Maps allow us to build knowledge of the world in many ways and have been doing so for millennia. As tools, they have allowed us to record geographic features, political boundaries, cultural information, population distributions, economic activities, environmental changes, transportation networks, health and education services, the Earth’s climate, and technological connectivity. Through their changes, we can track historical events and development. However, with the advent of the first commercial web-mapping service, MapQuest, in 1996, how the majority of us interact with maps has shifted significantly. Nowadays, Google and Apple Maps orient for direction automatically, rely on significant networks of satellites, and use personal data from users to populate their databases and algorithms. For our tipping point assignment, we propose digging deeper into the advent of digital mapping (especially major online map providers like Google, Apple and historical precedents, and other software like ARC GIS), and the ways that it has shaped what we do, how we spend, how we interact with (and therefore come to know) the physical world around us. Of special interest is the utility of digital mapping from a global health perspective, in tracking the spread of infectious diseases, how digital mapping shifts how we interact with the world, sustainability, and privacy/the implications of AI and algorithms.
Our plan is to highlight the differences between navigating and learning with physical maps, or through experiential place based learning, and then dig deeper into each of our modules of study. So far we have developed the following list of ideas to dig deeper into the topic:
Usability
Talk about why Apple Maps struggled upon its initial release in 2012
Artificial Intelligence
Route optimization, predictive traffic, location recommendations, Street View and Satellite Imagery
Indoor Mapping
Blurring of people in Google Maps
Algorithms would have similar connections to AI
Media Convergence
Social Media Integration (Snap Map)
Google Earth and Accessibility on mobile devices
Integration of user content
Real-time data visualization – Traffic conditions, etc.
Sustainability
Connections to the switch of paper maps to GPS and Online Mapping
The cost of digital mapping tied to Mills’ article.
A sustainable educational ecology has to involve concerted engagement in DIY activities of production, teaching ourselves (and our students) through critical making of the tools and processes in and through which we research, teach, and learn,
In this Intellectual Production, my task was to analyze 12 hours and record what I paid attention to. This includes multi-tasking and how much attention I paid attention to the task. I logged Friday, February 23rd, 2024. This day happened to fall on our February break; therefore, I was not at work. The Scotties Tournament of Hearts (women’s curling) was on. My wife was curling in a local bonspiel in town, and we had some distractions from the ongoing teacher strikes and sanctions in Saskatchewan. We also have a very busy baby, who you will be able to see takes up much attention.
Over the 12 hours, I logged 42 different tasks across the time frame. I will also share my cell phone screen time, looking at the notifications I have received, the types of apps I used, the top apps I use, and the number of times I unlocked my phone. I will be the first to admit that my phone is an ultimate distraction and that I will spend more time on it than I would like to admit. Therefore, it would be essential to provide additional analysis on my cellphone usage over this time period.
Through my analysis of my attention, Citton (2017) highlights attention being a matter of selection. In attention economies, others are consistently vying for our attention. “Attention is a matter of selection, the positions of power in an attention economy are defined according to their ability to filter the flows that pass through us” (Citton, 2017, p. 178). This was interesting in my analysis. The advertisements and commercials that are presented within the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, as well as the flyers I received in the mail, passed through my filter. It begs the question, what are the consequences of what I opted to pay attention to.
Further analysis of my attention could be categorized into collective attention, joint attention, and individual attention (Citton, 2017).
Collective Attention
Collective is attention at the broadest scale. Within my day, this includes the engagement that I did with my Teacher Association group chat when we heard about province-wide sanctions that were going to be imposed on my first day back to work, although I may not have messaged back in my group chat, I gave attention to a significant number of people, as well as was mindful of the situation on a provincial scale. As well as my engagement with the Scotties Tournament of Hearts as well as viewing TikTok videos on my front page, which have been viewed thousands of times before I had even viewed them.
Joint Attention
Joint Attention refers to the attention of other specific people who are close to me. In my day, it was clear that this was a large majority of the day. I paid significant attention to my baby, my wife, and to a chat I had with a friend over Snapchat. Joint attention is critical for child development, thus reading to my child, and playing with my child is a major component of our days.
Individual Attention
Citton (2017) identifies individual attention as objects on which our bodies and spirits are nourished. For me, these were the tasks that I spent time on specifically for me. On this particular day, it included planning my law lessons for work, as well as washing my car, walking to go get the mail, and listening to some music.
Attentional Category
Within my analysis of my attention. I decided it would be important to see what I was valuing with my attention though the analysis of specific instances (e.g. “playing with baby” was coded as “family”). It was also important for me to see how long I was paying attention to the attentional objects. This analysis was interesting, as you can see that I have a total of 14 hours and 50 minutes. Often throughout the day, I would have been multitasking. The duration of my logged attention would have been logged twice. For example, watching curling on TV will playing on the floor with my baby is the reason why the entertainment sections of the graph are so different. While I had the TV on for an hour, passively paying attention, I also was doing other things, making breakfast, and playing with my child.
