Digital Summary Of Learning

Oppression in mathematics

Throughout my schooling mathematics was a class where there was either a right or a wrong answer and a set way of getting to that answer. This way of teaching could be oppressive to students who learn in a different way than others. Different ways of thinking about a math problems weren’t taught or encouraged because the way that was taught in class was considered as the best way. Everyone was expected to do math in the same way. As a student coming from a francophone school and comparing what I know about math to English students, I’ve realized that the processes are always the same no matter it be in French, English or another language and the same equation will result in the exact same answer.

There are several ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purposes of math and the way that it is taught. Inuit math focuses on the more practical aspects of life. They learn math in order to do everyday things and they learn it in a way that will help them in doing so.

Curriculum and Treaty education

I found this week’s reading especially interesting and pertinent because the question of why we must learn treaty education in schools is always a commonly asked question by students and even teachers. Coming from a school with no aboriginal people, I myself asked this question as a student. With this reading and lecture I have begun to understand the answer to why treaty education is important for all of us and that this understanding is possible once we know the meaning of being treaty people. “We are all treaty people”, is a commonly used saying but it isn’t until now that I begin to understand it.

When learning treaty education, we are not just learning about aboriginal people and their history we are learning about the history of the land we all live on. What is important to understand is that treaty education is directly linked to all people, aboriginal or not. Our way of life, as Canadians, is based on these treaties. It is because of treaties that we are able to buy and sell land. A treaty, by definition, is an agreement between two parties. Therefore, by only teaching about treaties as an aboriginal subject we are ignoring the other half of the agreement. In my understanding, the statement, “We are all treaty people” means that because everyone who lives in Canada is living on treaty land, we should all be learning about it equally. Everyone is affected by treaties in some way, whether positively or negatively, so it is our responsibility as citizens to know our own history. Treaties are not historical events, they are living, breathing documents that affect everyone in Canada whether we realize it or not.

As someone preparing to enter the teaching profession, I feel ill-equipped to teach treaties in the classroom. It is my goal to learn more and be able to answer my own questions as well as those of my future students.

A critical pedagogy of place

Throughout this narrative, we are given examples of reinhabitation and decolonization. When learning about the Mushkegowuk Cree concepts of land, environment and nature, the author of the narrative speaks of the importance of reinhabitation of Cree beliefs above European beliefs. One of the ways that reinhabitation is shown in this narrative is when the group of elders, youth and others in between go along the river to reconnect with their natural environment. This connection to the land is necessary for indigenous youth to reconnect with their cultural identity. Because there is an intergenerational language loss due to residential schools, the reintroduction of the Cree language is another example of reinhabitation. An example of this language gap would be the loss of the use of the word “paquataskamik” for the natural environment by the elders replaced by the word “noscheemik” by the youth to refer to their community. One example of decolonization presented in the narrative is the renaming of rivers and territories with traditional Cree words. Another example would be having community discussions regarding extraction of resources on traditional territory.

As a French language teacher, I would try to make a connection between indigenous and French cultures. As someone that comes from a predominantly white community I would encourage my students to makes connections between their own and the indigenous culture in order to have a better understanding of the plight of indigenous people in Canada.

A “good” student

This week we were challenged to think about what a “good” student is. In my mind there are no set instructions on how to be a good student, everyone is different and will succeed in different ways. Although there is a common image of the perfect student, it is important to consider that this image may not be the only one possible.

According to the common-sense, a “good” student is someone who listens attentively in class and only questions what is meant to be questioned. A good student will learn what is meant to be learned and be able to show this on a test.  They receive good grades and excel in evaluations. The students that are privileged by this definition of a good student are those who can sit still, listen and absorb information to later memorize and be tested on. By this definition I am considered a good student. I have always excelled at memorization and do very well on tests and evaluations. This definition makes it impossible to view students who do not fit this description of good students as well. Students who struggle to sit still, have troubles memorizing, and question the wrong things can also be good students just in a different way. Students who question the unexpected, for example, bring a new perspective into the classroom which is perhaps even new to the teacher. This definition of a good student makes it hard for teachers, parents and peers to see the students who act up as good students because they were never given the chance to show what they know in a different way.

Autonomous and ideological models of literacy

In order to identify the frames of literacy in curriculum, one must first define the autonomous and ideological models of literacy. The autonomous model refers to the importance of the technical aspects of literacy. This model is very skills-based. It suggests that once one learns to read they can then use those skills for all other aspects of reading such as comprehension and reading to learn. The ideological model is more culturally sensitive. This model suggests that literacy is not just technical skill and decoding, it is more about knowledge, identity, and culture.

 

The curriculum that I examined, was the curriculum for grade three French first language from the 2014 Éducation fransaskoise curriculum. Both autonomous and ideological models of literacy are present within this curriculum. The autonomous model is present in the French first language curriculum. This is evident in the emphasis put on the structure and composition of the French language. This includes conjugation of frequently used verbs, determiners, word agreement, and determining whether words are masculine or feminine. As important as these aspects are, the ideological aspect is equally emphasized. Because French is a minority language, French literacy is a primary component of the culture. The curriculum states that learning French as a first language allows the student to think, understand, act, communicate, and develop their francophone identity. Emphasis is put on exploring and connecting French language to global citizenship. Learning the French language develops a sense of belonging to the francophone community thus making both models equally prominent within this curriculum.

