I am exasperated at being a linguistic minority in Ontario and not being able to/having much difficulty to get social services in French by publicly-funded agencies in communities where 20 to 40 percent of the population is francophone and agencies specifically get funding to operate in this language and serve this designated minority in addition to others. Being vulnerable and requiring social services, or simply having a right to these services, on top of being a linguistic minority whose elders are illiterate or semi-literate thanks to historic, unconstitutional non-funding of secondary schools and outright banning of French language education, and whose youth are often linguistically assimilated, self-loathing, barely functional and ashamed… it all adds up. And when you mention this reality in English conversation, people are often surprised and disturbed to hear about this form of oppression. (“I am surprised.” “It is so strange.” “I can’t believe it.”)
I am convinced that activism for minorities has to be done in part in the dominant language, through dominant cultural codes, and in dominant spaces. Minorities are already aware of their minoritisation (unless they have internalised the discourse of their oppressors to the point of accepting it). This is why I also speak and write about these issues in English and engage in discourse with those who are not affected or even aware, in additional to participating in French-language activism.
Yes, I know English well, it is my “second first language”, it is a paternal tongue, I have an English/Anglo-Irish name, I am bilingual and bicultural… but I am so sick of this indifference and invisibility. Providing French-language services, especially from publicly-funded bodies, is not a favour, it is a right and it is the law.
I remember trying to create a space online with my classmates to informally discuss some French lit texts we were reading and just have fun with content between weekly two-hour seminars during my MA in French lit. Nobody really seemed interested. I formed a group on Google groups (because some people said no to Facebook as a space) and people said they could not find the group, which is hard to believe (click on the link I sent perhaps?). It was so different from what goes on in education communities and and informal discussions in xMOOC, rhizome or others. When I hear people say that they would not want to learn online because they would miss interpersonal interaction, my response is one of confusion. Two hours of interaction in a weekly seminar is very little compared ongoing informal and ungraded discussion online, which can complement the two hours in person at the weekly seminar (literally everyday and all the time, if you want that much). I suppose it is a culture of learning or preference. I felt like the only way to talk French literature was with friends, actual friends, not just classmates, because I rarely saw the classmates apart from the two hours at the seminar… So in F2F graduate learning, there was really minimal interaction with actual live persons or classmates in my department, whereas online there is constant online interaction and dialogue in communities of interest. I suppose some people just don’t like being online all the time and that is valid. I just wish there had been a way to continue the discussion from the seminar or explore the text on our own terms, without the professor (or even WITH the professor), and also in a safe, relaxed way without being evaluated. I remember our professor had encouraged my idea to continue the conversation elsewhere. It just seemed so foreign in my department… I did establish a Google group for the FREN 101 group I was teaching and a minority of students used it to help each other and ask questions to each other or to me. I think it helped, or could help, those who made use of it as a resource. I guess institutional learning really sets up a culture of closed, formal spaces in LMS, and it is a paradigm shift to break down this unnecessary barrier and take initiative as learners to learn outside of that closed environment (even if it serves one’s advancement within the institution as a student earning a degree). It seems obvious to me that there are opportunities outside, even if they are complimentary to the formal degrees sought in institutions, to just work through the material. Maybe cultures of learning are actually learned through modelling in formal systems, so the idea of subverting this is difficult to perceive as beneficial. It if does not directly advance one’s efforts to earn a degree or credit, perhaps it is thought to be a waste of time. In that case, perhaps we can contrast the objectives of actual learning with earning credentials. Of course, credentials are required in the economy and professional worlds of today, and many are learning in formal institutions as a realistic way to navigate this economy and job market for obtaining a career, access to professions, subsistence, etc. Despite these barriers of accessing credentials through closed, expensive, formal systems, those participating in formal systems can make efforts at subversion on their own terms. I wish I had found takers in my French lit department…! In the meantime, I am enjoying online discourse about education in xMOOCs and other communities as well as rich feminist discussions in social media spaces.
This thought is in response to this blog, which I came across in the Google group for #NRC01PL.
“There is no doubt that teacher-to-student interaction is non-existent in all but a few xMOOCs, and student-to-student interaction (via shared forums, for example) is one of the weakest elements of my online learning experience so far. But nothing prevents students from going beyond these existing tools and creating their own intimate communities (by taking classes in a group, for example, or building their own small online communities of committed classmates) to fill these gaps.”