Attentional State
The analysis of my attentional state was first analyzed through how I was feeling while completing the task. These states were then further coded into whether the state was positive, neutral, or negative. The data highlights that a vast majority of my day was positive.
Voluntary or Automatic
Citton (2017) identifies that our automatic attention is the attention like hearing our name being spoken in a party. Within my analysis, I logged 9.5% of my attention as automatic in the 42 tasks tracked. This includes hearing notifications on my cellphone as well as the feeling of hunger. Voluntary attention is then the opposite, the times where I had to specifically focus my attention on specific tasks.
Cellphone Usage
Throughout my day, you can see that I had 3 hours and 21 minutes of screen time. I know that I am often on my phone, but this was shocking to see, as it is not reflected well in my data that I have tracked. I think that this is partially due to my cellphone becoming a form of automatic attention, as compared to voluntary. Often when my phone does go off, I have to pause what I am doing and look at the notification. The notifications graph identifies the areas of which my attention is drawn. It is not surprising to see the correlation between social notifications and the amount of time spent on social apps. Often I will turn off notifications on my devices if I find them not helpful or unwanted.
Attention in Education
Within the topic of attention economies in education, we need to ask ourselves, how do we engage students? In looking at de Castell and Jenson (2004), the authors identify the cultural shift education has undertaken from teacher-centred to learner-centred. Thus, our shift from how we paid attention in school has also vastly changed our course. However, de Castell and Jenson discuss how video games and gaming, in general, can change the course of education through immersive experiences and their success in holding the user’s attention. Learning theories such as Seymour Papert’s constructionist approach, where students develop meaning through making, allow students to direct their attention in immersive opportunities with or without technology.
In addition, de Castell and Jenson (2004) identify that a reason why video games might be successful in holding student’s attention is that video games “help their players ‘learn’ quickly” (p. 396). Proper differentiation strategies that focus on individualized learning opportunities, such as the Modern Classroom Project, help teachers through blended instruction, self-paced structures, and mastery-based learning. This approach helps students maintain better attention because students can navigate at their own pace until they have mastered a topic.
Create a “mind map” (using whatever tool you please) for the concept of ‘media convergence’ that sets out, with examples, the 5 processes of convergence that Jenkins distinguishes. Then, in a <5-minute MAX video (try to go beyond the ‘talking head’ format) explain your mapping of these aspects of media convergence, and conclude with a thoughtful and well-justified account of what you think are some key educational implications of media convergence.
“At a time when state funding for public goods such as universities, schools, libraries, archives, and other important memory institutions is in decline in the US, private corporations are providing products, services and financing on their behalf. With these trade-offs comes an exercising of greater control over the information, which is deeply consequential for those already systematically oppressed…” (Noble, p. 123)
Think and respond to the following questions:
Explain in your own words what “content prioritization” (Noble, p. 156) means (give some examples) and how (in lay terms) content prioritization algorithms work. With control over the “largest digital repository in the world” (Noble, p. 157), how have Google’s content prioritization algorithms been “consequential for those already systematically oppressed”? How do they impact your professional life? (give specific examples and briefly discuss)
What are some ways PageRank impacts your personal life? (specific examples and briefly discuss) (How) can you impact PageRank? Explain.
References
Gössl, S. L. (2023). Chapter 2: Recommender systems and discrimination. In S. Genovesi, K. Kaesling, & S. Robbins (Eds.), Recommender Systems: Legal and Ethical Issues. Springer.
MIT Media Lab. (2019). AI blindspot: A discovery process for preventing, detecting, and mitigating bias in AI systems. Aiblindspot.media.mit.edu. https://aiblindspot.media.mit.edu/
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press.
Who were these people, and how did/does each contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? How did/does each think “intelligence” could be identified?
My Responses
Chat-GPT
Alan Matheson Turing
A British mathematician, Turing is famous for his participation in codebreaking the German Enigma machine (Biography, 2020). Turing, known for the Turing test, contributed to artificial intelligence because it raises the question, “Can machines think?” (Turing, 1950). The Turing test determined if humans could detect computer answers from human answers.
A pioneering British mathematician and computer scientist, Turing laid the foundation for AI with his Turing Test, a measure of a machine’s ability to exhibit human-like intelligence. His work on the Enigma machine during World War II and the Turing machine concept profoundly influenced computer science.
John McCarthy
Coining the term artificial intelligence, McCarthy invented LISP, a programming language for AI (John McCarthy, 2019). McCarthy believes intelligence to be “the ability to achieve goals in the world” (Sutton, 2020, p. 66). For example, this could include people or machines such as a thermostat, as they can achieve goals.
