Final Blog Post

Following the Textual Sources writing prompt (Liese et al., 2017) shared by my Advisor, Jordanne Christie:

I feel that the most relevant piece of writing to my project – one that I return to over and over again – is Masinda, Jacquet and Moore’s 2014 article: An Integrated Framework for Immigrant Children and Youth’s School Integration: A Focus on African Francophone Students in British Columbia – Canada. The authors describe their previous research, outcomes of their interviews, and set out an integrated guiding framework for teachers and administrators to implement in the integration process of immigrant children and youth.

The article explores the experience of immigrant African Francophone students in particular, but looks at the social, cultural, psycho-social, and academic factors of the larger immigrant experience demonstrating how those critical pieces contribute to or detract from a successful school integration. The African Francophone experience is an interesting example as this group represents a “minority within a minority context” (Masinda et al., 2014, p. 92): a cultural/racial minority within the French language speaking minority here in BC. The authors composed a diverse research team who were all English and French speaking, along with various African languages. In broad strokes the research consisted of individual and group interviews in iterative phases, community observation, and literature review, followed by opportunity for voice – specifically youth voice – to form the corpus of data.

Masinda et al.’s (2014) article was the first place that fully clarified for me that it is the immigrant/refugee student that continues to be the focus of acculturation, rather than all students be the focus of cultural integration. That the voice of the new student is drowned out in the call to make them sound more like the domestic students. While I already knew that I wanted to develop something that was more inclusive, this is the article that gave me the vocabulary to do it. This paper also gave me a working definition of what a positive integration can look like: “the healthy social, cultural, psychological and academic transitions that help immigrant children and youth to realize their full potential in the school” (p. 99).

The components identified by Masinda et al. (2014) that comprise the Integrated Framework are social, cultural, psychological, and academic. The article looks at each in detail, and ways of recognizing success in each area from immediate to long-term results. The paper concludes with a list of 9 recommendations that can be generalized to support any immigrant groups in most school settings.

The social and cultural aspects of the framework in particular were something I intend to approach with my project, particularly the immediate results shown in the framework diagram: that “newcomer students and peers understand each other, positive connectedness [sic]”, and that “newcomer students have a better understanding of school and Canadian Culture” (p. 100). My hope is that, through the use of games, that the initial cultural distance can be decreased and that students will understand rather than ‘other’ each other.

For me, this paper was a goldmine. Reading it last fall confirmed some of the thinking I was developing, and opened up my mind to new understandings of stressors and difficulties that children and youth say are barriers to their positive integration. Although this paper concentrates specifically on Francophone African children and youth in the Lower Mainland of BC, many of the things that the authors revealed in the paper can be seen here in other immigrant groups (in the Interior). The concluding recommendations could be implemented in most schools to promote student’s connection to their new school, peers, educators, and culture.

I enjoyed that the final recommendations included ones that support educators with practical direction. Helping teachers identify their own needs and assets as well as looking at the domestic student and teacher inter-cultural competence when welcoming new students would support everyone in the equation.

Finally, the reference list from this paper was a treasure trove of well researched, relevant and recent resources that I’m still working my way through.

The initial writing prompt was to talk about a meaningful text as though I were at a dinner party (Liese et al., 2017) – this isn’t entirely that, and this past year has been devoid of dinner parties. My partner has heard about facets of this article many times, though, over dinner and otherwise. It has acted as an anchor document for me throughout the research process, and a place I have come back to when stuck or needing to reorient. I count myself lucky to have found it early on in my process, and have shared it widely.

References:

Liese, J., West, A., & Cornell du Houx, E. (2017). Grad Written Thesis-Writing Prompts.
Masinda, M. T., Jacquet, M., & Moore, D. (2014). An Integrated Framework for Immigrant Children and Youth’s School Integration: A Focus on African Francophone Students in British Columbia – Canada. International Journal of Education, 6(1), 18.

Update post for DLRCP – a bit of a rough post. . .mostly thoughtful meandering. . .

I just noticed that it’s 2 years since my first posts in this space.

I was reflecting with my partner the other night about how this project is such a good summative thing to do, bringing together all of the learning we’ve been doing throughout the program. The work is causing me to draw on many of the pieces that I learned in the first year and pushing me to fill gaps in that learning at the same time.

Throughout all of this, the Plate Spinner post keeps coming to mind, too.

This phase of the DLRCP has been really challenging in that I expected it to be easier to access the people who I would like information sharing from. Between the provincial mandates and changes around COVID19 protocols in schools and the overlap of both districts’ Spring Breaks, getting responses from teachers has been challenging. Many are dealing with the day-to-day shifts that are expected of them, on top of what are already demanding jobs. My heart goes out to them.

