Category: EDCI532

Photo By: Zbysiu Rodak

Introduction:

“Attempts at the so-called inclusion of Aboriginal perspectives have usually meant that an anachronistic study of Aboriginal people is offered as a possibility in classrooms only if there is time and people are still interested” (Donald, 2009, p. 23). As a social studies teacher, Donald’s quote resonates with me; it highlights the necessity of decolonizing curriculum. So often, curricular developers and educators have placed Indigenous content on the periphery of teaching importance, rather than weaving it throughout and providing it with the same attention as other historical events. Whether it is lack of knowledge or resistance on behalf of scholars, educators, teacher training programs or curricular developers at the provincial levels, I believe, we all have a role to play in providing and strengthening “the representation and centrality of Indigenous peoples” (Gibson, L., & Case, R. 2019, p. 255), within Canadian history courses, curriculum and education as a whole. To make changes and move forward education, specifically a more inclusive curriculum, it is essential to understand where we came from in terms of early pedagogy and practices.  

My Connection to Decolonization of Curriculum as a Social Studies Teacher:

Traditionally, Canadian history curriculum and teaching practices have been developed and taught, respectively, upon a Euro-centric or ethnocentric perspective. Consequently, this frame of reference has left Canada’s Indigenous population marginalized, as their contributions and tragic losses, which have played significant roles in the shaping and development of Canada, have not received the recognition that is rightfully deserved. In 2015 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released its Calls to Action, “to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process of Canadian reconciliation” (TRC, 2015, p. 1). This motion calls upon various levels of government to make changes in a variety of areas, including education. Specific reforms include “the development of curriculum and integration of knowledge on Indigenous historical and contemporary issues in primary and secondary education” (Morcom, L., & Freeman, K., 2018, p. 811) and “the training of teachers to advance awareness of the history and legacy of residential schools, [in addition to] tools for building student…intercultural understanding, empathy and mutual respect” (p. 811). As a social studies educator, I am grateful for the changes that our provincial government has made regarding implementing more Indigenous content throughout the social studies curriculum. For example, one of the curriculum competencies facilitates learners in making ethical judgements through the examination of actions that existed in the past and present in reference to the lives of  Canada’s First Nations population (“Social studies 10 | Building student success,” 2018).

Photo By Maher-El-Aridi on Unsplash

Furthermore, the development of the Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in K-12 Curriculum has served as an invaluable guide with which I am becoming more confident in using to immerse my learners in a wealth of Indigenous content. In addition to British Columbia’s welcomed changes, I also believe it is my responsibility, to look within my community and seek further education. Both my students and I benefit from the rich oral narratives that local First Nations knowledge keepers and elders hold. These individuals provide first-hand accounts of their own experiences that are not found in textbooks. My connection to the significance of immersing both myself and my learners in Indigenous content, to truly understand, acknowledge and honour the truth around the development of our country, is supported by various researchers. 

Article Examination on Decolonization of Curriculum:

Articles by Gibson and Case (2019) and Morcom and Freeman (2018) highlight the necessity for both curriculum and teacher training, respectively, to be developed in such a way as to break down barriers that traditionally have kept Indigenous perspectives and content on the periphery of education. Gibson and Case (2019) identify that although some scholars and curricular developers disagree with changing Canadian historical curriculum as it “rejects the discipline of history and historical thinking” (p. 251), they propose that simple changes can be implemented without “radical epistemological restructuring” (p. 251), thus meeting the TRC reforms. The first change, noted in Gibson and Case (2019), involves bringing indigenous content away from the sidelines and bringing it to the forefront. The authors suggest this can be done through the engagement with local Elders, Indigenous literature, primary sources and other resources produced by Indigenous members. The goal is to “go beyond sprinkling…Indigenous historical content into a predominantly Euro-Canadian curriculum” (p. 254), rather immersing in it. Second, teach learners the skills to become in-depth thinkers, thereby challenging them to “think historically by interpreting historical evidence” (p. 254), rather than simply accepting the norm or what has been acceptable in the past. Gibson and Case (2019) argue that this skill is important for students to recognize discriminatory views and perspectives. Third, provincial and territorial curriculum developers should create more courses dedicated to focussing on “Indigenous historical and contemporary world views” (p. 254-255). It should be noted that the authors recognized that there are several regions in Canada, such as British Columbia, that have made some changes, similar to their recommendations, to meet the TRC recommendations. 