An American computer scientist, McCarthy coined the term “artificial intelligence” in 1955. He founded the Stanford AI Lab and developed the Lisp programming language, a key tool for AI research. McCarthy focused on creating machines capable of reasoning and problem-solving, advancing AI as a distinct field.
Herb Simon
Simon developed the general problem solver (GPS), and the logic theorist, believed in demystifying thinking. Simon believes that human intelligence and information processing have three common operations: scanning for patterns, storing patterns in memory, and applying patterns (Frantz, 2003, p. 271).
An American cognitive psychologist and computer scientist, Simon, along with Allen Newell, developed the “Logic Theorist,” the first AI program. Simon emphasized the importance of problem-solving and decision-making processes in AI. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on bounded rationality.
Marvin Minsky
Minsky, a mathematician and computer scientist, built the first neural network learning machine. Minsky, along with McCarthy, cofounded the Artificial Intelligence Project, a research centre at MIT (Dennis, 2019). He believed “the brain is a machine whose functions could be replicated in a computer” (BBC News, 2016).
An American cognitive scientist, Minsky co-founded the MIT AI Lab and made significant contributions to AI, coining the term “perceptron.” His research focused on neural networks and machine perception, guiding the field’s early development. Minsky advocated for understanding human cognition to replicate intelligence in machines.
Timnit Gebru
Gebru, a leader in AI ethics, has done work in identifying AI bias, and the harms of AI in terms of discrimination. She has identified four main risks of large language models; environmental and financial costs, massive data, inscrutable models, research opportunity costs, and illusions of meaning (Hao, 2020).
An Ethiopian-American computer scientist and AI ethics researcher, Gebru contributed to addressing bias and ethical concerns in AI. Co-founder of the Black in AI community, she worked at Google on fairness and accountability. Gebru emphasized the need for inclusive, ethically grounded AI, urging responsible development and deployment.
How do “machine (programming) languages” differ from human (natural) ones?
Programming languages differ from human languages through a variety of means. The first revolves around the study of morphology. For example, in human languages we can often alter the meaning, and context of language using stems, root words, prefixes, and suffixes. In programming, this does not exist. The second major difference revolves around the strict rules programming languages follow. Programming languages were invented with the thought of logic, precision, and being irrefutable, on the contrary, human languages are full of slang, accents, or vernacular that is subject to variations based on context and culture. This does not exist in a programming language.
How does “machine (artificial) intelligence” differ from the human version?
Chollet (2019) identifies two main characteristics of intelligence; one focuses on accomplishing task-specific skills, and the second focuses on the generality and the ability to adapt to various environments. Task-specific skills rely heavily on logic, routines, and developing a large knowledge base (p. 5). Chollet shares the example of AI chess; for humans to become proficient in chess, they need to use general intelligence to acquire a specific skill. However, when a machine is optimized for learning, it is built specifically to handle a narrow task and focus in on a specific task. Whereas generalization, defined as “the ability to handle situations (or tasks) that differ from previously encountered situations” (Chollet, 2019, pp. 9-10), tends to aim to mirror human cognitive abilities.
How does “machine learning” differ from human learning?
One of the main differences between machine learning and human learning is the ability to understand bias. Machine learning relies on being exposed to large data sets of information to judge and predict the information it receives (Heilweil, 2020). Jones (2020), identifies how Facebook used machine learning to place people into “micro-categories” and produces targeted posts to reach niche groups of people. We have seen how this can create gender and racial bias. Digital literacy skills are becoming more invaluable, to differentiate between the biases and determine how algorithms work.
Turing Test: how do YOUR answers to these questions differ from what a machine could generate?
My answers to the above questions would differ from what a machine can produce to some degree. Of course, in my writing you can see citations and my writing style (with likely the odd grammar error). However, regarding the content within the answers, in the chart’s first question, you can see very similar answers between the Chat-GPT and my responses. This could be because the answers to these questions are surface-level questions, able to be found directly by a Google search, or through some reading of some articles. I would be interested to see the remainder of the questions and how the answers are compared. I would think the answers would result in a similar response. This is because the questions do not allow for personal opinion, but rather a statement of facts that an AI program like Chat-GPT could recreate. By adding a personal or cultural context to the questions I am asking, I believe that the answers would become more differentiated and varied.
Frantz, R. (2003). Herbert Simon. Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4870(02)00207-6
Sutton, R. S. (2020). John McCarthy’s definition of intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 11(2), 1–100. https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2020-0003
Usability is part of the design process. Usability refers to the quality of interactions that demonstrate if users can efficiently utilize a system (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29). Usability needs to be continuously monitored, user configurable, and iterative, even after software release. Continued attention to the user’s needs is critical to the development process of software creation to ensure that technology is functional, efficient, and meets the specific goals and needs of the user.
