In the article, I saw reinhabitation and decolonization through the actions taken by incorporating the outdoors and the community. The ten-day trip allowed various age groups to interact and combine both nature and community to explore the relationships that intertwine between them. The river was chosen because it has both historical and cultural importance (pg.74). The elders were able to transfer their knowledge into the minds of the children. Elders are wise and have the life experience to share regarding their stories and things they learned throughput the places and environments they grew up and lived in. The authors state, “the group documented sites of significance to the community, experienced routes that hold great historical significance, and brought people together in the sharing of knowledge” (pg.75).
I would incorporate multiple languages in my classroom. The article focuses on First Nations languages, but it is extremely likely that I will have a vast variety of other languages in my classroom too. Visual aids are always helpful to have as well. I think that having the students learn about the histories of their community and surrounding areas is beneficial. Local trips to expand their knowledge would be wonderful. Learning alongside nature is helpful when looking at First Nations culture, but it can also be incorporated with environmental education (to connect to other areas of curriculum). Restoule, J., Gruner, S., & Metatawabin, E. (2013). Learning from Place: A Return to Traditional Mushkegowuk Ways of Knowing. Canadian Journal of Education , 36(2), 68-86.
0 Comments
Before Reading:
I have had an understanding for quite a while that the curriculum has been solely government mandated and that all control and authority to make curriculum changes lie in the hands of the government. The teachers, school boards, communities, and especially the students, from my understanding, had and have no true influence in the curriculum. After Reading: I think that how the curriculum is created depends a lot on the area being looked upon. Levin discusses, “curriculum [is] developed by governments or other sanctioned authorities for standard use in schools across a state, province, or country” (pg.7). Sometimes including multiple perspectives into deciding how curriculum is created can cause problems. Levin raises a good point when he states, “people will disagree over what should be included in each subject and what should be included at various age levels for students. Should spelling be taught explicitly? If so, when? How much of their own country’s history and geography should students learn as opposed to that of other countries? Should all students learn algebra? Should all students- or any- be required to study Shakespeare?” (pg.14). I agree that if too many individuals are included in deciding curriculum, there can be too many opinions in the mix. What is both surprising and concerning to me is the number of responsibilities that the people who create and implement the curriculum have to account for. Levin elaborates, “schools are seen as the place where children will be inoculated against all social ills or taught all the virtues from street proofing to AIDS, anti-smoking, drinking, and drug abuse education. Schools are expected to prevent bullying, obesity, and anorexia while also eliminating racism and promoting equity in all its forms” (pg.14). I think that the amount of pressure to address so many needs, issues, topics, and various subjects provides a lot of pressure on both the people literally creating the curriculum and the teachers that have to work with it. I think it is concerning that teachers have no say in certain cases about anything that gets put into the curriculum. The teachers are the individuals that are directly assessing the needs that students have and learning about the things that interest them. To conclude, Levin states, “depending on national governance arrangements, schools or districts have varying degrees of control- from almost none to quite substantial- over the formal curriculum” (pg.16). I think that curriculum could use more input from teachers and those directly working with the students. Involving the students has its positives and negatives depending on the group. I think it would be better to provide students with options or the opportunity to express what they would like to see in curriculum and then have that input be considered when creating the document. Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7 – 24). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Available on-line from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf Some students find it very easy to sit in desks and work, while others can become distracted and fidgety. Sometimes the content and compliable students have moments when even they themselves find reasons to be inattentive. This does not mean that the student is now acting out and being ‘unlike himself or herself,’ it means that something external is influencing this behavior. It is important that as teachers we do not label students right away. Being a “good” student means following given instructions and completing assigned tasks. Teachers want students to think critically and out of the box. Simply asking for answers is frowned upon.
Commonsense can exclude the kids that do not fit societal norms and it can have oppressive tendencies as well. The students that become privileged in schools are the ones with no problems at home or problems at school with their teachers. The students that work differently from their peers are the ones that become excluded from the ‘good student’ label. What is made impossible to see in schools are the societal concepts that we have embedded in the building and the system. The ideas that there are more female teachers in this profession, the idea that boys receive the better fitness praise and resources, the idea that we should not all share a neutral bathroom because girls need to be separated from boys, etc. It is this commonsense that blinds us. |