Further to this common thread of perspective when it comes to technology and education, this article and interview features Mike Parkhill and Brent Tookenay and their collaborative project on using technology to revitalizing Indigenous languages. Parkhill argues that there is a need to modernize Indigenous languages – not just archive them. He provides the example of the work he did with modernizing the Inuktitut language, explaining that the word Ikiaqqivik is used for internet. It means “my body stays here but my soul travels other places to see”. This is so complex, I wonder about others’ perspectives on the necessity to “modernize” language, yet I also find the word choice to be thoughtful and intentional. How has this modernization been received? Especially when someone non-native is backing the technological aspect.
In the interview, Parkhill goes on to explain the reading app and literature that he has been involved in designing in which he includes phonetic text for the Maliseet language, a language that was only used orally. The intention is for people to read to/with their children, but because of tradition, this caused contention. I wonder if there aren’t better ways to honour tradition whilst highlighting language learning.
I am particularly interested in learning more about how indigenous people are using modern/western technologies in order to re-know/learn traditional ways of knowing and doing (technologies). This is something that I have been increasingly interested in as I hear more and more first-hand stories about how indigenous communities are connecting and sharing ancestral knowledge and using technologies to uncover artifacts that have journeyed far from their place. The following weblinks touch on key themes from Module 1, particularly that of place. I am quickly learning that perspective also lends to offshoots in conversation about technology and Indigenous education.
What I find particularly interesting is how this tweet illustrates the complexity and varying opinions on technology integration in education. Wab Kinew tweets “It’s important we move technology to early years and make sure every kid, not just the high achiever, learns to code”, sharing a New York Times article . This statement strikes me as quite contrary to much of our readings and many Aboriginal perspectives on western technology, but what strikes me as most interesting, are the comments that follow Kinew’s tweet suggesting an understanding of the natural world be more important. Kinew responds saying both technology and “critical thinking about the natural world” are important. But what does this look like? How can these two notions be married?