Educational Usability
The goal of educational technology is to increase student success. Whether this includes increased teacher efficiency in streamlining processes or increased student engagement, the common goal is for student success. The creation of software and systems from an educational usability perspective includes a microscopic view of answering the question “Who is the user, and what are the user needs?” while still addressing the need to motivate the user. In many cases, in education, users will lack motivation to learn how to use the software. Special attention needs to be paid to how learners connect with the software. This includes careful user configuration of the software to include aspects such as accessibility, cultural relevance, and motivation. Educational usability must consider including opportunities to make the systems and software configurable for diverse students from an asset-based approach.
Furthermore, the usability of the software needs to be flexible not only in how the user and the system exchange information but also to include a user configuration to focus on specific curriculum content and acknowledge a variety of perspectives and worldviews. Furthermore, educational usability needs to focus specifically on the modification and redefinition stages of the SAMR Model. Focused on the questions, “Does the technology allow for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable?” and “Does the technology allow for significant task redesign?” (Puentedura, 2013). The inclusion of the SAMR model addresses the functionality, efficiency, and effectiveness of usability while focusing on the creation of software that is innovative for learning.
Woolgar’s Examples
Example #1: “Users don’t necessarily know best”
In this example, the direction and the vision of technology were deemed to be more important than the user’s needs and desires for technical features (Woolgar, 1990, p. 74). When users provide feedback to the technical teams, it often revolves around existing features in technology. However, Woolgar states that companies have access to understand the vision and direction of the technology more than an ordinary user. Thus, the weight of user input is not as critical in developing new features (pg. 75). This logic undermines usability because it does not consider the user’s needs and does not encourage users to be a part of the design process.
Example #2: The Manuals
In a second case configuring the user revolves around the manuals (Woolgar, 1990, p. 80). The series of documentation provided in technology configures the user as it encourages the user to utilize the technology in specific ways, guiding users towards its “correct” operation (p. 81). The use of manuals for specific prescribed purposes discourages users from utilizing the technology or apps for creative thinking. The manual provides a linear path for users to explore the technology. In addition, within the established trials, the users and the machine itself were not yet established (p. 82). Woolgar identified if novice users were not able to operate the machine correctly, it was due to “user error,” and the fault lies to the user, as compared to experienced users, the fault would lie to the machine. Further identifying “configuring the user” and having to operate within the confines of the system.
Quote Discussion
Looking at the two quotes, Issa & Isaias (2015) identify that usability is part of the design process that focuses specifically on how and why users utilize the technology. It focuses on gathering feedback from users to improve the systems. Meanwhile, Woolgar (1990) focuses specifically on the machine and how the machine itself needs to calibrate and configure the user to conform to the parameters set out by the system. Woolgar’s trials highlighted that usability is best left defined by the company itself, rather than the specific users. This is evident through the deficiencies in company knowledge about users and the prioritization of the future direction of technology from the company’s perspective. A balance is needed between the two examples, and increased transparency and feedback are needed from all stakeholders to increase usability.
I want to begin this analysis of the Saskatchewan History 10 curriculum by first situating myself. This is a process that I learned within my Master of Curriculum and Instruction program at the University of Regina. By situating myself before my analysis, I hope to make visible the biases in which I write (Cote-Meek, 2020, p. xii). My name is Curtis Bourassa; I am grateful and fortunate to live in Treaty 4 territory, the traditional territory of the Cree (Nêhiyawak), Saulteaux (Nahkawé), Nakota, Dakota, Lakota, and the Métis Nation. My ancestors have been in this area for multiple generations, farming the land and hunting and fishing on the land. I recognize that my ancestors and I are uninvited guests on this territory. I have been an educator for eight years. This includes five years as an instructional technology coach, as well as one year as a school principal. Over the past five years of my graduate studies journey, both at the University of Regina and now at the University of British Columbia, my experiences have led me to interweave my passion for technology with truth and reconciliation. I recognize that Truth and Reconciliation is a deep, heavy personal work, but I do this work for my ancestors and to be a better ancestor for my children.
Context
The History 10 curriculum was published in 1992, and is still used across many Saskatchewan schools. It is one of three options for a mandatory course needed for graduation (History 10, Social Studies 10, or Native Studies 10). I chose to study this curriculum because it is a course that is new to me. I decided to analyze this curriculum document because, within my school, it is a course taught to every grade 10 student. The course has a profound impact on students’ understanding of world history, students are introduced to units including: political decision making, economic decision making, the development of nations, imperialism, and international relations.
