Indigenous Perspectives
Article #1
I have elected to read the article entitled, Integrating Aboriginal Teaching and Values into the Classroom written by Dr. Pamela Rose Toulouse. This article appeared interesting to me as I had the opportunity to enroll in one of the first Professional Development Programs offered at Simon Fraser University based on Aboriginal Teaching and Values called Indigenous Peoples Teacher Education Module/ Aboriginal Focus Teaching Education Module/ (IPTEM/AFTEM). In this article, Toulouse (2008) explains how the most recent research shows that the key element for achievement for indigenous students is based on self-esteem, and schools must emphasize the importance of culture and tradition in their daily practice. Toulouse’s mentions, “these strategies nurture the self-esteem – the positive interconnection between the physical, emotional-mental, intellectual and spiritual realms – of Aboriginal students” (Toulouse, 2008). However, the key context of the article is valuing the indigenous learner using 7 guiding principles: respect, love, bravery, humility, honesty, and truth.
As much of the article focuses on ensuring indigenous students feel an integral part of the school community and indigenous customs are recognized, there is also much mentioned about the innovation of teaching and learning within schools to ensure they setting students up for success. According to Leyton Schnellert, author of Supporting Innovation Across the System, “when educators have opportunities to collaboratively inquire into innovative pedagogies and new curriculum and create and adapt practices to meet needs, meaningful and sustainable change is possible” (Schnellert, 2020). Many of the examples referenced in this article of innovative teaching and learning and within each of the 7 principles relate to The First Peoples Principles of Learning in British Columbia. Toulouse (2008) identifies the learning commons must a have a plethora of Indigenous materials, acknowledge the territory and at the front door using traditional greetings, use many materials such as graphic organizers and manipulatives, collaborative opportunities, patience for duration of task completion, indigenous curricular resources, connections to local Aboriginal communities, celebrating local Indigenous innovations, differentiated instruction and assessment, work alongside Aboriginal helping teachers and experts to purchase and inventory resources.
Much of these strategies connected to innovative teaching and learning have the goal to improve educational achievement for Indigenous youth. Toulouse states, “educational achievement of Aboriginal students (and the gap between them and their Canadian counterparts) has not changed significantly in the past 10 years” (Toulouse, 2008).
After reading throughout this article, it makes me wonder how much of these guiding principles are actually occurring within schools? Who is monitoring these non-negotiables among staff?
As much of my practice revolves around the First Peoples Principles of Learning in British Columbia, working alongside local Indigenous communities, collaborating with helping teachers, and pursuing inquiry with my colleagues, I feel much of this article connects quite well to my current practice. However, one piece that jumps out at me is a proper acknowledgement and greeting daily among my students. As we have many ways of doing so, I see value in welcoming students each morning myself using Indigenous methods, in addition to the morning announcement recognizing the traditional territory.
References
Integrating Aboriginal teaching and values into the classroom. (2008). Literacy and Numeracy
Secretariat
https://books-scholarsportal-info.proxy.queensu.ca/uri/ebooks/ebooks2/ogdc/2014-02-25/2/281532
Schnellert, L. (2020). Supporting Innovation Across the System. EdCan Network. Published.
Article #1
I have elected to read the article entitled, Integrating Aboriginal Teaching and Values into the Classroom written by Dr. Pamela Rose Toulouse. This article appeared interesting to me as I had the opportunity to enroll in one of the first Professional Development Programs offered at Simon Fraser University based on Aboriginal Teaching and Values called Indigenous Peoples Teacher Education Module/ Aboriginal Focus Teaching Education Module/ (IPTEM/AFTEM). In this article, Toulouse (2008) explains how the most recent research shows that the key element for achievement for indigenous students is based on self-esteem, and schools must emphasize the importance of culture and tradition in their daily practice. Toulouse’s mentions, “these strategies nurture the self-esteem – the positive interconnection between the physical, emotional-mental, intellectual and spiritual realms – of Aboriginal students” (Toulouse, 2008). However, the key context of the article is valuing the indigenous learner using 7 guiding principles: respect, love, bravery, humility, honesty, and truth.
