Difference between revisions of "Production Response 1"
(Created page with "'''On our calendar page, I provided some reading questions. Building on those, and using the Brayboy & Maughan (2009) and Mitchell, et al (2016) texts, write a critical essay...") |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''– And how can IK help us think (and do) differently vis a vis technology tools in learning and cultural contexts (in and outside of formal schooling systems)?''' | '''– And how can IK help us think (and do) differently vis a vis technology tools in learning and cultural contexts (in and outside of formal schooling systems)?''' | ||
| − | In the story presented by Brayboy and Maughan the idea of a different perspective of how teaching can be done was well illustrated from the point of view of indigenous ways. The article tackled the idea between the ‘Indigenous Knowledge Systems’ in comparison to our Westernized educational system. It was, however, careful not to simplify the issue into a right or wrong scenario, where there are only two sides to the story (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 5). The point was to “… make visible the ways in which knowledge clashes between Indigenous and non – Indigenous educators might be transformed from places of destruction to sites of hope and possibility” (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 2). The group of Indigenous pre-service teachers was at the center of discussion. Their understanding and presentation of knowledge were different when compared to what they were being taught at the University. The idea of what makes a ‘good teacher’ is different amongst the two groups, I think, because of the end goals that the knowledge will be used. In the Westernized educational system, it is very common for students to attain knowledge primarily based on facts, numbers, and abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a teacher to hear the age-old question, “when will I ever use this in real life?”. This type of issue is not as common in an Indigenous Knowledge system as outlined by the tribal leader’s discussion with the University team. When the University team was asking these elders what the teachers needed to be able to do, they stated that it was essential that the teacher was able to great meaningful connections with the students. As well “teachers needed to show schoolchildren the ways in which their learning helps the entire community and how the curriculum relates to their everyday lives” (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009, p. 8). The focus of what knowledge is can be centered around the idea that it will have a purpose to the students later in their life. It will affect them directly, impact their culture and assist their community. | + | In the story presented by Brayboy and Maughan the idea of a different perspective of how teaching can be done was well illustrated from the point of view of indigenous ways. The article tackled the idea between the ‘Indigenous Knowledge Systems’ in comparison to our Westernized educational system. It was, however, careful not to simplify the issue into a right or wrong scenario, where there are only two sides to the story (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 5). The point was to “… make visible the ways in which knowledge clashes between Indigenous and non – Indigenous educators might be transformed from places of destruction to sites of hope and possibility” (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 2). The group of Indigenous pre-service teachers was at the center of discussion. Their understanding and presentation of knowledge were different when compared to what they were being taught at the University. The idea of what makes a ‘good teacher’ is different amongst the two groups, I think, because of the end goals that the knowledge will be used. In the Westernized educational system, it is very common for students to attain knowledge primarily based on facts, numbers, and abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a teacher to hear the age-old question, “when will I ever use this in real life?”. This type of issue is not as common in an Indigenous Knowledge system as outlined by the tribal leader’s discussion with the University team. When the University team was asking these elders what the teachers needed to be able to do, they stated that it was essential that the teacher was able to great meaningful connections with the students. As well “teachers needed to show schoolchildren the ways in which their learning helps the entire community and how the curriculum relates to their everyday lives” (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009, p. 8). The focus of what knowledge is can be centered around the idea that it will have a purpose to the students later in their life. It will affect them directly, impact their culture and assist their community. This is a big contrast in how we receive and use knowledge in the Western sense. |
| + | |||
| + | This is resonated well in the ideas and concepts presented by Mitchell in his paper. In the introduction of the paper, it is stated that "the Daagu process, with its focus on relationships, patterns, difference, and emergent learning, is not the typical structure for higher education, or education at any level for that matter" (Mitchell, 2016, p.206). It is outlined that we are educating students to just be able to ''consume'' knowledge with no purpose or application of it. The idea of a Complexity (Relational) pedagogy is introduced as a new way of having students learn in a web-like fashion where they are free to pursue their own interest within a topic. This, of course, utilizes the vast amount of information readily available on the internet. "Technology is a beautiful thing when it connects people, engages imaginations, and sparks creativity" (Mitchell, 2016, p. 210), technology like a community, will thrive when used to create a meaningful dialogue that will interact with all of its members. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the end, I strongly feel that we as a Western educational system have a lot to learn from the IK style of learning and teaching. Being able to connect and explain how the topics being learned will directly impact the students will make the lesson a lot more meaningful if they know the goals. It is also important to allow students to explore as their interests are peaked. This connects very well to how technology is learned outside of a rigid environment with a curriculum attached, the user will start with an interest or goal and begin to explore as their mind wonders, finding videos, forums or other people to interact with and learn from. Technology should not be seen as a simple tool that makes a lesson more flashy but does not add any important information, it has to transform or reform the lesson instead of just being used as an add on. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Return to '''[[Bernardo|<span style="color:green">Bernardo</span>]]''''s page or the '''[[5855: Cultural Studies of Technology for Education|<span style="color:green">Course page</span>]]'''! | ||
Latest revision as of 14:27, 30 January 2020
On our calendar page, I provided some reading questions. Building on those, and using the Brayboy & Maughan (2009) and Mitchell, et al (2016) texts, write a critical essay/reflection that addresses (and/or extends) key ideas in the readings and/or some of the following questions:
– What can we learn from Indigenous ways of knowing as represented in Brayboy and Maughan’s story, particularly with regard to conceptualizing knowledge as a ‘verb’ (action, doing, in context) versus knowledge as a ‘noun’ (i.e., propositional knowledge, static concepts, abstract ideas, and ‘textbook’ facts)?