Morcom and Freeman (2018), stress the significance of valuing local First Nations culture and encourage teacher candidates to become involved with the teachings of local First Nations’ knowledge keepers and elders. The co-authors, both educators within the Department of Education’s Aboriginal Teacher Education Program (ATEP) at Queen’s University, use the Anishinaabe First Nations’ “philosophy, worldview, culture and spirituality…as a source of information and guidance in…[their]teaching” (Morcom, L., & Freeman, K., 2018, p. 814). Specifically, the educators connect their methodologies and pedagogies to the traditional “Seven Grandfather Teachings, [including] honesty, humility, respect, bravery, wisdom, truth and love” (p. 815), and the medicine wheel, which encompasses “the for directions, sky, earth, [and] center” (p. 815). Morcom and Freeman (2018), argue that their teaching methods enable teacher candidates the opportunity to develop a deep understanding, knowledge and respect for the Indigenous culture, and the significance of including it in both curriculum and teaching methods. Furthermore, Morcom and Freeman (2018) argue that following this inclusive style of teaching meets the reconciliation requirements set forth by the TRC, and more importantly, facilitates in the development of future teachers recognizing and respecting the need to build a more inclusive and just society (p. 829).

The above-mentioned authors clearly provide welcome guidance as to how educators can work on improving their knowledge of Indigenous content with which to bring to the classroom. Their perspectives and methods are informative, and they provide current teachers and teacher candidates with the opportunity to constructively think about how to stop the marginalization of Indigenous content that has existed in society, or education, for far too long.  

 

Photo By: Frankie K.

Conclusion: 

The traditional methods of teaching Canadian history followed a very ethnocentric perspective, with the exemption and romanticism of Indigenous content. The TRC’s Calls to Action around education has identified the significance of decolonizing curriculum and supporting educators in developing their knowledge of Indigenous culture. I believe, to have an honest, just and inclusive education system, it is essential as educators to discuss, learn, and question past wrongs alongside our learners, to break down the barriers that colonial views had originally established in early curriculum.

References:

Donald, D. T. (2009). The curricular problem of Indigenousness: Colonial frontier logics, teacher resistances, and the acknowledgment of ethical space. Beyond ‘Presentism’, 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460910012_004

Education for reconciliation. (2019, September 5). Relations Couronne-Autochtones et Affaires du Nord Canada / Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada – Canada.ca. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524504501233/1557513602139

Gibson, L., & Case, R. (2019). Reshaping Canadian History Education in Support of Reconciliation. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(1), 251-284. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3591

Morcom, L., & Freeman, K. (2018). Building Non-Indigenous Allies in Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(3), 808-833. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3344

 Social studies 10 | Building student success. (2018). Building Student Success – BC’s New Curriculum. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/social-studies/10/

 (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). https://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

 

 

Photo by Jeremy Bishop

My Curricular Metaphor:

 Curriculum is the root system of a tree. It enables a strong trunk, branches and eventually buds, leaves and or needles to grow and develop. The roots (like curriculum) are essential to the life, growth and development of the tree over the course of its lifetime, and it fulfills many significant responsibilities. The root system establishes a solid foundation, provides the nourishment needed to feed the tree, extends support and strength while at the same time allowing for flexibility. This is exemplified when a tree sways in the wind or bends to grow toward the sun, encourages the growth of new root shoots to facilitate in the growing process, and lastly they adjust to environmental changes to withhold its structure and integrity. Curriculum, like the root system, also has many responsibilities to fulfill. It provides learners with necessary structures to use as a base upon which to build and develop further knowledge and understanding of the concepts being taught, contributes to the nourishment of knowledge, self-confidence, rigour and expansion of one’s skill set, promotes new learning opportunities, and accommodates for various learning styles and interests. Without a sturdy, grounded root system, or curriculum, it is difficult to support learner growth and advancement.  