As much of the article focuses on ensuring indigenous students feel an integral part of the school community and indigenous customs are recognized, there is also much mentioned about the innovation of teaching and learning within schools to ensure they setting students up for success. According to Leyton Schnellert, author of Supporting Innovation Across the System, “when educators have opportunities to collaboratively inquire into innovative pedagogies and new curriculum and create and adapt practices to meet needs, meaningful and sustainable change is possible” (Schnellert, 2020). Many of the examples referenced in this article of innovative teaching and learning and within each of the 7 principles relate to The First Peoples Principles of Learning in British Columbia. Toulouse (2008) identifies the learning commons must a have a plethora of Indigenous materials, acknowledge the territory and at the front door using traditional greetings, use many materials such as graphic organizers and manipulatives, collaborative opportunities, patience for duration of task completion, indigenous curricular resources, connections to local Aboriginal communities, celebrating local Indigenous innovations, differentiated instruction and assessment, work alongside Aboriginal helping teachers and experts to purchase and inventory resources.
Much of these strategies connected to innovative teaching and learning have the goal to improve educational achievement for Indigenous youth. Toulouse states, “educational achievement of Aboriginal students (and the gap between them and their Canadian counterparts) has not changed significantly in the past 10 years” (Toulouse, 2008).
After reading throughout this article, it makes me wonder how much of these guiding principles are actually occurring within schools? Who is monitoring these non-negotiables among staff?
As much of my practice revolves around the First Peoples Principles of Learning in British Columbia, working alongside local Indigenous communities, collaborating with helping teachers, and pursuing inquiry with my colleagues, I feel much of this article connects quite well to my current practice. However, one piece that jumps out at me is a proper acknowledgement and greeting daily among my students. As we have many ways of doing so, I see value in welcoming students each morning myself using Indigenous methods, in addition to the morning announcement recognizing the traditional territory.
References
Integrating Aboriginal teaching and values into the classroom. (2008). Literacy and Numeracy
Secretariat
https://books-scholarsportal-info.proxy.queensu.ca/uri/ebooks/ebooks2/ogdc/2014-02-25/2/281532
Schnellert, L. (2020). Supporting Innovation Across the System. EdCan Network. Published.
Article #2
For the second article of this assignment, I explored the writings of Louie, Pratt, Hanson, and Ottman. The article named Applying Indigenizing Principles of Decolonizing Methodologies in University Classrooms was an interesting read. The article is based on the works conducted by Indigenous university faculty at the University of Calgary. The argument developed by Louie et al. is the, “contention that institutions of higher learning need to move away from the myopic lens used to view education and implement indigenizing pedagogies in order to counteract the systemic monopolization oof knowledge and communication” (Louie et al, 2017).
Much of the research that drives the authors’ motivation to conduct this case study is the work by Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Louie et al. mention, “if the goal of Smith’s methodology is to articulate research strategies that decolonize populations and promote Indigenous self-determination, we contend that the same methods might achieve comparable results in university classrooms” (Louie et al, 2017). However, to identify if current practices in universities in Alberta are effective, a system of assessment must be conducted to ensure the validly of instruction. This system is called the Universal Student Ratings of Instruction. Unfortunately, this system has downsides and may not necessarily indicate that indigenous principles should be used to improve instruction. Louie et al. “argue that the categories comprising the USRI leave little room for considerations such as whether the instruction enable diverse ways of accessing learning or culturally responsive” (Louie et al., 2017). Conversely, it appears that some universities may have begun recognizing the significance diverse strategies of instruction and have influenced the opportunity for innovation of teaching and learning. Louie et al. state, “these innovations are not, however, afforded institutional value” (Louie et al., 2017). However, as the dominant political power can possibly perpetuate the unfortunate inclusion of indigenous ways of knowing and doing, Smith has developed a model to focus