum is made up of effort to give the best education, while maintaining a balance of the wide spectrum of paths that one may choose. With this knowledge, I think that the influence of demographics plays a huge role in what is put into curriculum, as well as political climate. In order to enact changes to curriculum, government must produce compromises, which is not only difficult among representatives between competing parties, but with the public also. Therefore, curriculum is created and implemented on the basis that majorities still control what is put into curriculum, in order to either stay in power, appeal to society and create education opportunities that are considered to be ‘proper’ (which is whatever curriculum creators deem it to be).

            After reading this document, my understanding of mediation in regards to how curriculum is created has grown much deeper. Previously, I knew that people’s differences of opinion disrupt the implementation of new ideas, but not to the extent that they actually have. Time is a huge factor in today’s world, as new ideas and adaptions must be put forth by educators to ensure that curriculum, both formal and hidden, is being taught in a way that suits all students. However, with clashing ideologies about how curriculum is created, time passes at a rate that leaves creators almost always one step behind what is current and developing. 

            Something that concerns me after reading this document is the balance – or lack thereof – within the creation of curriculum. As governments are the primary implementors of curriculum, they are the ones who get to flip the switch in order to allow for change. School is as much of a learning environment as a political platform, which allows for students to be susceptible to change that appeases the majority, but limits individual experience. One quote from the reading I really liked and exemplifies this is in the conclusion. It reads “Curriculum decisions are often part of a much larger public debate that often extends beyond education to larger questions of public goods.” Since political decisions are never neutral, that would mean creation of curriculum involuntarily puts restrictions on those who do not confine within that of the majority. I mainly find this concerning because although people want what is best for them, they say that they want what will appeal to everyone. I think that this can be viewed as misleading and unclear, and may halt the implementation for real changes that need to be made. 

To be a good student in today’s society, one must conform to commonsense. Commonsense defines a good student as someone is a good listener, approachable and imaginative. I feel as if these aspects of being a good student are a part of the modern system of education. Looking back at my high school experience, I feel as if my peers that were most successful had traits similar, and also had good work ethic and were accountable for their work. I also think that for younger students, being imaginative and approachable allow for good teachers to use different methods of teaching to ensure that an individual is getting the best form of education for them. 

Students are privileged by this definition of commonsense because those who have not developed the traits are looked at as lesser in terms of intelligence. When observing others teach in previous courses, I have developed the opinion that children are all imaginative, but some lack approachability when it comes to work, discipline and respect. I think this privileges those who have developed such characteristics because everyone progresses differently, both intellectually and personally. When characterizing two students, teachers would be inclined to teach the student who is approachable compared to the one who is not. This creates an imbalance within the classroom and creates inequitable opportunity. 

I think perceiving commonsense as an idea rather than directive allows me to see the societal norms it creates. Previously, I believed commonsense to be a regular aspect of life, but lacked in seeing the marginalization that is associated with it. Now I can fully comprehend how commonsense only benefits the majority, and anything that doesn’t qualify as ‘normal’ is limited. From my own point of view, I see simple things as normal that other cultures would see as extraordinary, while things they do seem completely foreign to me. 

“The greatest sign of success for a teacher…is to be able to say, ‘the children are now working as if I did not exist.’” – Maria Montessori

I believe this quote emphasizes the independence that Montessori expects schools to teach students. When the highest standard of success is the students to develop an awareness of themselves and responsibilities, I think learning is taking place and paced correctly. For myself, I think that the knowledge of independence that the education system provides is ample, and it is evident that the successful teachers are the ones who push for it within their classrooms. Montessori believed that the pace of learning is individual, and this is something I feel needs to be recognized more today. I think that this quote allows people to look deeper at the hidden curriculum that they teach in their lessons. It is easy to see if a student can follow what is expected and complete tasks, but harder to see if your influence as an educator is shaping students’ ideas surrounding independence. However, I think that it also takes away from the educational experience. If the sole purpose of education is to shape the future generations of society, I think that independence is less of a priority. For myself, I think that I would judge success by looking at the humanitarian side of student development. Not that I don’t value independence, but I think being a good person is more important. I think that for teachers, this is a quote that can be used on a personal level with how they feel and teach. Those who agree with it may strive to achieve independence within their classroom. These said teachers will structure their lesson much differently from someone who values other traits in students higher. I think that more individuality would be in the classroom of someone who agrees with this quote from Montessori, while maybe a more social atmosphere would be created in a classroom where teachers have different values. In the time of Maria Montessori, schools were centered more around the knowledge and less of the actual learning experience, so I believe that the approach to curriculum that she brought forward was a big step for the shift to student-centric education. Compared to my own understanding of curriculum, I’d like to say that I agree with the quote, but I don’t think that is the ‘greatest sign of success’. I think that independence is an important lesson to teach, but I think that the actual process of education is not reflected though independence alone. I think that curriculum is reflected through understanding and healthy development as a whole. One thing I strongly agree with however is looking towards the children to deem a teacher successful or unsuccessful. In my own experience, I have seen teachers hold themselves highly due to organizational skills or mastery of a subject area, but lack in personable skills. This leads me to believe that curriculum can be realized as more of a learning experience and interactions between students and teachers instead of sets of information to be realized. 