Q1: Within the curriculum, I hope to uncover the following question: How could the History 10 curriculum contribute to the misrepresentation or biased/problematic perspectives of Indigenous history in Saskatchewan and Canada?
The curriculum was searched using the key terms Indian, Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nations, Métis, and Native. It was found that the word Indian appeared 44 times, Aboriginal 36 times, Métis 20 times (All within the section “Indian and Métis Curriculum Perspectives), Indigenous 17 times, Native three times (only in terms of the Native Studies course), and First Nations zero times. As I was reading the curriculum, I wanted to focus specifically on the Imperialism and the Economic Decision Making units of study. Within Saskatchewan, Treaty Education has been mandated to be taught and embedded within curriculum content. Thus, I wanted to analyze how treaties, colonization, and assimilation were discussed in the curriculum.
Indian
Indigenous
Aboriginal
First Nations
Metis
Native
Colonization
Treaties
Assimilation
44
17
36
0
20
3 (in terms of the course Native Studies)
1 (Reference to colonizers and the treatment of Indigenous people)
4 (2 referring to treaties made in China, and 2 referring to the Cherokee treaties made in the USA)
10 (only 1 specific to the assimilation of various Indigenous groups.
Q2: How does the curriculum portray the treaties and the impact of colonization of Indigenous people within Canada?
It should be noted that there was specific mention of both the Iroquois in a study on the Iroquois Confederacy, as well as the Cherokee, which was included within the unit on imperialism focused on the conflict between the Cherokee people, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Findings – Question 1
To answer how Indigenous people are represented in this curriculum, we must try to understand bias. Much like how I introduced myself in this analysis, I believe looking at the various backgrounds of the people who wrote the 1992 History 10 curriculum in Saskatchewan is essential. In looking at the curriculum, it appears that Indigenous representation is limited. One representative was from the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, and it seems this was the only Indigenous representation involved in the curriculum’s writing. Therefore, I argue that a tremendous bias results in unequal representation of the Saskatchewan population among authors.
The Saskatchewan Ministry of Education has included a curriculum section titled “Indian and Métis Curriculum Perspectives.” It discusses the importance of an education that meets the needs of Indian and Métis peoples, and how Indian and Métis perspectives benefit all students in society (Saskatchewan Education, 1992, p. 6). Despite the outdated language, this preface in the curriculum is a welcome sight, and it ties into culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), and culturally responsive teaching (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Despite this promising start, it should be noted that minimal reference to Métis was made again within the document outside of a reference to the Northwest Resistance (Saskatchewan Education, 1992, p. 418) and a brief connection to Louis Riel. A welcome surprise was that the Northwest Resistance was labelled as such. Often, this resistance is labelled as the Northwest Rebellion in historical documents, further villainizing Métis people.
The curriculum includes some content on teaching Western and traditional Aboriginal worldviews. However, the curriculum pan-indigenizes all Indigenous people as the same. The curriculum states, “Traditional Aboriginal societies in North America were founded upon a holistic and spiritually-based worldview known as the ‘Sacred Circle’” (Government of Saskatchewan, 1992, page. 116). The curriculum fails to acknowledge that Indigenous people across Canada have distinct ways of knowing and being. Although the Sacred Circle may be a fundamental component of the worldview for many Indigenous people, it does not recognize the distinctness between Indigenous people.
A shocking find for me was the limited number of Indigenous examples shared within the curriculum. One example they referred to often was the Iroquois Confederacy. The curriculum aims to compare the Iroquois Confederacy to other forms of democracies worldwide. Although the reference to the Iroquois Confederacy may be well-intentioned, it is a very early democratic system in world history. The curriculum fails to address that many other Indigenous people on Turtle Island also had working governance systems. In addition, the Iroquois Confederacy was a collection of First Nations groups from the Great Lakes region of Turtle Island. The curriculum did not mention other specific Indigenous groups in Canada or, more specifically, Saskatchewan.
Findings – Question 2
The analysis of the inclusion of Treaties and how colonization has been introduced has resulted in some disappointing findings. Despite the importance that Saskatchewan now places on learning about the Treaties. No reference is made to making Treaties with Indigenous people in Canada. Furthermore, colonization was often included in the curriculum content but not considered colonization. Lastly, the issue of assimilation was brought up; it again did not address the policies that were put in place to assimilate Canada’s Indigenous population.
The curriculum’s inclusion of Treaties was limited to the Treaty of Nanking and the Tientsin Treaty through discussion of how China was impacted by European Imperialism (p. 414). The other example of Treaties in the curriculum discusses how the United States refused to recognize and affirm the treaties it had signed with the Cherokee Nation (p. 422). It is essential to recognize what is missing in this curriculum. Why is the focus on the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears in a Saskatchewan curriculum? The Trail of Tears is the forced displacement of Indigenous people in the southeastern United States (“Trail of Tears,” 2019). Similar acts of colonialism, including not following the agreed-upon Treaties, the enacting of assimilation policies (pass-system, residential schools, Indian Act), and cultural genocide, were occurring within Canada at the same period.