on self-determination of Indigenous people. Louie et al. (2017) identifies this framework is based on a foundation of four levels survival, recover, development and self-determination and within these models there are also goals of mobilization, healing, decolonization, and transformation (Louie et al., 2017). Throughout this model, it must be recognized that universities are not just including Indigenous content, but more diverse ways of developing program design. Through the experiences of the faculty members previously stated, they all have a different learning goal. Jacqueline Ottmann focuses more on remembering. She says, “healing and transformation are reasons for engaging in this form of mindful remembering” (Louie et al., 2017). Dustine Louie; however, focuses on negotiating within the university classroom and its connection to indigenous ways. Louie states, “a decolonizing practice I incorporate in my classroom seamlessly connects with the Indigenous notion of negotiating, which Smith defines as, “recognizing and working towards long-term goals” (Louie et al., 2017). And Pratt, emphasizes the significance to working with the local communities learning about survival stories and oral traditions. One passage that jumped out to me about the importance of oral tradition was the focus on survival. Pratt mentions, “the creative dimension calls forth “imagination that enables people to rise above their own circumstance, to dream new visions and to hold onto old ones”. The creative realm, replete with imagination, innovation, and adaptation, has been instrumental in the ongoing survival of Indigenous peoples around the world (Louie et al., 2017). And finally, Aubrey Hanson identifies the importance of storytelling. Hanson says, “individual stories are powerful, particularly in that they “contribute to a collective story in which every indigenous person has a place” (Louie et al., 2017). This reminds me of the work of Faye Brownlie and Judith King and their focus on inclusion in schools. Brownlie and King explain, “schools should be a place where all students and staff enjoy a sense of belonging and a belief that they contribute. She should feel valued” (Brownlie & King, 2000).
As I continue to learn more about innovation in teaching and learning, and the research continues to identify the importance of diverse ways of teaching and incorporating Indigenous ways of knowing and doing, it makes me wonder why we have not included this into university practice or even elementary until recently? Much of the research from Smith has conducted prior to 2012, as well as the works of Dr. Toulouse in 2008. Additionally, we have only just seen in British Columbia the inclusion of the First Peoples Principles of Learning within the last six years. Prior to this, much of the work of Dr. Brokenleg’s Circle of Courage was a guide for Indigenous ways in education, but this was not formally mandated.
In my context at the elementary level, we are constantly utilizing Indigenous ways as a school and in classrooms. One particular piece, certainly not the only method of learning, is based on our First Peoples in Residence program. In this experience, we welcome Indigenous community members and Indigenous helping teachers into the school for an extended period where we have the experiences of learning through remembering, survival, and storytelling. Additionally, our helping teachers within the district have offered to conduct collaborative inquiry pilot projects with our staff to focus on unpacking the curriculum, developing units utilizing these imperative diverse methods and deciphering quality assessment to support our students, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, in being successful and developing self-determination.
References
Brownlie, F., & King, J. (2011). Learning in Safe Schools: Creating Classrooms Where All Students
Belong (second edition). Pembroke Publishers.
Louie, D. W., Pratt, Y. P., Hanson, A. J., & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying indigenizing principles of
decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 47(3), 16-33. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/applying-indigenizing-principles-decolonizing/docview/2011270372/se-2?accountid=6180
For the second article of this assignment, I explored the writings of Louie, Pratt, Hanson, and Ottman. The article named Applying Indigenizing Principles of Decolonizing Methodologies in University Classrooms was an interesting read. The article is based on the works conducted by Indigenous university faculty at the University of Calgary. The argument developed by Louie et al. is the, “contention that institutions of higher learning need to move away from the myopic lens used to view education and implement indigenizing pedagogies in order to counteract the systemic monopolization oof knowledge and communication” (Louie et al, 2017).
