Practical experience update to a quasi-theoretical philosophy of teaching:
For clarity and easy referral, the original platform statement is included at the end of this update.
When I originally wrote this statement seven months ago, I based at least half of it on articles I had read that made me re-think what home economics was actually about (in the philosophical rather than historical sense). My beliefs since practicum have not changed, but they certainly have shifted and focused toward two major points I outlined in the original platform. The first point concerns my belief that home economics is and always has been about the family, but my definition of family has broadened to include the importance of the community in the classroom ideals I learned and later practiced first hand in my teaching. Being a product of the 1980’s curriculum, I am still adapting to this new idea of the engaged, inclusive classroom operating as a family unit. I learned quite quickly that I have a small window of opportunity to grab hold of the students in the classroom before they spiral down into their familiar matrix of texting and online phone-gaming. I realized that one cannot underestimate the need for this community classroom ownership, and that it must be articulated quickly if you don’t want to struggle for weeks to “get your class back”.
By means of further expansion on that idea, the de-emphasis on content in the new curriculum is a slippery slope for a new teacher because esoterically trying to put across big ideas and competencies without solid and engaging activities relating to the content can be met with a lot of glazed eyes, and your journey toward strengthening the core competencies stalled as a result. Again, I am talking about a new teacher, so my ignorance is shining through, but if you find a good hands on project quickly to get you closer to the students, it will make your journey to the higher order thinking and principles a more successful one.
The second point that has risen to the surface in my mind is that of reflective practice. I spent a lot of time, maybe too much by some people’s standards, thinking and mulling over ideas, activities, delivery methods, and strategies that worked very well, marginally well, or not at all, until common threads started to form and clarify my thoughts. Reflective practice works, there is no doubt in my mind. If you are in this profession for the right reasons, the betterment of children’s lives, then this should be a natural and necessary progression in your journey as a teacher. Take some risks, and reflect on them in a practical sense after the fact, regardless if they fall flat or soar. I have never been scared to take risks, but like many, I dislike failing. Re-framing this into a learning experience however, takes the pressure off you and your class as the process becomes the precedent, and failure simply a checkpoint – a chance to gather the class for an analysis, charette, or other community problem solving and idea sharing forum.
I was pleased to see that my overall assumptions about home economics (and technology education) were on point, and that the practicum gave me exactly what I wanted and needed: A testing ground for my thoughts and ideas on strengthening connections through family.
Original document
Introduction
For me, Home Economics has come to be about the family. On the micro level, this is the immediate family, but the macro view of community, country, and world as family are likewise a view we must adopt. Presently, globalization requires me, and us, to view the world through a more holistic lens, though I can assure you that when I first enrolled in the faculty of Human Ecology in nineteen ninety five, this was not the case. I had an interest in health and fitness, and my primary motivation was to become an expert in both of fields. In some ways I did in fact accomplish that goal, and spent many years, some good, some bad, teaching people how to eat, exercise, and live healthy. What I learned along the way is that I was not dealing with calories, proteins, and the Harris-Benedict equation for “Female – 25-40”, but with real people and real families, and the main challenges they faced as they navigated the very rough waters of life relationships, and the world at large.
The changing identity of Home Economics (Human Ecology)
People often asked me: “What exactly is Human Ecology?”, to which I answered “Peoples interaction with their environment, with respect to food, clothing, shelter, and family unit management”. Not unlike the mission of Home Economics, this description is insufficient. Everyone understands that we must go to work, conform to certain rules at said work, and get paid so we can survive. But what about the other 16 or so hours of the day, what are the rules, rewards, and duties there? Like the role of Home Economics on the world front, these parameters are not clearly defined, and as a result, both have suffered greatly to survive.
In the early part of the 20th century, Home Economics was not only about health and hygiene, but women’s educational and societal rights, and cultural values that pertained to both the family and society as a whole (Smith & De Zwart, 2010). The McDonald –Robertson movement adopted the slogan of “head, heart, and hands” pertaining to the educational goals of young girls and boys in household and manual training respectively (Smith & De Zwart, 2010, p. 20), strikingly similar to the technology education slogan of “head and hands” currently in use today. Through the great depression, war, and rise of commercialization and advertising, home economics continued to survive and attain recognition as a scientific form of home management, only to falter in the nineteen sixties as traditional sciences and ground-shattering events like the race to space shifted the educational focus away from home management (Smith & De Zwart, 2010).
Even as home economics continued its struggle to find legitimacy into the late nineties, it continued to broaden its focus in the socio-political scope of family institutions and the economy, community issues in obesity and food safety, and global level perspectives on social justice and sustainability in the new millennia (Smith & De Zwart, 2010, p. 20). I believe that this new global perspective is the outlet that home economics must plug in to as people strive to find meaning in an increasingly disconnected society. Even though technology brings us virtually closer together, its pacing and exponential increase of use in our daily lives threatens the value placed on “organic” interaction. If human beings disconnect from actual interaction, then context, empathy, nuance and mutual understanding are sure to suffer in the wake.
