What is my Standpoint?

In one of my last blogs I wrote that I would like to be objective when teaching, and Geraldine commented afterwards that it is impossible to be completely objective. I realized this, but the comment got me thinking about the ways in which I know I'm biased. How am I biased, and can being biased ever be a good thing? I know that my challenge as a teacher in Saskatchewan will be that I am a White, middle-class female. I am privileged in many ways, but if I want to be a good teacher I have to think outside of the social factors that define me or, even better, not let those factors define me. My goal is to connect with as many students as possible, but I realize students with different backgrounds than my own may see our differences as a barrier than as someone who may have something in common with them.

The two questions that really got me thinking this week were: 1) Is knowledge an attempt at domination? and 2) Does gaining power disempower someone else? I have to admit that, although I think these are interesting questions, they shed a negative light on gaining knowledge. They raise an interesting concept though - does education provide a further barrier between individuals? We already know that race, class, gender, etc. provide social barriers, but knowledge as a form of social separation is something I had never really given thought to. I suppose the way I had thought about it before was that knowledge was tied to class. In that sense, I believe knowledge does create a divide between those who have it and those who don't. The way the first question is phrased, however, as knowledge being an "attempt at domination," gives the impression that domination is the sole purpose of gaining knowledge. Knowledge is power, but domination is another thing.

I wonder if being female ties in with the "insider-outsider" discourse. Maybe I'm feeling strongly about this topic because I was watching Miss Representation with my grade 12 class recently, but I feel that being a female makes me an outsider in our patriarchal society, but also an insider because I am living in it. Maybe that's not what Longino meant, but I think I could make that argument.

That's all for this week!

A Day Full of Science

In contrast to the regular pattern my Education classes follow, my Monday was filled with talk about science. This morning our class discussed two readings, one by Chalmers and one by Goodstein, that dealt with the perceptions and dicourses within the realm of science. In this afternoon's class, we talked about inquiry-based learning, especially in science. In both classes, similar questions were raised: how important is inquiry-based learning in science?

As a humanities person I feel disconnected from the realm of science, especially because the last time I took a science was five years ago in my first year of university. Sometimes I miss it, and I often wish I was better at it. Perhaps I would be better at it now, but I didn't have the confidence when I was younger to pursue it.  It was interesting to hear my classmates debate about the importance of inquiry-based learning in both this morning's and this afternoon's classes. I can hardly remember doing experiments in my high school biology or chemistry (especially not in chemistry). Inquiry-based learning within science required a lot of supervision, but I feel that a teachers who are responsible for a topic with so much potential for activities that involve hands-on learning should take advantage of the possibilities. This afternoon our class did an experiment where we added purple cabbage water to baking soda, baking powder, apple juice, vinegar, and bathroom cleaner (all separately) and had to record our results. I am twenty-three years old and I am still impressed by experiments such as these. Imagine what children think when they see vinegar and baking soda reacting for the first time!

Another interesting thought that came from our discussion in this morning's class and from the readings was the question of integrity within the realm of science. As someone who does not know a lot about the epistemology of science, I found it interesting that scientists feel inclined to falsify information in order to finalize research. Each discipline has its obsession with perfection, which is something I thought about when researching my 16x16 topic about the mentality of cheating. As a society we are obsessed with being perfect, being the best, and being the most successful. It was interesting to hear that the trend of perfection and dishonesty exists in a field of study I am unfamiliar with.

Why do we Need History in High Schools?

There have been several times over the past semester where something we have discussed in class has come up at my partner school (which I find very exciting!). In Monday's EDUC 311 class we discussed the importance (or lack of importance) of History as a topic in high school. In the History 30 class I attend at my partner school, the teacher has a weekly routine of covering current events on Thursdays. The students must find an article every week that pertains to either a local, provincial or national event or issue that has taken place or has been discussed over the last seven days, summarize the article and write a brief reflection. On Tuesday, one of the students asked why they have to look at current events when the course is supposed to be about History. Since we had been discussing the topic a day earlier, I decided to answer him. I used the example of the pope's resignation. The current event the students choose must have a Canadian connection, and a Canadian may be in the running to be the next pope. I explained that the event made history, even though it took place today. We may not recognize the significance of an event when it's happening, but in the future we will be able to understand why they are important.

In hindsight, I should have given some more examples of the significance of current events such as Idle No More, the induction of standardized testing in Saskatchewan, and the debate over the Keystone pipeline. Events and issues such as these will shift the way our country functions over time. When I come across that question again (and I'm sure I will) I will have a better answer prepared.

