Author: Sarah (Page 1 of 4)

One of the fundamental differences between Inuit math and Eurocentric math is that the Inuit math, it is viewed that there are many ways to get to the same result. This is some that most people have a hard time getting their head around because Eurocentric ways are that there is one right way to get to the result, all other ways are wrong. I have many personal stories with this topic and many things that I want to improve on when I am a teacher. One common thing that I encountered is that teachers didn’t like it when students solved a problem a different way than what they had been taught in class. I was a good student, but I often didn’t understand the way that the teacher taught us, so I would go to other teachers and the internet to find a way that made sense to me, most teachers didn’t like that. The next difference is that Inuit math uses base 20, this stood out to me because I have (and many people) have only ever worked in base 10.  You see it everywhere; it makes the most sense to use because it is used in everything.

The last difference is that in Inuit math understanding is oral. Learning is based largely around spoken understand and saying what you know instead of writing and test taking. This is something that I love, the idea of solely judging someone’s ability and understanding based on how well they can take a test seems like a terrible idea. And being able to say and orally explain a topic actually gives you a much better understanding than anything else.

The most common single story that I had when I was in school, was that teachers always assumed that our one story was that we were students and nothing more. I found that it was a difficult bias to have against us. For example, if I couldn’t get homework done on time it was assumed that I was lazy when it was most likely because I had to work after school, and I had to pick between sleeping that night or getting the homework done on time, this is a mild example to what many high school students dealt with, many had to take care of their siblings or had to work because they had to help pay the bills. It was never that school was not important it is just that it is not the only thing that is important. Students also do this to teachers, assuming that they don’t have a life, family or friends outside of school. The way that teachers see their students, whether it is a biased view or through a single story, the way you view your students determines the relationship you will have with them.

For me, the teachers that got to know me as a person, not just as a student, but as a whole person were the classes that I did the best in. I also had teachers that were biased because they only saw me as a student, nothing more. At the time I didn’t understand why they didn’t like me, but I understand now that it has a lot to do with the fact that I saw school as important, but I also had other things in my life that were important.

One of my goals as teacher is to know students as more than just that, get to know what their interests are, what do they like/dislike. The relationship a teacher has with a student has a direct effect on how well the student does and learns. That being said this is not the only thing that affects how a student does, but having a good relationship with your students has a positive effect on your students

My response to anyone trying to teach treaty ed or dealing with students/ co-workers that don’t take it seriously is to take a few steps back and start with why it is important. As obvious as it is to you it may not be obvious to other people. Start with a video or group discussion, and maybe have some kind of assessment before you get too far into teaching. One of the common misconceptions about treaty ed is that you should only teach it if you have FNMI students in your classroom but as discussed in We are all Treaty People, that is not the case. It is important to emphasize that treaty education is just as important if you have no FNMI students or all FNMI students, it affects and applies to everyone, it is a large part of Canadas history therefore it is important for all Canadians to learn about it. Many people have the mindset of us and them and believe that it has to be one or the other. For example, the idea that treaty ed is FNMI history and culture and they are the only ones who should know about it, when is reality it is Canadas history and should be learned by all Canadians/ people living in Canada.

My understanding of the curriculum in terms of treaty ed is that it is not very well integrated into the curriculum. It has some places where it is in the curriculum, however it is not very well infused, there are some treaty ed outcomes but as for being infused into the curriculum, it is not. My experience in school was that the only classes that really dealt with treaty ed was English and social studies. Math and science didn’t really have any treaty ed components/outcomes.

The three main theories of learning are behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism focuses on teaching specific behaviors and rewarding for those behaviors to get students that have the behaviour that is wanted. Cognitivism has a large focus on how the students learn and allows for inquiry and curiosity but does not take into account individual needs. Constructivism is highly inquiry-based and allows students to take control of their learning.

I saw mostly behaviourism and cognitivism in my school experience. I found that teachers tend to use behaviourism in small ways in the classroom. For example, teachers sometimes did things like giving the students that settled down the fastest candy or something along those lines. Cognitivism was the most commonly used when I was in school, most teachers would do some inquiry, but it was for the most part it was structured and focused on learning the curriculum. I found that constructivism was used little to none and most of the teachers leaned towards the other learning theories. It was interesting to me because most teachers wanted to be inquiry based at let students take control of their own learning but most of the time it did not happen.

I have always wanted a classroom that I could do inquiry based and teach students what they want to know, unfortunately this is not possible because of the curriculum. One of the things that I always remember, and it always sticks with me is that so many students want to learn practical skills that they need once they finish high school. Many students are unengaged because what they are learning is irrelevant to what they actually need and want to know. I want to use cognitivism and constructivism in my classroom as much as possible.

In the article What Kind of Citizen? The politics of Educating for Democracy, three types of citizens are described, the personally responsible citizen, Participatory citizen, and the Justice-Oriented citizen. This article explained the three types of citizens as three levels of being good citizens. The responsible citizen being the one who “acts responsibly” (votes, volunteers, donates to charity etc.), the participatory citizen being the one who takes it a step further (runs a campaign, organizes charity events etc.) and the Justice-oriented citizen being the highest level of being a good citizen and tries to fix the problem at the root instead of just the results of what is actually going on.

In my experience in school is that being a responsible citizen was encouraged, there wasn’t much push for anything more than that. Most people wanted you to be a responsible citizen and vote, volunteer, donate etc. Schools should be teaching what is actually at the root of the problem so we can fix it. It would also teach a lot about society and how the world works if teachers and educators taught about the root of the problem and what we can do to fix the problem. This approach to citizenship focusing on being a responsible citizen limits how much you can teach about the social justice issues behind it. For example, if the curriculum only requires you to teach to be a responsible citizen, it is very likely that the curriculum will not allow teachers to teach the students to be justice-oriented, there won’t be much room to learn about the justice issues in society.

The approach the citizenship in a given place will show what is valued by curriculum makers. Since the government plays a large role in the curriculum, it makes sense that the government would want to shape the citizens that they want through the curriculum. The type of citizen that they are trying to make says a lot about the integrity of the government in that place. For example, if the government are trying to make only responsible citizens, it is an important first step, but it sends the message that the government doesn’t want its citizens to question the decisions that are being made in the local government. If the government wants Justice-oriented citizens, they are more likely to be open to the citizens challenging the governments ideas.