Much of the research that drives the authors’ motivation to conduct this case study is the work by Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Louie et al. mention, “if the goal of Smith’s methodology is to articulate research strategies that decolonize populations and promote Indigenous self-determination, we contend that the same methods might achieve comparable results in university classrooms” (Louie et al, 2017). However, to identify if current practices in universities in Alberta are effective, a system of assessment must be conducted to ensure the validly of instruction. This system is called the Universal Student Ratings of Instruction. Unfortunately, this system has downsides and may not necessarily indicate that indigenous principles should be used to improve instruction. Louie et al. “argue that the categories comprising the USRI leave little room for considerations such as whether the instruction enable diverse ways of accessing learning or culturally responsive” (Louie et al., 2017). Conversely, it appears that some universities may have begun recognizing the significance diverse strategies of instruction and have influenced the opportunity for innovation of teaching and learning. Louie et al. state, “these innovations are not, however, afforded institutional value” (Louie et al., 2017). However, as the dominant political power can possibly perpetuate the unfortunate inclusion of indigenous ways of knowing and doing, Smith has developed a model to focus on self-determination of Indigenous people. Louie et al. (2017) identifies this framework is based on a foundation of four levels survival, recover, development and self-determination and within these models there are also goals of mobilization, healing, decolonization, and transformation (Louie et al., 2017). Throughout this model, it must be recognized that universities are not just including Indigenous content, but more diverse ways of developing program design. Through the experiences of the faculty members previously stated, they all have a different learning goal. Jacqueline Ottmann focuses more on remembering. She says, “healing and transformation are reasons for engaging in this form of mindful remembering” (Louie et al., 2017). Dustine Louie; however, focuses on negotiating within the university classroom and its connection to indigenous ways. Louie states, “a decolonizing practice I incorporate in my classroom seamlessly connects with the Indigenous notion of negotiating, which Smith defines as, “recognizing and working towards long-term goals” (Louie et al., 2017). And Pratt, emphasizes the significance to working with the local communities learning about survival stories and oral traditions. One passage that jumped out to me about the importance of oral tradition was the focus on survival. Pratt mentions, “the creative dimension calls forth “imagination that enables people to rise above their own circumstance, to dream new visions and to hold onto old ones”. The creative realm, replete with imagination, innovation, and adaptation, has been instrumental in the ongoing survival of Indigenous peoples around the world (Louie et al., 2017). And finally, Aubrey Hanson identifies the importance of storytelling. Hanson says, “individual stories are powerful, particularly in that they “contribute to a collective story in which every indigenous person has a place” (Louie et al., 2017). This reminds me of the work of Faye Brownlie and Judith King and their focus on inclusion in schools. Brownlie and King explain, “schools should be a place where all students and staff enjoy a sense of belonging and a belief that they contribute. She should feel valued” (Brownlie & King, 2000).
As I continue to learn more about innovation in teaching and learning, and the research continues to identify the importance of diverse ways of teaching and incorporating Indigenous ways of knowing and doing, it makes me wonder why we have not included this into university practice or even elementary until recently? Much of the research from Smith has conducted prior to 2012, as well as the works of Dr. Toulouse in 2008. Additionally, we have only just seen in British Columbia the inclusion of the First Peoples Principles of Learning within the last six years. Prior to this, much of the work of Dr. Brokenleg’s Circle of Courage was a guide for Indigenous ways in education, but this was not formally mandated.
In my context at the elementary level, we are constantly utilizing Indigenous ways as a school and in classrooms. One particular piece, certainly not the only method of learning, is based on our First Peoples in Residence program. In this experience, we welcome Indigenous community members and Indigenous helping teachers into the school for an extended period where we have the experiences of learning through remembering, survival, and storytelling. Additionally, our helping teachers within the district have offered to conduct collaborative inquiry pilot projects with our staff to focus on unpacking the curriculum, developing units utilizing these imperative diverse methods and deciphering quality assessment to support our students, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, in being successful and developing self-determination.
References
Brownlie, F., & King, J. (2011). Learning in Safe Schools: Creating Classrooms Where All Students
Belong (second edition). Pembroke Publishers.