Curriculum development from a traditionalist perspective is widely used across schools in Canada and other countries. In my own experience of schooling, the traditionalist perspective is the one I was primarily exposed to. My understanding of curriculum is very similar to western scholars, such as Ralph W. Tyler.

a) I think this is the result of my upbringing and my own experiences in the education system. Tyler emphasizes how change must occur within students, as this is the purpose of education, and I believe that a student-based approach to learning was the way my instructors taught me as I grew up. Specifically, I recall that while some classes were solely based around information retention, others such as my math and science classes worked towards the diversity between the levels of the students in my class. The curriculum in these classes was taught in ways similar to the Tyler rationale as they looked at the educational outcomes and organized the experiences that took place in order for students to attain the information, rather than just relaying formal curriculum.

b) The limitations of the Tyler rationale are evident and detract from the actual experiences of students, even though that is what could be thought of as the opposite of the approach. Firstly, students have very little input into what they are learning and how it is being taught. As education is student-centric, the planned program of activities just isn’t logical. Students all have different needs and learning paces, so when you treat education as a regimen rather than a collective learning experience, some can be left behind in the process. Education as a whole is to be planned, but not rigid, as a lesson may have to adapted multiple times to ensure all students are learning the material. Another limitation is the interpretation that behavior can be calculated and measured. It is uncertain that the successful or unsuccessful effects of one’s teaching can be known at the exact time of a lesson or experience. Thirdly, the interaction between teachers and students when this rationale is used is objective, straying away from the actual experience of learning. The interaction between a student and teacher is incredibly influential, and if teachers look at their job as only developing competencies in students, then the experience may be less impactful than desired, or negative as a whole. Lastly, unanticipated results are inevitable. Pre-determining outcomes can cause educators and students to dismiss the informal curriculum, or hidden curriculum, that is learned through interaction and does not appear as an objective. These outcomes of learning that are not predisposed are important to the development of students and can communicate messages and ideas that may not be educationally important or negative towards growth.

c) Although there are many shortcomings of the Tyler Rationale, I do believe there are benefits from it as well. Particularly, I think the last fault given in the article can be looked at from both sides. It can possess negative consequences if the interaction between student and teacher is weak and undesirable, but with proper interface, this can allow for development and growth in the student. I know this from example, as the lessons I learned from one of my teachers is the reason I wanted to enter the faculty of education. Furthermore, the teachers who I thought were lacking when I was in school also made me want to pursue education, as I know that they detracted from me and many of my peers’ experience in our schooling. Another benefit of the Tyler Rationale is that it focuses on experience and outcomes of learning. I think that since formal curriculum is based on outcomes and the actual experiences of students, it emphasizes what it means to educate, even though it misses the point of why education is not only shaped by what is formally taught, but all the ideas that surround how students learn and the differences that occur within schooling. I think that the knowledge of this specific rationale is important to have, but maybe not enforce as an educator.

How does Kumashiro define “commonsense?”

In the article, Kumashiro defines commonsense as a collective process of thinking that is subconsciously taking place as one goes about their life. In his specific case, the difference between the schooling systems in the United States when compared to Nepal are drastically different, along with the sense of commonality for those living in either country. As the author grew up in the US, his sense of how schools are organised and the actual experience that students take away is very diverse compared to those who they are teaching. This embedded ideology that she has poses as a challenge for them to teach, as “the American way” that is familiar to them does not conform with the principles of the “Nepali way” of education. The author states that commonsense is formed through routine, and is associated with a sense of comfort, and this creates norms. Overall, his definition of commonsense is that is a normality that is formed through experience and routine and can be easily overlooked when put into a foreign environment.

Why is it so important to pay attention to the “commonsense?”

It is important to pay attention to commonsense as since it is created by routine, which in turn creates norms, it can influence societies to form an oppressive culture. Kumashiro goes into detail about how oppression in schools is a commonsense, by allowing it to happen and not realizing. Commonsense allows people to become familiar with oppression, and without looking for ways to counter the normalities that society creates, there will always be oppression within school communities. The commonsense needs to shift from the mentality of diversity being a drawback to being advantageous into development. Essentially, what makes commonsense so important is that since there is no way around its practice, it must be addressed to ensure it does not create oppression and is rather utilized to constantly break out of negative forms of repetition.