Home Economics and the Family
An archaic catch phrase of home economics used to be “(home economists should be able to) catch good husbands (because they had a) license to become a good wife and mother” (Darling, 1995). In some ways, this distorted statement is true in that home economists are better wives or husbands because they are trained to understand the family dynamic and its importance in the home, community, and beyond. Although the sexist ignorance of the time may be laughable now, it belied the fact that home economics was already on a noble and pertinent track, leading to its present day indispensability on several global fronts. It is at this point that I must step back and iterate that my belief in home economics is not just a purely theoretical and esoteric view, but a practical handbook for better living within the family dynamic. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was taught to me in the context of home economics and human ecological interactions, and while not culturally universal as once thought (Wachter, 2003), still provides a framework upon which home economics still rests. In terms of food, basic physiological needs are met, but does that also not reach into the upper echelon of safety, love and belonging? Families operate on many levels simultaneously, and the interactions between food, celebration, providing shelter and clothing, and showing love will lead an individual to esteem and self actualization. Many believe that the continuing degradation of this family construct is intimately tied to the fraying social fabric of life, and cite individualism, lack of respect and personal responsibility toward others, general impersonality to daily life, and (the ensuing product of) poor community values as factors therein (McGregor & Chesworth, 2005, p. 30). However, it appears that although people and families are mostly driven by “doing and having” instead of “being and relating”, they are increasingly willing to “trade it all in” in exchange for some deeper meaning to life (Darling, 1995, p. 30). It is here that we move to the next position that home economics must take.
Reflective Practice
As a teacher in home economics, I believe in embracing the concept of reflective practice. Home economics is in and of itself an interconnected discipline. We study the many facets of home economics independently, like food, textiles and family studies, but also identify that these studies are interconnected and must be viewed as such if we are to be effective teachers in the school system (Vaines, Badir, Kieren, & University of British Columbia, 1988). Vaines describes why we would choose to become a professional home economist by comparing the path of the reflective practitioner (a morally driven vision for the common good) to that of the no choice path which is devoid of a philosophical orientation on one extreme, or a technical rational path through more familiar territory where we fit into the machine like contextual box of “recipe for success” (Vaines et al., 1988). In choosing the path of reflective practice, one must consider many questions involving who you are and what you can do, what the nature of your practice is and what it means to you, along with the consequences therein, and how you fit in and foster a positive impact on a societal, moral and eventually global level (Vaines et al., 1988). As I stated previously, I entered into this profession very much on a technical rational level that, though career driven, still held an inkling of philosophical stance in that I actually wanted to affect a change, one person at a time. I was slow to come around, but my exposure to disintegrating families that my clients (parents) tried desperately to hold intact shifted my thinking toward a greater scope of affecting change on a larger level, with a standpoint of moral obligation replacing my prior egocentrism. Going back into schools after all these years was quite a revelation to me, as the demographic face of the classroom is absolutely nothing like I remember it. In the small town in southern Manitoba where I grew up, I can recall only two east Indian families, and one African Canadian family, the rest consisting of majority white and minority Metis and First Nations. This was in a rural secondary school of nearly two thousand students, so I can only imagine to what extent these individuals suffered in such a grossly imbalanced forum. This contrast impacted me greatly, and was the “enlightening” event that led me into the exploration of the mode of Reflective practice (Vaines et al., 1988). My final thoughts on this mode of practice lie in the First Nations education component which is embedded in the new B.C. curriculum. First Nations have always embraced spirituality and the connectedness with nature, and in many ways embody the spirit of home economics. Many cultures embrace many stages of a life cycle with the child held in forefront as the closest to the spirit world, and more open to knowledge then at any other point in life (McGregor & Chesworth, 2005) – this statement requires no further elaboration.
Conclusion
If society is indeed coming apart at the seams due to technology, our ever accelerating fast paced life, or just an overwhelming shift in focus from the world to the self, then the family unit must be rebuilt to support the imminent collapse in both the individual and the community around them. As in any structure, the base must be intact for the structure to hold, and home economics will provide that base. Educating students to the hierarchy of needs, and further adapting that hierarchy to include cultural and First Nations differences is a means of exposing them to a more world-wise view; in doing so we create a global perspective of acceptance and understanding. As we begin to better understand the consequences of our actions and their subsequent effect on others, we can better understand our moral place in the world, and begin a journey toward a life of deeper meaning and purposeful co-existence.
References
Darling, C. A. (1995). An Evolving Historical Paradigm: From Home Economics’ to Family and Consumer Sciences’1. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 19(4), 367-379. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.1995.tb00558.x
McGregor, S., Chesworth, N. (2005). Positioning Human Spirituality in Home Economics. Journal of the HEIA, 12(3), 27-44.
Smith, G., & De Zwart, M. L. (2010). Home Economics: A Contextual Study of the Subject and Home Economics Teacher Education. Teachers of Home Economics Specialist Association (THESA), British Columbia.
Vaines, E., Badir, D., Kieren, D. K., & University of British Columbia. School of Family and Nutritional Sciences. (1988). People and practice: International Issues for Home Economists. People and Practice, 5(3), 1-17.
Wachter, K. (2003). Rethinking Maslow’s Needs. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 95(2), 68.