I’ve spent a good portion of this time reading. A friend introduced me to a paper Speaking back to Manifest Destinies: a land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry (2014) and the work of Dolores Calderón. This particular paper is relevant to my project in that it discusses the differences between land-based and place-based pedagogies in the context of social studies curricula, and how the current curricular materials (primarily textbooks) are worded to perpetuate settler colonial land ethics. I had (previous to reading this) thought that place-based learning as a framework would naturally take into account the land-based histories, but this is not always the case. The main readings I’ve done around place-based learning have come from Greunewald’s work, primarily Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (2014) which is a compilation of several authors and experiences throughout the US in their work in place-based education. His work goes much deeper, though, and I was somewhat gratified to see his work mentioned in a positive light in Calerón’s article, recognizing that “pairing critical pedagogy with place-based education and promoting place-conscious education is a step in the right direction” (p.26).

The other big awareness that I’m not quite sure yet how to incorporate into the project comes from Chatterjee’s (2019) work in trying to reconcile the seemingly opposing worlds of Indigenous land rights and ongoing immigration. The model she has outlined seeks to reconcile these two opposing spaces. . .in all honesty, I will need to read this a third time. Her work is thicker into the language of critical anti-race scholarship than I am well versed in, but it has been enlightening (and made much more sense on the second read through).

While these two pieces (Calderón’s and Chatterjee’s articles) are not central to the project itself, I think that they each inform the DLRCP in different ways – both of which are particularly relevant in today’s social-justice climate. I’ll be spending a bit more time understanding the depth to which they can influence the project.

References:

Calderón, D. (2014). Speaking back to manifest destinies: A land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 24-36.

Chatterjee, S. (2019). Immigration, anti-racism, and Indigenous self-determination: Towards a comprehensive analysis of the contemporary settler colonial. Social Identities, 25(5), 644-661

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2014). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. Routledge.

Developments for DLRCP

This last revision cycle brought several different changes to pieces of my DLRCP Final Proposal document.

Early on, gamification did not feel like the right fit for the theoretical framework, and somewhat complicating. Had the DLRCP and the OER that I’m proposing have some other focus than explicitly teaching games, it might have been clearer to think and write about. As it was previously, I was, in the writing, ongoing trying to clarify whether any/and/or each game reference was about the framework of gamification, or about the OER and games themselves. I persisted with gamification as the framework until the initial round of revision due to inexperience and being unwilling to make what I was perceiving to be a large change. Initial revision with my Advisor (thanks, Jordanne!) gave the permission I needed to change the framework to that of place-based learning.

Place-based learning (Gruenewald, 2014) is a better fit as a framework as all the pieces of this project relate to and can be understood in that context. I would have liked to have included some Indigenous perspective around place-based learning in the proposal itself, but found myself unsure as to what might be inappropriate use of that knowledge and worldview, and did not incorporate it in the end. The beautiful thing is that in trying to understand whether/how it would fit meant that I’ve spent the last two weeks or so reading about Indigenous issues in academia, worldviews, connection to place and research methodologies (particularly Kovach [2009], Meyer [2013], Shawanda [2020], and Simpson [2014]). It’s been a wonderful reason to have some very enlightening conversations with colleagues and friends, and has helped me uncover more understanding of my own colonial ways of thinking, and how endemic colonialization is in this culture (and our schools). I’m getting better at seeing in terms of relationship, but it is taking time. Each thing I read gives a new perspective, a better understanding and peels back another layer to reveal clearer thinking.

The unfortunate side effect is that Indigenous worldviews and sense-making continue to be erased in my own work due to my own discomfort with including it poorly.

Through conversation with Jordanne, and growing understanding of methodology, I made a shift from modified action research to that of exploratory research (Stebbins, 2001). Because of the timelines and goals in my project, I’ll not really get to go through a cycle of action research, and the project I’m building is not one that would be implemented in my own workspace, but in an adjacent one. Exploratory research, particularly innovative exploratory research keeps the focus narrow, with the purpose of creation of a product (in my case, a [hopefully] effective OER).

Finally, the methods by which I hope to do the primary research piece have shifted from survey into semi-structured interview. Survey was, after further consideration, a limiting way of gathering the kind of information that I’m after. Semi-structured interview allows for more generative conversation, hopefully mitigating my own limitations and allowing the participants to expand the data in ways that I could not have foreseen.

I’m excited about this next piece, getting into the gathering and building aspects of the project.

Cheers.

References:

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2014). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. Routledge.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies : Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=4672931

Meyer, M. A. (2013). Holographic Epistemology: Native Common Sense. China Media Research, 9(2), 94–101. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=88863314&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Shawanda, A. (2020). Baawaajige: Turtle Island Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.33137/tijih.v1i1.34020

Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3). https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22170

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). What is exploration. Exploratory research in the social sciences, (pp, 2-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.