The History 10 curriculum aims to teach students about colonization through a Western European lens, focused on defending the perceived need to take over Indigenous land. The curriculum does touch the surface of the impact of colonization on Indigenous people. However, it does not explain the historical impact colonization has had and continues to have on Indigenous people. For example, the curriculum states to ask students the following: “Who has the prior property rights in this situation: the Indian whose ancestors have lived there for generations; or, the settler who comes to ‘virgin’ land and turns it into a farm?” (Saskatchewan Education, 1992, p. 237). Including this debate within the Economic Decision Making unit does not allow for a meaningful debate because the unit focuses on economics and not the intergenerational trauma and the effects of colonization.
Lastly, assimilation is addressed in similar ways to colonization. It is extensively discussed, but outside of one mention, it does not address the assimilation that Indigenous people have experienced. One specific exercise the curriculum states to do is to “Challenge the students to consider how they would feel if a large country decided it had some valid (from their perspective) reasons to take over Canada” (Saskatchewan Education, 1992, p. 417). It then states reasons such as the use of propaganda the try to convince Canadians and that the country that is taking over is more scientifically and technologically advanced (p. 417). This exercise is highly inappropriate and demeaning, as it attempts to identify parallels to colonization and assimilation in Canada to Indigenous people. The curriculum states, “Now point out to students that many countries in the last half of the nineteenth century faced this kind of situation” (p. 417). Again, the curriculum fails to consider the ongoing impact that these decisions and policies have made on Indigenous people.
Limitations and Conclusion
This analysis has limitations as it only addresses the History 10 curriculum. I would be interested to do the same analysis using the same questions on the Social Studies 10 curriculum and the Native Studies 10 curriculum. Further limitations include errors in the search of the document due to the inability to search for key terms utilizing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology and keyword searches throughout the document. This limitation resulted in the manual work of looking up the keywords found within the document, which is prone to mistakes.
In conclusion, the findings in History 10 resulted from a misrepresentation and biased perspectives of Indigenous history in Saskatchewan and Canada. The use of outdated language, as well as the blatant absence of Indigenous content, reaffirms that Indigenous content is not at the forefront and is deemed as less important. Furthermore, the absence of recognition of the Treaties made within Canada undermines the importance of these legally binding documents. The inclusion of specific examples, such as the Cherokee, deflects the issues of colonization in Saskatchewan and Canada and fails to address the ongoing intergenerational trauma that has occurred, as it sends the message that these issues did not occur in Saskatchewan or Canada.
References
Cote-Meek, S. (2020). Introduction. In S. Cote-Meek & T. Moeke-Pickering (Eds.), Decolonizing and Indigenizing Education in Canada (pp. xi–xxiii). Canadian Scholars.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003
The ETEC 524 course Learning Technologies: Selection, Design, and Application introduced many foundational understandings for designing and creating online courses. In this final synthesis, I begin by summarizing my flight path, which outlines the goals and learning expectations I had for the course. Secondly, I reflect on the overall course experience identifying key learning areas through blending new understandings with previous knowledge and how it was applied within my course projects. Lastly, I look at the next steps and how I will continue to further my journey as a lifelong learner in educational technology.
Summary of Flight Path
My flight path pertained to my new position as a teaching principal. My goal for the course was to learn the knowledge and skills needed to develop a course with self-paced structures allowing me to better manage the new role as principal while still being an effective teacher. The course that I was beginning to formulate had to be a blended course, which provided opportunities for students to have access to content at school and home and allowed me to manage teaching multiple curricula simultaneously. I needed flexibility for a principal who would often be interrupted throughout the school day.
Some of the key specific focus areas within my flight path included:
Utilizing the First Peoples’ Principals of Learning (FPPL) (FNESC, 2015) and Albert Marshall’s concept of two-eyed seeing in course design (Bartlett, et al., 2012).
Using Canvas as a learning management system (LMS) for course design.
Utilizing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) calls to action (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) to guide the work through the call for equity among Indigenous people in the legal system.
Focusing on the creation of assessments and self-paced structures.
My reflection on the course experience will touch on these four focus areas.