Curriculum development

Before reading:

I think that curricula are developed by the ministry of education with the help of past and present educators. I think that teachers and professors have a key role in the development of curricula because they are the ones who follow it and know how it works when it is applied in a classroom. I believe that curricula are based on results of the past, and modified to be used today.

 

After reading:

Curricula is developed at a national and provincial level. The government has final say on what is and what isn’t implemented in curricula. Curricula is developed through a collaboration of teachers, experts, and members of the ministry of education, however, it is the government who has the final authority. Once curriculum is developed then it is the teacher’s responsibility to implement the new curriculum into the classroom.

In reading this selection, I learned that policy and curriculum development is often affected by public opinion and political agendas. Policies in any area of government are driven by public approval, and curriculum development is no exception. Because of this, new aspects of curriculum are introduced and then changed rapidly. An example of public opinion changing curriculum would be the change in how reading is taught. It went from putting emphasis on phonetics, to whole language, to a newer more comprehensive list of strategies for reading. The current public debate over the “new math” could spark changes in math curricula in the future as well. A concern I have as a future teacher would be that the ministry of education would listen more to the public opinion than that of teachers and other education professionals when deciding on curriculum. Student success should always come before political popularity.

Education philosophy

“We as educators need to reconsider our roles in students’ lives, to think of ourselves as connectors first and content experts second.” –Will Richardson.

 

This quote resonates with me and fits in to my philosophy on education. This philosophy being that, education is a partnership between students and teachers. In my experience, when a student feels a connection to the content and curriculum they are more likely to b a leader in their own learning and their own education. It is with the help of teachers that students can become independent learners. This is especially evident when doing inquiry based learning. The teacher as a connector is able to answer the everlasting questions from students – “Why do we have to learn this? How will this help me in life?”

I believe that once students can connect what they are learning to their lives, they are more likely to be engaged and committed. In my experience as a student, I was much more interested and invested in a subject when the teacher could make the lesson have a connection to my life or my classmates’ lives. The teacher, as a connector, makes each child’s education personal. Each child brings their own unique perspective to the class, which then allows students to make their own connections to other’s perspectives and then apply it to their own education and life. With these connections, the content that is given then takes on new meaning and is more likely to be retained.

While these connections are very important to the dynamic of the class, it is impossible to connect every aspect of the curriculum to each student. There are times where learning content for the sake of content is necessary and unavoidable.

My philosophy on education can be linked to something that my ELA teacher told me. She told me that the goal of the curriculum was to produce confident and competent English language users. This idea stayed with me and is now how I understand the purpose of curriculum. I understand that the curriculum is intended to teach content to students, however, I personally need to have that connection to the content in order to really feel confident and competent in my understanding of the content. Without the connection, I am able to regurgitate the content given to me for the examination but after that, it will not be remembered or thought of ever again. School is about learning and preparing children for the future ahead of them, simply teaching them to regurgitate content will result in them leaving their formal education with little concrete knowledge of the content they are supposed to understand.

The Tyler rationale

The Tyler rationale is composed of four main components. These components are:

1. The objectives
2. The experiences related to the objectives
3. Organisation of the experience
4. Evaluation of the objectives

This module continues to be the base from which most teachers develop their lessons.

In my own experience whether it be elementary or high school, I have encountered the Tyler rationale. More often than not, I was learning things for the sole purpose of being tested on them later. Because of this, I didn’t feel I was actually learning the class content I was more so memorizing it for the evaluation and then forgetting about it right after. I feel that standardized tests are where this most frequently happens because the majority of a student’s grade is dependent on how they perform on one day instead of considering their work through the entire semester. In my experience the stress of knowing that that will be the main thing I will be evaluated on means that I won’t pay attention to fully understanding content and getting as much as I can out of the class.

The limitation to this rationale is that it’s very controlling in what will and can be learned. No two students learn exactly the same so this rationale does not allow room for any differentiation. The Tyler rational can be compared to a shirt labelled one size fits all, the size will no doubt fit some better than others.

Despite its limitations the Tyler rationale has some potential benefits. It is a dependable starting point for teachers to develop lessons. It is a method most parents are comfortable with so it can be used to help them understand what their children will be learning. For students to benefit from there formal education it is important that teachers remain flexible and open to new practices and ideals in order to accommodate every learner.

Reading response to Kumashiro’s The Problem of Common Sense

In his book, The Problem of Common Sense, Kumashiro defines common sense as the accepted and understood norm. In reference to education, the common sense way of teaching contributes to oppression in the classroom. Educators must always challenge their views of what is common sense in order to realize when their methods could be oppressive to a certain group of learners. As stated in his introduction, Kumashiro, experienced a shift in what he perceived as common sense when he taught in Nepal. His view of how he “should” be teaching was very different from how his students thought they “should” be learning. Educators are encouraged to empower minority groups to whom common sense education does not apply. According to Kumashiro, this anti-oppressive education is not something that is easy or comfortable to put in to practice. It is important to pay attention to what we believe is common sense and to not let ourselves be complacent and do what has always been done. Striving to re-evaluate what “should” be done will help educators avoid oppressing groups that they may not realize they were.