The critique about MOOCs being patriarchal is theoretical rather than literal. Patriarchy does refer to authority being in the hands of men, either within a family unit or in a government or organisation. Most societies are still patriarchal in the literal sense because the majority of people in power, either in government, are men. This persists despite legal and constitutional reforms in many societies that provide equal rights, for the most part, to women. Patriarchy is also discussed in a more abstract sense in theory. For example, the history of Western science and philosophy is imbued with bias due to the fact that documented and produced knowledge was predominantly created and validated by European men. The voices of women, colonised people, indigenous people, disabled people, and sexual minorities were not widely heard, known or constructed as valid knowledge. Western philosophy privileged reason above emotion, mind over body, culture over nature. These dualisms led to hierarchies and women were associated with emotion, body, and nature. The prototype human being in science and philosophy was male. Simone de Beauvoir wrote about how women were Other. This historical production of knowledge with bias imbued in the scientific process is sometimes referred to as objectivistic, rationalist, and masculinist in feminist theory. Postmodern feminism takes issue with the category of women, or Woman. Some theorists object to an essentialist view of the category of women. Despite the fact that they might have physically gendered bodies, women do not necessarily have naturalistic, deterministic characteristics that are stable and fixed. Postmodern feminism is not only concerned with gender but also the concept of race, sexual orientation, ablebodyism, etc. Some theorists reject the idea that women constitute a single category because the material existence and lived experiences of women who are not white, heterosexual or ablebodied are underrepresentated and not constructed as valid knowledge. For example, African American theorist bell hooks argues that we live in white heterosexist capitalist patriarchy, a hegemonic culture of violence and injustice that is invisible to most because it is taken for granted and not questioned.
The feminist response to xMOOCs, the Stanford model of MOOCs, not the connectivist MOOCs, is related to the above theoretical ideas. In the mass-produced, pre-packaged courseware offered in xMOOCs through a centralised platform, the knowledge is centred around the course content and is managed by one (or a small number of) professor(s). The feminist critique is that this model reproduces a hierarchical power relationship between a teacher and learner and that knowledge is produced within the institution and delivered to the learner who must assimilate the information and reproduce it, without contributing, collaboration or questioning its production and validation. Feminist theories, methodologies, and pedagogies focus on collaboration and co-creation, reduce power hierarchies, and emphasise polyvocal knowledge production processes.
The structure, pedagogy and methodology of the DOCC have been reflective of feminist principles. Not only was the form based on feminist principles, so was the content. The course dealt with feminism, science, and technology. The DOCC proposed a common skeleton and video dialogues which partnering universities and course instructors could use and supplement with material determined in accordance to the situatedness of participating students. This provided for the collaborative experience. Students at participating universities and self-directed learners were invited to produce learning artifacts and publish and disseminate them.
The creation of the first DOCC – a distributed open collaborative course – is a response to MOOCs by FemTechNet, a network of feminist scholars, artists, and students. Their response is motivated by a shared concern regarding MOOCs as centralised courses offered by a professor or instructor to a massive audience, more reflective of xMOOCs than cMOOCs. The centralised format of one (or two) professor(s) and the pre-established courseware or syllabi appear to maintain distance between an all-knowing professor who owns or transmits knowledge to subordinate learners, which is perceived by some FemTechNet collaborators as patriarchal. DOCCs are meant to challenge the concept of MOOCs. The DOCC’s introduction for Self-Directed Learners states: “Unlike during a MOOC, SDLs (self-directed learners) will not receive knowledge from DOCC 2012, but rather SDLs will participate in designing and directing their own experiences with DOCC 2013 materials and with other participants.”
The nodal course or DOCC 2013 is entitled Dialogues on Feminism and Technology. Seventeen institutions are designing, delivering, and constructing the course, with F2F classes and self-directed learners participating, including: Green State University, Brown University, California Polytechnic State University, Colby-Sawyer College, The CUNY Graduate Center, Macaulay Honors College and Lehman College (CUNY), The New School, Ohio State University, Ontario College of Art and Design University, Pennsylvania State University, Pitzer College, Rutgers University, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Yale University. Building on theoretical feminist principles and feminist pedagogies, the nodal course explores the following themes: labour, sexuality, race, differences, body, machine, systems, place, infrastructure, archives, and transformation. The video dialogue series feature Anne Balsamo, Dean of the School of Media Studies at the New School, and other scholars interviewing two guest speakers at a time for 45 minutes talks. Theorist Donna Haraway and her 1985 essay The Cyborg Manifesto have heavily influenced the guest speakers, who are scholars, artists, and activists (Judy Wajcman, Julie Levin Russo, Lucy Suchman, and Donna Haraway herself). The interdisciplinarity and blend of academics and artists in the DOCC’s video dialogues are very appealing. Learners enrolled in the course through an institution for credit can engage with their F2F colleagues and disseminate individual and groups projects. Self-directed learners can also participate in various networked spaces such as Facebook and Google+. The WikiStorming Project invites participants to write and edit Wikipedia content in order to augment the presence of women and to create awareness of the gender bias existing in in the encyclopedia.