– How does this connect to some of the themes and concepts offered by Mitchell, opening up potential new ways of engaging and thinking about technology, literacy practices, and deeper learning?
– And how can IK help us think (and do) differently vis a vis technology tools in learning and cultural contexts (in and outside of formal schooling systems)?
In the story presented by Brayboy and Maughan the idea of a different perspective of how teaching can be done was well illustrated from the point of view of indigenous ways. The article tackled the idea between the ‘Indigenous Knowledge Systems’ in comparison to our Westernized educational system. It was, however, careful not to simplify the issue into a right or wrong scenario, where there are only two sides to the story (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 5). The point was to “… make visible the ways in which knowledge clashes between Indigenous and non – Indigenous educators might be transformed from places of destruction to sites of hope and possibility” (Brayboy & Maughan,2009, p. 2). The group of Indigenous pre-service teachers was at the center of discussion. Their understanding and presentation of knowledge were different when compared to what they were being taught at the University. The idea of what makes a ‘good teacher’ is different amongst the two groups, I think, because of the end goals that the knowledge will be used. In the Westernized educational system, it is very common for students to attain knowledge primarily based on facts, numbers, and abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a teacher to hear the age-old question, “when will I ever use this in real life?”. This type of issue is not as common in an Indigenous Knowledge system as outlined by the tribal leader’s discussion with the University team. When the University team was asking these elders what the teachers needed to be able to do, they stated that it was essential that the teacher was able to great meaningful connections with the students. As well “teachers needed to show schoolchildren the ways in which their learning helps the entire community and how the curriculum relates to their everyday lives” (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009, p. 8). The focus of what knowledge is can be centered around the idea that it will have a purpose to the students later in their life. It will affect them directly, impact their culture and assist their community. This is a big contrast in how we receive and use knowledge in the Western sense.
This is resonated well in the ideas and concepts presented by Mitchell in his paper. In the introduction of the paper, it is stated that "the Daagu process, with its focus on relationships, patterns, difference, and emergent learning, is not the typical structure for higher education, or education at any level for that matter" (Mitchell, 2016, p.206). It is outlined that we are educating students to just be able to consume knowledge with no purpose or application of it. The idea of a Complexity (Relational) pedagogy is introduced as a new way of having students learn in a web-like fashion where they are free to pursue their own interest within a topic. This, of course, utilizes the vast amount of information readily available on the internet. "Technology is a beautiful thing when it connects people, engages imaginations, and sparks creativity" (Mitchell, 2016, p. 210), technology like a community, will thrive when used to create a meaningful dialogue that will interact with all of its members.
In the end, I strongly feel that we as a Western educational system have a lot to learn from the IK style of learning and teaching. Being able to connect and explain how the topics being learned will directly impact the students will make the lesson a lot more meaningful if they know the goals. It is also important to allow students to explore as their interests are peaked. This connects very well to how technology is learned outside of a rigid environment with a curriculum attached, the user will start with an interest or goal and begin to explore as their mind wonders, finding videos, forums or other people to interact with and learn from. Technology should not be seen as a simple tool that makes a lesson more flashy but does not add any important information, it has to transform or reform the lesson instead of just being used as an add on.
Return to Bernardo's page or the Course page!
