Difference between revisions of "Alysha"

Latest revision as of 06:32, 11 February 2020

Hey! My name is Alysha Navarro. I'm pursuing my Masters of Education. I like drinking bubble tea, teaching History and English, and playing games of all sorts (from D&D to video games).

Production 1

Indigenous Knowledges [IK], when compared to western education and ways of knowing, offer a vastly different way of learning, knowing, and view not only of, but on, knowledge as a whole. Brayboy and Maughan (11-12) say it best themselves when they state “within the Western tradition, the knowledge sought is propositional in nature… individuals concerned… focus on the search for eternal truths, laws, and principles… Indigenous Knowledges, however, are contextual and contextualized; they are lived and are an integral part of survival”.

Unlike Western traditions, IK centres itself on a pedagogy of relevancy. Knowledge is not something sought after for the sake of learning alone; instead, when one teaches information to others, one must make sure that the knowledge transmitted has purpose. This, itself, is the key difference between knowledge as knowing and knowledge as doing: Indigenous Knowledge draws information out of passivity into activity.

This connects to the concepts offered by Mitchell et al. in “Complexity Pedagogy and e-Learning: Emergence in Relational Networks”. The article discusses the nature of complexity pedagogy, and offers the Daagu system as a platform which is built upon this pedagogy, as opposed to the linear nature of learning offer by platforms such as Moodle, Blackboard, etc. (Mitchell et al. 206). Complexity pedagogy bases itself upon a number of ideas, one of the most important being the concept of emergence, which is defined as “non-linear, unexpected, novel, or newly created—not by consensus or construction, but by chaos and self-organizing processes that are generative” (209).

Emergent knowledge, and thus complexity pedagogy, relies on the chaos that comes from bringing different ideas together into one space. Like Indigenous Knowledges, Complexity pedagogy emphasizes the importance of the holistic, all-togetherness nature of new ideas, and the connections that takes place between thoughts. I understand this to mean that Indigenous Knowledges stress the importance of relevancy of information, whereas Complexity pedagogy invites learners to find the context which makes the information they learn relevant.

Both Indigenous Knowledge and Complexity pedagogy draw on the sharing of information, and the understanding that learning and knowledge does not have to look like a single, straight line. In conceptualizing knowledge this way, the boundaries between learner and teacher blur; “as students make new connections among ideas and consider how those ideas may be relevant in his or her personal context of study or life, the nature of emergent learning in spaces of difference broadens and becomes more dense and connected” (210).

I believe that Indigenous Knowledges offer an important lens through which one can view, teach, and utilize technology tools within learning and other cultural contexts. As highlighted in “Indigenous Knowledges and the Story of the Bean, “Circular understandings do not draw separations… instead, connections… are central for knowledge production and the responsible uses of knowledge” (Brayboy and Maughan 13). This focus on knowledge being responsible and circular, when applied to technology, changes the scope of how technology is used greatly.

Often, the inclusion of technology within teaching is done in a prescriptive manner (eg. answering questions on moodle, watching a prepared slideshow, selecting the right multiple choice answer in a kahoot). If a holistic mindset is applied to technology, then the kinds of technologies selected and used can turn from knowledge being presented into knowledge being shared and further developed through the interaction of minds (eg. perhaps making an online mindmap through which learners can add on their own thoughts and ideas, and respond to others’ thoughts and ideas in kind). If Indigenous KNowledges can be kept in mind with working with technology, perhaps they can also be kept in mind by those who develop technology, in order to continue to make technological tools open, accessible, and places where free information and knowledge is respected, shared, and responded to.

Production 2

Production 2 regarding Sesame street.

Production 3

Production 4

Production 4 can be seen here

Production 4 was a breath of fresh air that allowed me to really think about education and technology. Through the process of making the video, I learned more about the editing and the timing of the software I was using (not to mention learning of the software in the first place; I never knew Microsoft photos could make videos, nor had I ever used the built in voice recorder on my cellphone!) and gathered a greater appreciation for people who do such work professionally, as it was more work than I thought. However, doing said work highlighted to me one of the overlying themes of our vourse: that technology within education doesn't just have to be everyone making a pwoerpoint, but can allowing students and teachers alike to pick a form of software and make something educational and fun.

The usage of the ideation deck to create liberating constraints regarding the video I made really and truly helped make the video come to life. Like my work with others in class, I drew inspiration from a single object - a wooden frog that my partner is very fond of - and with the idea sparked by the object, I was able to get my work going.

Genre: Tutorial Theme/Method: Using humour, adding voice-over, switch camera angles Story object: Wooden frog Technique: Pan, a moving camera, voice over, power angle (looking down), texts