Louie, D. W., Pratt, Y. P., Hanson, A. J., & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying indigenizing principles of
decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 47(3), 16-33. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/applying-indigenizing-principles-decolonizing/docview/2011270372/se-2?accountid=6180
Article #1
For the first article based on Diversity and Inclusion, I chose to read What Should We Do with a Feminist Educational Theory When We Have One? written by Jane Roland Martin. Much of this article is based on a response to Audrey Thompson who challenges Martin’s previous works. Martin focuses on cultural wealth relating to equity and the research on women’s education, what should be preserved and what should remain. Martin utilizes a continuum ranging from “dead relic” to that of “living legacy”. One of the key arguments in this article is based on the significance of recent research. Martin states, “its being new in no way decreases its value. Its newness simply means that we who treasure it had better make sure that it is being well preserved and that is being passed down to our young” (Martin, 2003). Martin considers schools as one of the main custodians of our wealth but there are many others in our communities. Martin states, “these and the other of society’s innumerable institutions both preserve the stock and pass it along to young and old alike” (Martin, 2003). Martin values the passing along of the research about women that feminist scholars have conducted. Martin says, “for the foreseeable future, the research on women and education that feminists of all varieties have been doing be located near the living legacy end of the preservation continuum” (Martin, 2003). Martin identifies three main eras of feminist research. First, she mentions feminist faculty rarely critiqued others in the early era. Next, she identified that feminists began to overly criticize one another, almost developing a counter opinion that would completely omit any value to their research often calling them “essentialists” in the second era. And finally, a stage in feminist research was at a standstill in which innovation was lacking due to “chilly research”.
As I reflect upon this article, I see a viewpoint about all feminist research that Martin coins as “filling in the gaps”. She relates this to the stages of research in feminism and even to Foucault’s work, despite being gender biased. Martin asserts, “[Foucault’s theories] is a rich source of understanding and empowerment and propose that we explore and fill in the gaps” (Martin, 2003). Martin spends much of this article recognizing there is value in other works, but claims that Thompson has chosen not to see this in her previous writings. One key area that Martin wants to leave open is the idea that gender difference theory may have flaws, but should it be passed along to other generations or it may become a dead relic. Through the many criticisms from Thompson, Martin explains there are many things at stake here through this lack of constructive feedback. Martin (2003) identifies that there is a missed chance as Thompson only cares about her agenda and not using what is useful, the misguided placement of “fitting in a box” of feminist theory, the opportunity to shed light on the current state of affairs, and the sad possibility that through this critique many pieces of research of feminist educational theory may be lost (Martin, 2003). Martin wraps up by explaining, feminist scholars “see the mistaken assumptions and the gaps in other women’s research, generous enough to give constructive criticism and to recognize the positive contributions contained in the work of others” (Martin, 2003).
Much of the article highlights the importance of filling in the gaps, constructive criticism, and one of most important pieces of using previous research to creative innovative opportunities of learning. As innovation relates to building on previous ideas, we see this quite consistently in education and in my particular context. Martin is essentially stating that we are not dismiss other forms of teaching and learning, but to build upon those opportunities and innovate new ways for students. Through constructivism and feedback, this may occur by filling in the gaps and not creating a “dead relic” when any new form of educational theory is developed. As I examine more about equity in my particular context, I look to the district initiatives and the school-based planning. In classrooms, we are seeing more opportunities for learners to participate in social justice program design that follows a particular sequence of learning with a content standard related directly to research on feminist theory, but also expand students understanding of key literary strategies. Units planned in association with helping teachers about social justice have used former useful teaching strategies (connecting, processing, transforming), but innovate by incorporating content that relates to global issues. Additionally, districts are celebrating respect, acceptance, equity and inclusion in a variety of ways. According to the Surrey School District webpage, "Teachers are more comfortable bringing these conversations into the classroom – there's more role modelling around it and space being made, and it's built into our curriculum” (Surrey Schools - Celebrating Respect, Acceptance, Equity & Inclusion during Pride Month, 2021).
As I believe there is great value in “filling in the gaps” in education, I have unfortunately seen a recent surge in community criticisms about this information conveyed to students, even when related to equity. How can we use the keys to feminist educational theory according to Martin to better improve our students’ literary skills and inform community members?
References
Martin, J. R. (2003). What Should We Do with a Feminist Educational Theory When We Have
One? A Response to Audrey Thompson. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(1), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-873x.00250
Surrey Schools - Celebrating respect, acceptance, equity & inclusion during Pride Month. (2021).