There are times I find the disconnect between university and my partner school experience disheartening. We are discouraged to use simple read and recall questions, but these activities are very common in high schools. I see the students become bored, and I feel as though routine activities are what makes students dislike the school experience. When I read Dummitt's "Finding a Place for the Father: Selling the Barbecue in Postwar Canada," I wondered why text such as this is rarely used in high schools. Sometimes I have a hard time discerning what level high school students are at, but I feel that this article, at least, would be feasible to create questions that would elicit thought and have students questioning concepts such as gender roles and how they have changed over time. This article includes what I consider the "fun" part of history. The topics in Dummitt's article pertain to everyone in some way - gender roles, cooking roles, family roles - there is endless opportunity for discussion.

Standardized testing will likely increase the amount of "recall" knowledge students are expected to learn, but there MUST be a place for critical thinking skills! At least history has taught me that, even if it takes an extremely long time, change will occur. I suspect school systems function in the same way.

Beginning to Think About Epistemology

The readings for this week's class had to do with feminist epistemology, a topic that took me a while to wrap my head around. What I understood from the readings is that knowledge is constructed by and subject to many different discourses, and it has been a trend over time that masculine discourse has been the dominant discourse. It didn't surprise me that this was the case because we have historically lived (and continue to live) in a patriarchal society. What I found interesting was that the first acknowledgement of feminist epistemology didn't come out until the early 1980s. It seems as though the world progresses quickly but, in hindsight, it has taken an extremely long time for women's voices to be heard in all realms of life.

In class we discussed the difference between knowledge that is socially constructed and knowledge that is individually constructed. While some people were confused at this concept, I feel as though I understood it quite well (perhaps because I have taken up the concept in past courses). All knowledge is socially constructed, but individual knowledge is subject to an individual's experience. To give an example, I think of differences in hair texture and color depending on race. For instance, I have no knowledge on how to style or manage a Black person's hair or an Asian person's hair because it is different than my own, whereas a Black or Asian person might have trouble styling and managing hair that is fine like mine. We gain knowledge from experience, and no person has the exact same experience as another. At this point in the College of Education and in my life in general I realize there are many forms of knowledge. Knowledge has no Truth but has several truths. (I almost want to put that on a poster for my future classroom.)

 I found that the video we watched at the beginning of class emphasized some important points when thinking about epistemology. I can't remember the speaker's name, but he mentioned diversity, creativity and imagination as being three essential components to teaching. His speech made me think of an article which I came across a few weeks ago:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/welcome-to-the-education-machine/article7580158/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

The writer of the article likes schools to a machines that produce students who do the same things, think the same way, and follow the same rules when, in reality, individuals are not meant to be uniform. Individuals are meant to be unique, and too often teachers punish or discourage behaviour that falls outside of the expected norms. Schools should be innovative places where students with different talents and strengths are condoned rather than condemned. Teachers, above all other people, should understand that knowledge is not right or wrong and that a universal truth for one person may not be a universal truth for another.

Curriculum and Colonialism

I spent the better part of the past weekend infuriated about an article that was being shared by a number of friends on Facebook. The article was written for the National Post by a Cree man from Alberta who does not support Idle No More and ultimately believes colonialism was a thing of the past. He argues that no one deserves a free ride, and that Canadians, regardless of race or ethnicity, must develop their own path to achieve success because life is a level playing field. He also mentioned several times that the atrocities of colonialism were commited by people who no longer alive, to people who no longer exist. He raised multiple other opinions that had a troublesome lack of credibility, but he essentially believed that the Idle No More movement crushed the dream of Canadian equality.

Normally when I see ignorant opinions being circulated through social media I restrain myself from making comments, but this time I simply could not resist, especially given the amount of negative attention the Idle No More movement has elicited. The part of the article that bothered me the most was that colonialism is a thing of the past and that these people no longer exist, when the last residential school closed in the 1990s. I have met several people who attended residential schools, and many children and adults have parents or grandparents who had the misfortune of attending residential school. I found it extremely unsettling that this man believed that Aboriginal people should move on. This attitude is what creates and maintains racism and culture loss within society.

It was ironic that my reading for this week was Atleo and Fitzner's because the authors emphasized that colonial discourses remain in today's society and exist within school curriculums. Had I read their article before my comments on the article and on other posts I may have used some of their points. Curriculum is still Eurocentric, and although it is becoming increasingly encouraged to include Aboriginal content, it will take decades for Aboriginal content to become normal within the school system. The attitude that Aboriginal people should "get over the past," (the most common and most discouraging discourse) comes from a lack of knowledge about the subject. It takes generations for trauma to pass through and diminish, and relatives of residential school survivors may be separated by only one or two generations. Many of the issues within Aboriginal society stem from the residential school experience. Those who attended were made to believe they and their culture was worthless, and they were not shown love or respect. Inevitably, when residential school generations had their own children, parents had a difficult time showing love because they had never been shown love themselves. This creates a problem for a generation of people, and it is a problem that people generally fail to understand.

