Multicultural and multiliterate
Disparities in educational outcomes have long been an issue in contemporary education. In fact, only this year have outcomes been released in BC that feature components of Aboriginal education across subjects in elementary school. These outcomes were previously far fewer in number and pigeon-holed to specific subjects, and even further, specific units within those subjects.
While this inclusion is a form of progress, it’s merely scraping the barrel of the awareness of perspectives that we should be acknowledging, celebrating, and utilizing for knowledge-building purposes within classroom spaces. Every classroom diversity training that I’ve been to suggests that children need to “see themselves” within your classroom environment, whether that is through literature featuring their race, celebration of cultural tradition, or inclusion of language. However, the New London Group (NLG, 1996) posits that this isn’t enough, prizing empathetic and inclusive relations across the learning community. These children need to be heard, listened to, and, probably most importantly, contributors to a knowledge-seeking community.
Just as students with diverse backgrounds and knowledge should be treated as “dynamic representational resources” who provide a pivotal lens for a learning community, the dynamism of media that they create should be viewed similarly (NLG, 1996, p.64). Dobson & Willinsky (2009) add to this notion with their discussions of gender and access gaps, pointing to the fact that differences might also occur because of a lack of opportunity to learn or hone new media skills by different cultural groups. Regardless, designs and representations should be respected from all groups, whether it is because of a lack of opportunity to expand one’s design tool horizons or because of a cultural choice in the medium itself. “The changing technological and organizational shape of working life provides some with access to lifestyles of unprecedented affluence, while excluding others in ways that are increasingly related to the outcomes of education and training” (NLG, 1996, p.61).
We need to work to address these gaps. It needs to do better than including some books in the classroom or some learning outcomes in a curriculum, even though that’s a start.
References
Dobson & Willinsky. (2009). Digital Literacy. In Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp.1-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
New London Group (Cazden, Courtney, Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis et al.). (1996). ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.’ Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
tamara_cox1 (Photographer). (2011). Multicultural sign [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/24855230@N07/5913704434
Hi Victoria, I agree that a lot more needs to be done. References to First Nations/ Aboriginals have been added to the Ontario curriculum too, and while there is a lot of progress in subjects like Social Studies (Canadian History in particular) in other areas it just seems like the same curriculum with a token acknowledgement thrown in. When I studied history as a child there were a couple of paragraphs in the textbook about Canada before Cartier, and 300 pages after. Now, increasingly, the curriculum addresses how the original Americans would have looked upon these white immigrants, rather than the European view of this “untamed” land. More commonly, though, the “inclusion” looks like this, where a brief reference to an aboriginal example is tacked on in brackets to the original expectation:
A3.1 describe, with teacher guidance, a variety of dances from different communities around the world that they have seen in the media, at live performances and social gatherings, or in the classroom (e.g., … pow wow dance styles …) (Ontario, 2014, p. 9).
I’ve noted this politically-correct gloss over in some of our readings too. Many Western thinkers declare with a sense of righteousness that anyone can be “successful” within their system with the “right supports”. Instead, they should realize that their very ideas of success, and their hierarchical notions of progress within this system are themselves full of cultural assumptions and that these “right supports” serve as an indoctrination which is not always wanted by those outside the prevalent culture. Englebart is guilty of this when he uses the idea of the ignorant aboriginal, brought out of the past by the benevolent white man and given the keys to modern times. “While an untrained aborigine cannot drive a car through traffic, because he cannot leap the gap between his cultural background and the kind of world that contains cars and traffic, it is possible to move step by step through an organized training program that will enable him to drive effectively and safely” (Englebart, 1963, pp. 9-10). If Englebart were still alive, I might suggest to him that this aborigine may prefer to remain out of “the kind of world that contains cars and traffic”.