Reflection of Course Experience
Principles and Standards of Learning
Within Module 1: Teaching in the Digital Age, we were immediately introduced to a series of standards and principles that aim to guide the design of learning experiences we provide for our students. Having a solid background in the ISTE standards through my work as an instructional technology coach, I wanted to focus my attention on implementing the FPPL. Chrona (2022) discusses the importance of these principles as they support culturally responsive pedagogy. However, Chrona encourages educators to reach out to their local First Nations communities for specific teachings or learning principles that may have been publicly shared. Assignment 2: Part 2 allowed for the experimentation in adopting a number of the principles through the designing of activities that explored identity, recognized the role of Indigenous knowledge within the justice system, as well as embedded activities focused around memory, history and story.
Although not directly stated within the ETEC 524 course, the TRC’s Calls to Action provided additional direction to the goals of the Law 30 course design project within Assignment 2 in addition to the FPPL. I was able to focus on creating assessments and utilizing content for students to engage in conversation and dialogue around the inequities of Indigenous peoples within the legal system, which was based on Calls to Action 50 to 52 (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). The connection of the Calls to Action was evident in the study of restorative justice practices and policies such as the TRC, the Indian Act, and the inquiry’s final report into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Learning Environments
Weeks two and three introduced our group assignment on the creation of a scenario and evaluation rubric for a LMS. I appreciated this assignment as my former position as a coach focused on training teachers on the recently chosen LMS for our school division. The assignment provided a detailed and practical understanding of many decisions school divisions must make in implementing a LMS. The experience in the learning environment evaluation assignment and the introduction to the SECTIONS framework and the MITE CITE and IIM frameworks led me to realize that Canvas was not the best choice for my project. This choice to divert from the original flight path and use Google Sites as a content management system (CMS) provided a practical choice for the blended learning environment and the ability to share my project with others.
Designing for Learning
Mobile Technologies
The use of mobile technologies identified a variety of strengths in the classroom. Bai (2019) identified nine practices of mobile learning. Although the article described mobile technologies as “tablets, iPads, and smartphones” (p. 611), I would argue that one could also adapt each of the nine pedagogical practices for 1-to-1 laptop K-12 classrooms. I see merit in Bai’s pedagogical practices, including situational learning, communication and collaboration, personalized learning, and student engagement and motivation. Hattie (2023a) finds within his meta-analysis of educational influences on each pedagogical practice to positively affect student achievement. However, Hattie (2023c) finds the presence of mobile phones has an effect size of -0.26, linked to harming student achievement. However, using mobile/touch devices/tablets as a tool in the learning process can potentially accelerate student achievement, offering an effect size of 0.59 (Hattie, 2023b). These findings allowed me to reflect on the vital importance of spending additional attention on creating expectations for cellphone use and ensuring learning experiences are compatible with mobile technologies within my course.
Assessment
The assessment portion of the course provided opportunities to experiment with various assessment tools. The course module discusses, “We are able to measure individual student efforts and develop individualized instruction more easily within the LMS environment than we are able to in a large lecture classroom environment” (Bourlova, 2023). In addition, Devers et al. (2018) identify that using low/no-stakes testing “fosters an environment for increasing metacognition” (p. 11). The assessment module provided options that explored how technology can be leveraged within assessment to provide instant feedback and increased motivation, which is essential for my self-paced structures within my course design. As stated in the summary of the flight path, assessment was an area I wanted to focus on. Utilizing the shared resources within the course, I used a series of formative assessment check-ins concentrated on quick low/no-stake assessments within the course creation assignment.
Interaction and Communication
There was a strong focus on interaction and communication in the course. As I was using a CMS instead of an LMS for my course design, this became an essential component of the course design for my project. Anderson (2008a) discusses developing and building trust in online courses. Creating an online community to facilitate open discourse even within the blended learning space was essential. Attention was put to formulating a blend of interactions as outlined in Anderson’s (2008b) educational interaction model (see Appendix A). This included small group discussions, whole class discussions, online discussions, in-person discussions, independent work, and teacher-student small group instruction.
Moving Forward
I am eager to continue learning how educators can use educational technology to further student achievement. Three key areas of interest for me include the use of virtual reality (VR) to increase student engagement, the purposeful integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to increase efficiency for educators, and lastly, placing additional emphasis on utilizing the 5R model (Tessaro et al., 2018) for Indigenizing online learning.
This past year, two colleagues and I approached the MacDowell Foundation, a foundation for supporting education initiatives in Saskatchewan schools, with a research project proposal. Our research proposal includes researching how VR in classroom settings impacts the learning and engagement of Saskatchewan students. Our project was accepted in late June, and we are eager to work with a committee of teachers utilizing VR technology to assess the impact on student learning. Our project will use the ISTE student and educator standards at the forefront to drive student learning.
As I step into my new role as principal, I am eager to learn more about the ethical and responsible use of AI. This includes using AI to leverage and streamline school processes, freeing teachers up to spend more time focusing on student instruction. I believe that AI has the potential to alleviate teachers who often feel overworked and reduce teacher burnout and attrition in education fields (Bryant et al., 2020). In addition, the responsible and ethical use of AI provides opportunities to model the appropriate benefits of AI for students.