In terms of weaknesses, the DOCC, which is meant to be global, has drawn primarily on American, British, and Australian guest speakers and the majority of participating universities are American. The interviews have been in English and no transcription is available for potential translation (through automated translation programmes, for example). The potential to reach learners internationally could be facilitated by engaging with universities outside the English speaking world.
It is not clear how different a DOCC is from a connectivist MOOC. The distributedness of a DOCC seems to correspond to connectivist principles. Can connectivist MOOCs exhibit elements of patriarchy? Connectivist MOOCs might still be run primarily by men. The first DOCC has involved all women scholars and deals with gender and feminism(s), without defining the construct of women. The dualism of gender and the essentialism of the category of women are called into question by various speakers. Further research could explore if and how connectivism is compatible with feminism and if DOCCs apply connectivist principles.
I am concerned about the article No Longer at the Bottom of the Class by the Economist on Brazilian education. The article seems imbued with bias. The Economist is not a peer-reviewed education journal and I don’t get the sense that the analysis is very critical.
The article refers to “bad teachers” as the biggest problem in Brazil. What exactly is bad teaching? The journalist does not clarify what is meant by this. The discussion about how teachers receive 100% pension salary does not contextualise how this was achieved. Did the teachers support a particular party to get into government and were then rewarded with 100% pension? It would be helpful to understand the political history that led to this. And would a country want teachers to have terrible pensions so as to dissuade people from becoming teachers? Is that more desirable? And what is the problem with teachers having tenure and stability? Why would a population be so ready to “get rid of teachers”? So Brazil will start evaluating teachers and will become obsessive like Canada and the United States. What is the evidence that evaluating teachers enhances education? Evaluate what? Is evaluation meant to make sure that teachers are providing a good education or to make sure they are obedient with government policies? Or is it just a policing system to exert control, which might inhibit creativity and freedom of teachers, and have them focus on whatever the government of the day deems important? What about countries that do not evaluate teachers? What assessment is good assessment that is nurturing for teachers and students and everyone? Are the poor in Brazil really receiving horrific education? How do we know this? What kind of research determines that their teachers are so bad and are not making any effort? Why would teachers keep their jobs if they were not fulfilled and continue working in poor socioeconomic conditions?
The author states that teachers do not receive training in subject matter or teaching skills (I did not learn this in a Canadian teacher’s college either) but they are taught philosophy of education. I should hope they learn the philosophy of education since Paulo Freire was Brazilian. The article does not mention this philosopher of education, the author of The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and main thinker behind critical pedagogy. I find it bizarre that the article is so negative about teachers and even says that in few parts of the world do high achievers aspire to become teachers and that Latin American teachers are poorly educated. How exactly does the author determine that bad teachers are THE variable that cause poor performance on PISA rankings or poor performance generally? What about socioeconomic conditions, poverty, and the education levels of poor families? If the government is paying lower income families to keep their children in school longer and this measure has proven successful, then it seems that socioeconomic factors and poverty are related to poor performance. So maybe it is not entirely the bad teaching.
Paulo Freire was opposed to the idea of the “banking” concept of education whereby students receive objects of learning and merely adjust to the world without exercising their creative power. He opposed the culture of silence produced in dominant social relations that suppresses self-image. Learners must develop critical consciousness and recognise the culture of silence which oppresses them and then oppose it. A culture of silence can cause the dominated individuals to critically respond to the culture that is forced on them by a dominant culture. If teachers in Brazil are learning about Freire’s anti-colonial, anti-oppression educational philosophy meant to liberate people from dominant discourse, poverty, and racism, this could be very inspiring for teachers working with the poor. If teaching methodology is lacking in teacher training courses (although it is unclear how the author obtained this information and came to this conclusion), then perhaps a translation of Freire’s philosophy into pedagogical teaching and learning activities would be useful, but I am sure there must be radical pedagogues who are already working on that in Brazilian universities, at Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conferences, and at various Freire institutes.
Education in Brazil: No longer bottom of the class (December, 2010). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/17679798