 My Teaching Context:

 At Fort St. James Secondary School my teaching content area further reminds me of the intertwined nature of a tree’s root system, as I teach various courses. Consequently, I seek guidance and structure from various arenas that support Social Studies 10, Career Life Education 10, and Career Life Connections 12. The specific curriculum I rely on, as set forth by the BC Ministry of Education provides structure while at the same time is open for individualization. Social Studies 10 curriculum I follow, includes the BC Social Studies 10 Curriculum, and  Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives: Social Studies K-12 Curriculum. Other areas I seek support from include Elders or Local Knowledge Holders (from the Nak’azdli Whut’en First Nation), First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) and CIVIX Canada. For the Careers context, I use the BC Career Life-Education 10 Curriculum, and  BC Career Life Connections 12 Curriculum. To further support student learning and engagement I also use MyBlueprint, Career Compass, Education Planner BC, and Student Work-Safe. I believe the ministerial curriculum documents provide a strong framework with which I can build upon, using the additional aforementioned resources. 

 Egan VS. Blade: As I See Them 

 Egan’s and Blade’s viewpoints on what best constitutes curriculum could be seen as divergent. Egan, for example, argues from a constructivist standpoint supporting the notion that the what or the content needing to be taught is the most significant aspect that the curriculum and should be focussed on and built upon. In addition, he does not support how viewpoints or questions that focus on how the learner will learn best or how individual learning processes should be the building blocks of a curriculum. This notion is further supported by his statement that “curriculum is the study of any and all educational phenomena, [and] may draw on…external discipline[s] for methodological help, but the methodology doesn’t determine the inquiry (Egan,1978, p.16). Furthermore, Egan suggests that “what the curriculum should contain requires a sense of what the contents are for”  (p.14), thus suggesting that specific curricular content would have taken into account the individual knowledge and skills that will be learned, rather than how they will be learned. Lastly, Egan suggested that if curricular content focused on how individuals each learn best, there will be a lag in the amount of knowledge gained, moreover, it does not provide a sound framework of content with which one can build upon, and instead, it leads to unclarity (p.14). 

 Contrary to Egan’s article, Blade identified the individual’s learning processes and their voice as an integral part of curriculum development. Blade, who took a more deconstructivist approach, recognized that being trapped within the confines of a content-driven curriculum, actually “exclude[d] and limit[ed]…possibilities” (Blade,1995, p.129). Furthermore, he identified that those who traditionally held positions of power, within curriculum development, rarely regarded the individuals that worked directly with it and/or affected by it. His statement identified that in these situations the “truly critical voices [of learners and educators] in the discourse were…seen as antagonists by the major voices” (Blade, p.147), thereby acknowledging that former processes resulted in a loss of pertinent information that could have been useful in developing curriculum. 

 I feel Egan’s and Blade’s viewpoints, regarding what curriculum should be focussed on, are equally significant. Although I sway toward Egan’s argument for the necessity of a strong and purposeful curriculum with clear and defined content from which to build upon, I am not as stringent. I recognize the need for individuality in learning. I prefer to follow a concrete curriculum and use it as scaffolding for future learning to build upon. However, I also integrate learner individuality to provide learners with the opportunity to demonstrate their learning process through individual measures and questioning. By following this process I believe it enables one to showcase their strengths while at the same time providing equity.

 References

Bishop/unsplash.com/photos/EwKXn5CapA4

Blades, D. (1997) Procedures of Power in a Curriculum Discourse: Conversations from Home. JCT, 11(4), 125-155.

 Egan, K. (2003) What is Curriculum? JCACS, 1(1), 9-16.