I believe that if students were educated from a young age about the effects of residential schooling and how and why those effects still exist combined with Aboriginal ways of knowing, future generations would become more tolerant over time. It is unfortunate that it will take years for a significant change, but beginning to teach children now is a start. Increased knowledge means decreased discrimination, and teachers and curriculum need to incorporate a more inclusive education for future generations.

Language In and Outside of the Classroom

The readings for the week of January 21st really got me thinking about English within school settings, especially Siegel's article on whether Creoles and dialects should be kept in or out of the classroom. If I had been asked about this topic before the readings and discussion my opionion may have been that Standard English is the most beneficial form of English for students of all backgrounds to learn. However, after reading and thinking about the topics discussed in class and the articles for this week, I can see why thinking of Standard English as an additional acceptable form of English rather than the only acceptable form of English is an important concept to consider.

There were a few factors that contributed to my deeper consideration of the topic. The first was thinking about the way in which people communicate given their context. For example, if a child whose dominant vernacular is AAVE were to speak Standard English to his or her friends in a social setting, he or she might be seen as pretentious. There is a vernacular for every context. When teachers teach students about Standard English, they tend to imply that Standard English is the most correct form of English. My question is, who decided that Standard English was the most acceptable form? Why can't we accept that there is a time and place for all vernaculars of English? Obama's address at the Congressional Black Caucus was also eye-opening. I had never considered that politicians (or other influential people) might change their vernacular given the context of whom they are speaking to.

Another interesting thought that came from the article was how, as White Canadians, we don't question certain features of British English or consider these features incorrect, yet we consider certain characteristics of AAVE to be incorrect when we hear them. Even language has racial undertones embedded within it. There is also a hierarchy within White English. In our discussion groups, Andrea raised the point that she might even question her own English or grammar if she heard a British person saying something differently than her. Who makes the rules?

Lastly, and something I've been thinking about a lot lately, is why incorrect grammar and spelling bother me so much. (By the way, I will definitely be thinking about the "is because rule in the future!) My mother is an editor and columnist at a small newspaper, and my father is a lawyer. Both jobs require an excellent understanding and knowledge of the English language, which is likely one of the reasons I am so concerned about English myself. I mentioned my thoughts in class, but I think future generations are in danger of learning oversimplified versions of subject matter. If students are being taught math, science and other difficult subject matter, it is important that they learn at the very least the most common and important mechanincs of the English language.

It is our duty as teachers to instill in future generations of students that to/too/two are not interchangable, that they're/their/there do not have the same meaning, and that apostrophes do not belong in plurals! We don't want this to happen to our children:

Standard English - Important or Not?

This week I'm responding to Trudgill's "Standard English - What it Isn't." Before reading the article I wasn't entirely sure what Standard English referred to. After reading the article, I wasn't sure if my understanding was more clear or more hazy. Trudgill defined Standard English by defining what it isn't, and then came to the conclusion that Standard English is a dialect without a geographical base (which is generally not the case of dialects).
My understanding was that Standard English is a grammatical version of English that is used in various contexts such as in novels or newspapers. I also understood that Standard English has more to do with writing than with speaking. When is the line drawn between what is Standard English and what is not? I'm guilty of saying "I don't want any," which Trudgill pointed out was not Standard English because of the double negative. If I don't speak Standard English, what am I speaking?
One of the interesting thoughts raised in class was whether the English language will become Americanized or whether it will break off and dessimate into smaller dialects worldwide. I tend to think the Americanization of English is more likely than the dessimation of the English language. When we are constantly exposed to advertisements, TV shows, movies, and other forms of pop culture and media on a daily basis, isn't it inevitable that one dominant form of English will take over others? The media influences people in every other way, so why wouldn't language have the same effect? Language keeps the world rich and diverse. I often wonder (and wondered even before this class) whether the entire world will end up speaking English one day, thousands of years from now.
 My sister is an Anglophone who pursued French in university and obtained her Master's Degree in French Literature. She said French and English are different in the sense that in English, new words are constantly being added to our language. In French, there are more strict guidelines on what is acceptable to add to the language. She said it isn't common for words to be added to the French dictionary. Does that mean French speakers are more concerned about the "Standard" part of their language? And if so, why?
It concerns me to think of grammar rules changing, words being added or taken away from the English dictionary, and younger generations having poor writing skills as a result of massive technology change. I also wonder, however, why it bothers me so much. Is proper English, spelling and grammar an elitist concern? Why do grammatical errors bother me so much when many people fail to even learn correct usage? What will become of language and writing within the next century or two? I will never know the answer to some of my questions, but I know that whenver I send a text or an e-mail I make sure to be as proper as possible. :)