Surrey Schools.
https://www.surreyschools.ca/NewsEvents/Posts/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1079
Article #2
For the second article focusing on diversity and inclusion in education, I read Transforming Moral Education also written by Jane Roland Martin. This article, written in 1987, focuses on generative love and feelings in education through a review based on the Lifeline curriculum. Martin says, “the guiding purpose of the Lifeline curriculum is to empower the student to give and receive love. Built around the theme of learning to care, its materials focus on understanding other people’s needs and situations and being sensitive to them” (Martin, 1987).
One prominent focus in this article is based on the Lifeline curriculum not having enough of a theoretical background, but a much more practical focus. Thus, it is highlighted that it must be aligned with other programmes that are much more theoretical in nature. Martin states, “if the teacher can bring to the materials the theoretical insights that other models provide (e.g., Shaver’s and Kohlberg’s), then Lifeline programme can be a valuable contribution to the enterprise of moral education” (Martin, 1987). Additionally, it is mentioned that we must teach our future generations of this generational love. Martin uses nuclear peril as an example of our commitment to being guardians of change.
One piece of the text stood out to me about liberal education is the awareness of others and global issues and inequities. In fact, our globalization of media has proven to inform population of real-world problems. However, the liberally educated, not vocationally, will not have been taught the importance of helping others through solving problems. According to Martin, “our educated person is an ivory tower person: one who can reason but has no desire to solve real problems in the real world; one who understands science but does no worry about the uses to which it is put; and one who can reach flawless moral conclusions but has neither the sensitivity nor the skill to carry them out effectively” (Martin. 1987).
Martin also breaks our society into processes: productive and reproductive and within these processes are the public and private worlds. As stated by Martin, “in our culture love and caring are not only linked to the reproductive processes of society, they are thought to be positively dysfunctional in relation to society’s productive process” (Martin, 1987). It is quickly identified that productive process of society are masculine and reproductive processes are feminine. Additionally, it appears that through much of the research, it is identified that there is a double standard that occurs in men and women in society. For instance, Martin (1987) explains if a man has traits that may be usually aligned with a reproductive process, these individuals may be coined womanlike. It is highlighted by Martin that we must get away from this while viewing through moral education. Martin states, “to achieve our future we must embark on the equally difficult – possibly much more hazardous – journey of detaching generative love from femininity, so that it too can be a normal attribute of both sexes” (Martin, 1987). For generative love to occur in education and avoid processes of society and traits to be gender based, Martin (1987) believes must dispose of any preconceived notions we have about moral education.
To learn through moral education focusing on generative love and sensitivity, Martin identifies the 3C’s: care, concern and connection. In my context observing school wide inquiry and collaboration, we are seeing more staff working with students to see hope in education and attempting to solve global problems. Walt Werner, author of Teaching with Hope, mentions “our working with young people represents a commitment to the future. We are teaching for hope” (Case & Clark, 2016). As there is much mentioned in this resource about liberal education and the lack of solving real-world issues, we are seeing more of a shift in education around these topics. Martin says, “the point to made is that generative love has to be learned: it is not something innate that we can count on emerging automatically as people mature” (Martin, 1987). Staff at my school are working together to explore global issues while still identifying important curricular competencies to improve student learning. For instance, our staff have been working with district staff and helping teachers to develop units, lessons and even school-wide assemblies that recognize global issues, distinguishing the challenges and identifying ways to solve them. Still, after reading this article, I wonder how we can continue to challenge teachers to embed global issues or real-world scenarios in their program design to focus on “learning with hope” for our students and ensure the educated person is not “an ivory tower person”? Through these innovative opportunities in schools and at my current school, I hope we can see more of an opportunity for students to contribute to moral education.
References
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) (Updated edition). Pacific Educational Press.