References:
Englebart, Douglas. (1963). “A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect.” In Hawerton, P.W. and Weeks, D.C. (Eds), Vistas in information handling, Volume I: The augmentation of man’s intellect by machine. Washington, DC: Spartan Books. Available (as “Augmentation of human intellect: A conceptual framework”):
http://web.archive.org/web/20080331110322/http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/friedewald030402/augmentinghumanintellect/ahi62index.html
Ontario. (2014). First Nation, Métis and Inuit Connections. Scope and Sequence of Expectations. Retrieved from: https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/elementaryFNMI.pdf
Thanks for your comment, Randy. I agree that the outcomes pertaining to Aboriginal education and their suggested activities/foci often seem like an afterthought in themselves. That is a great point about Engelbart; I never noticed that quote. What we accept as culturally “normal” can also impact our interpretations and expectations of others, who we expect to adopt sameness, when in reality, they may be celebrating a culture of difference.
Hi Victoria,
I’m glad that you brought up the topic of Aboriginal education, as I believe it is a topic that should be discussed and acknowledged. I completely agree with you that the inclusion of Aboriginal content in education is a form of progress, however, I am not convinced that it is sufficient to address and rectify the vast discrepancies observed in achievement rates when comparing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Unfortunately, when defining or interpreting these problems, the blame is often placed on Aboriginal students, their parents or their communities (Hare, 2011). In my opinion, what the institutions fail to recognize is that perhaps the core issues exist in the Eurocentric ways of teaching, the lack of culturally relevant content and the imposed learning styles (Maina, 1997). These are but a few examples of the barriers First Nations students must face in the Westernized educational system that places them at a disadvantage and renders the pedagogy unfit for them.
Your comment about the importance of providing students with the opportunity to “see themselves” in the classroom really resonated with me. In order to do so, it seems to me that it is necessary to step away from the notion that education is culturally neutral, and begin to support, acknowledge and value the multiple cultures and perspectives that are present in and outside of schools. The introduction of cultural and linguistic diversity in the classroom can benefit all students as it inevitably exposes them to “different languages, discourses, styles and approaches” (New London Group, 1996, p. 69), which is a far better representation of the diverse reality students face in their daily lives.
The use of multi-media technologies in the classroom can offer students new and diverse ways to express their ideas, share their knowledge and create meaning textually, visually and/or orally. While these abilities can be beneficial to all students, it’s interesting to note how they can also offer alternative teaching and learning approaches that more suitable for First Nations students and more closely resemble their traditional and holistic ways of knowing.
Hare, J. (2011). Learning from Indigenous knowledge in education. In D. Long and O. P. Dickenson (Eds.), Visions of the heart, 3rd Edition (pp. 91-112).
Maina, F. (1997). Culturally relevant pedagogy: First Nations education in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 17(2), 293-314. Retrieved from http://iportal.usask.ca/docs/ind_art_cjns_v17/cjnsv17no2_pg293-314.pdf
New London Group (Cazden, Courtney, Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis et al.). (1996). ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.’ Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Hi Rachel,
Thank you for your comment. It is absolutely important to identify that education is not culturally neutral, and that it indeed carries with it the bias of the dominant majority. I actually found it highly interesting that the New London Group (1996) scholars were all from first-world, English-speaking countries, and wondered, despite their awareness and thoughtful discourse towards inclusion, how their own biases may have played into the theories that they suggested. I am not sure that it is possible not to completely remove oneself from cultural phenomenological bias. With that being said, I think it can begin with celebrating the vast difference in student-created multimedia, and engaging in discourse around representational choices and modes of storytelling.
References
New London Group (Cazden, Courtney, Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis et al.). (1996). ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.’ Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Hi Victoria,
I also found it interesting how the members of the New London Group (1996) were scholars from the first-world and wonder to what extent their perspectives and goals are considered “Westernized”. I found Rave’s comments on her rip.mix.feed post (https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540w2015/2015/11/15/rip-mix-feed/) really insightful as she discusses the digital divide she experiences and how New London Group’s goals may not be easily implemented (or accepted) given a particular cultural context.