Martin, J. R. (1987). Transforming Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education, 16(3), 204–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724870160305
For the first article based on Diversity and Inclusion, I chose to read What Should We Do with a Feminist Educational Theory When We Have One? written by Jane Roland Martin. Much of this article is based on a response to Audrey Thompson who challenges Martin’s previous works. Martin focuses on cultural wealth relating to equity and the research on women’s education, what should be preserved and what should remain. Martin utilizes a continuum ranging from “dead relic” to that of “living legacy”. One of the key arguments in this article is based on the significance of recent research. Martin states, “its being new in no way decreases its value. Its newness simply means that we who treasure it had better make sure that it is being well preserved and that is being passed down to our young” (Martin, 2003). Martin considers schools as one of the main custodians of our wealth but there are many others in our communities. Martin states, “these and the other of society’s innumerable institutions both preserve the stock and pass it along to young and old alike” (Martin, 2003). Martin values the passing along of the research about women that feminist scholars have conducted. Martin says, “for the foreseeable future, the research on women and education that feminists of all varieties have been doing be located near the living legacy end of the preservation continuum” (Martin, 2003). Martin identifies three main eras of feminist research. First, she mentions feminist faculty rarely critiqued others in the early era. Next, she identified that feminists began to overly criticize one another, almost developing a counter opinion that would completely omit any value to their research often calling them “essentialists” in the second era. And finally, a stage in feminist research was at a standstill in which innovation was lacking due to “chilly research”.
As I reflect upon this article, I see a viewpoint about all feminist research that Martin coins as “filling in the gaps”. She relates this to the stages of research in feminism and even to Foucault’s work, despite being gender biased. Martin asserts, “[Foucault’s theories] is a rich source of understanding and empowerment and propose that we explore and fill in the gaps” (Martin, 2003). Martin spends much of this article recognizing there is value in other works, but claims that Thompson has chosen not to see this in her previous writings. One key area that Martin wants to leave open is the idea that gender difference theory may have flaws, but should it be passed along to other generations or it may become a dead relic. Through the many criticisms from Thompson, Martin explains there are many things at stake here through this lack of constructive feedback. Martin (2003) identifies that there is a missed chance as Thompson only cares about her agenda and not using what is useful, the misguided placement of “fitting in a box” of feminist theory, the opportunity to shed light on the current state of affairs, and the sad possibility that through this critique many pieces of research of feminist educational theory may be lost (Martin, 2003). Martin wraps up by explaining, feminist scholars “see the mistaken assumptions and the gaps in other women’s research, generous enough to give constructive criticism and to recognize the positive contributions contained in the work of others” (Martin, 2003).
Much of the article highlights the importance of filling in the gaps, constructive criticism, and one of most important pieces of using previous research to creative innovative opportunities of learning. As innovation relates to building on previous ideas, we see this quite consistently in education and in my particular context. Martin is essentially stating that we are not dismiss other forms of teaching and learning, but to build upon those opportunities and innovate new ways for students. Through constructivism and feedback, this may occur by filling in the gaps and not creating a “dead relic” when any new form of educational theory is developed. As I examine more about equity in my particular context, I look to the district initiatives and the school-based planning. In classrooms, we are seeing more opportunities for learners to participate in social justice program design that follows a particular sequence of learning with a content standard related directly to research on feminist theory, but also expand students understanding of key literary strategies. Units planned in association with helping teachers about social justice have used former useful teaching strategies (connecting, processing, transforming), but innovate by incorporating content that relates to global issues. Additionally, districts are celebrating respect, acceptance, equity and inclusion in a variety of ways. According to the Surrey School District webpage, "Teachers are more comfortable bringing these conversations into the classroom – there's more role modelling around it and space being made, and it's built into our curriculum” (Surrey Schools - Celebrating Respect, Acceptance, Equity & Inclusion during Pride Month, 2021).
As I believe there is great value in “filling in the gaps” in education, I have unfortunately seen a recent surge in community criticisms about this information conveyed to students, even when related to equity. How can we use the keys to feminist educational theory according to Martin to better improve our students’ literary skills and inform community members?
References
Martin, J. R. (2003). What Should We Do with a Feminist Educational Theory When We Have
One? A Response to Audrey Thompson. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(1), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-873x.00250
Surrey Schools - Celebrating respect, acceptance, equity & inclusion during Pride Month. (2021).
Surrey Schools.
https://www.surreyschools.ca/NewsEvents/Posts/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1079
Article #2
For the second article focusing on diversity and inclusion in education, I read Transforming Moral Education also written by Jane Roland Martin. This article, written in 1987, focuses on generative love and feelings in education through a review based on the Lifeline curriculum. Martin says, “the guiding purpose of the Lifeline curriculum is to empower the student to give and receive love. Built around the theme of learning to care, its materials focus on understanding other people’s needs and situations and being sensitive to them” (Martin, 1987).
One prominent focus in this article is based on the Lifeline curriculum not having enough of a theoretical background, but a much more practical focus. Thus, it is highlighted that it must be aligned with other programmes that are much more theoretical in nature. Martin states, “if the teacher can bring to the materials the theoretical insights that other models provide (e.g., Shaver’s and Kohlberg’s), then Lifeline programme can be a valuable contribution to the enterprise of moral education” (Martin, 1987). Additionally, it is mentioned that we must teach our future generations of this generational love. Martin uses nuclear peril as an example of our commitment to being guardians of change.
One piece of the text stood out to me about liberal education is the awareness of others and global issues and inequities. In fact, our globalization of media has proven to inform population of real-world problems. However, the liberally educated, not vocationally, will not have been taught the importance of helping others through solving problems. According to Martin, “our educated person is an ivory tower person: one who can reason but has no desire to solve real problems in the real world; one who understands science but does no worry about the uses to which it is put; and one who can reach flawless moral conclusions but has neither the sensitivity nor the skill to carry them out effectively” (Martin. 1987).
Martin also breaks our society into processes: productive and reproductive and within these processes are the public and private worlds. As stated by Martin, “in our culture love and caring are not only linked to the reproductive processes of society, they are thought to be positively dysfunctional in relation to society’s productive process” (Martin, 1987). It is quickly identified that productive process of society are masculine and reproductive processes are feminine. Additionally, it appears that through much of the research, it is identified that there is a double standard that occurs in men and women in society. For instance, Martin (1987) explains if a man has traits that may be usually aligned with a reproductive process, these individuals may be coined womanlike. It is highlighted by Martin that we must get away from this while viewing through moral education. Martin states, “to achieve our future we must embark on the equally difficult – possibly much more hazardous – journey of detaching generative love from femininity, so that it too can be a normal attribute of both sexes” (Martin, 1987). For generative love to occur in education and avoid processes of society and traits to be gender based, Martin (1987) believes must dispose of any preconceived notions we have about moral education.
To learn through moral education focusing on generative love and sensitivity, Martin identifies the 3C’s: care, concern and connection. In my context observing school wide inquiry and collaboration, we are seeing more staff working with students to see hope in education and attempting to solve global problems. Walt Werner, author of Teaching with Hope, mentions “our working with young people represents a commitment to the future. We are teaching for hope” (Case & Clark, 2016). As there is much mentioned in this resource about liberal education and the lack of solving real-world issues, we are seeing more of a shift in education around these topics. Martin says, “the point to made is that generative love has to be learned: it is not something innate that we can count on emerging automatically as people mature” (Martin, 1987). Staff at my school are working together to explore global issues while still identifying important curricular competencies to improve student learning. For instance, our staff have been working with district staff and helping teachers to develop units, lessons and even school-wide assemblies that recognize global issues, distinguishing the challenges and identifying ways to solve them. Still, after reading this article, I wonder how we can continue to challenge teachers to embed global issues or real-world scenarios in their program design to focus on “learning with hope” for our students and ensure the educated person is not “an ivory tower person”? Through these innovative opportunities in schools and at my current school, I hope we can see more of an opportunity for students to contribute to moral education.
References
Case, R., & Clark, P. (2013). The Anthology of Social Studies: Issues and Strategies for
Elementary Teachers (Updated Edition) (Updated edition). Pacific Educational Press.
Martin, J. R. (1987). Transforming Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education, 16(3), 204–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724870160305