Lastly, I had an opportunity to enroll in a practicum within the Master of Educational Technology program at UBC in January 2023. Through the collaboration with Indigenous scholars, I was fortunate to be involved in creating a resource focused on the Indigenization of online learning (University of British Columbia: Learning Design and Digital Innovation, 2023). This opportunity allowed me to explore the 5R model of respect, responsibility, relevance, reciprocity, and relationships, focusing on applying the model to online learning. As I continue to develop online resources for my students in the classroom, I will utilize the learning and practical examples to implement each of the 5Rs into practice appropriately.
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8
Chrona, J. (2022). Wayi Wah! Indigenous Pedagogies. Portage & Main Press.
Devers, J. C., Devers, E. E., & Oke, L. D. (2018). Encouraging metacognition in digital learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Digital workplace learning: Bridging formal and informal learning with digital technologies (pp. 9-22). Springer International Publishing AG. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-46215-8
Overall, the course was a lot of work. Compiling three modules inside a unit of study, taking resources, and converting them into resources usable in a blended course was a daunting yet rewarding project. In this reflection, I look at how the course utilizes the First Peoples Principles of Learning and the ISTE standards and how AI was utilized in my course.
Learning recognizes the role of Indigenous knowledge. Evident through the inclusion of learning about Indigenous worldview and traditional legal approaches through restorative justice practices.
Learning requires the exploration of one’s identity. All students must participate in a Padlet activity that encourages them to look at their worldview and share it on the class Padlet.
Learning is embedded in memory, history, and story. Students had the opportunity to look at history through case studies and begin to look at how law and society have changed and continue to change regarding law and policy. (e.g., Assessment 2: looking at the TRC, Indian Act, the calls to justice for MMIWG)
Learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place). Overall, the course enables relationship building through sharing learning experiences through discussion and assignments.
The inclusion of the ISTE student standards, Knowledge Constructor, and Creative Communicator are evident in the summative assessments in the course. Students are involved in curating information from digital resources to create meaningful projects. This is evident in the Module 2 inquiry and Module 3 Charter Analysis assessments. Students must publish and share the content and medium for their chosen audiences.
One of the key learnings in designing a course was using ChatGPT to create some of the lesson materials. ChatGPT was used to assist in summarizing some of the teacher’s background information notes to be presented to students. ChatGPT quickly summarized these notes and created a PowerPoint outline that I used to record quick videos for my students. Without the use of ChatGPT, the process of making these videos would have been tremendously time-consuming.
I also utilized ChatGPT to assist in creating the Module 3 Assessment. ChatGPT’s response enhanced the assessment because it found components of the assessment that I did not consider adding, such as “ethical requirements.” The previous version of the evaluation focused on the students finding ways to “gain power” by strategically dismantling the Charter. However, this assessment version felt unethical and contrary to promoting good citizenship, a vital component of the Saskatchewan Curriculum. ChatGPT assisted in framing the lesson around analyzing the consequences of modifying or rescinding pieces of the Charter. The ChatGPT response was then adapted to fit the need of the classroom.
Using AI to assist in creating courses will be an exciting development in the coming years. In reaching out to ensure that proper protocol was followed when utilizing AI for this purpose in the assignment, I was directed to look at the Perplexity AI tool, which identifies the resources it takes to generate the response. Future use of AI in course design would allow the creator to become more efficient in cross-referencing and ensure that the information is relevant and correct.
To create my Law 30 Course, I opted to utilize Google Sites as the course’s content management system (CMS) instead of a Learning Management System (LMS) such as Moodle or Canvas. This is due to my school division utilizing Edsby as an LMS. However, Edsby does not have an organized way to display the content of the course. Google Sites provides an effective way to adapt and change course content and material. I decided to blend the two platforms and have Edsby as the place to submit assignments and potentially contribute to discussion posts. I linked a short video of how students will utilize Edsby to hand in assignments directly on the Google Sites page.
I will be honest; I have been rusty with the laying out the course structure as I have not had to plan a unit or course for that matter in quite some time. At the start of my journey to structure my course, I did not utilize the backwards by design model as shared by Wiggins and McTighe (2012). I decided to start to plan activities aligned with the curriculum and not the final assessments. I quickly found out that without identifying the learning results, I ended with gaps within my modules.
Through the utilization of the backwards by design unit, I was able to clearly identify that I would have three modules, each containing a learning objective.
Module 1: Shipwrecked – Describe the purpose and function of law in societies
Module 2: Worldviews – To illustrate with historical examples the idea of changes in law, which originate from the changes in public opinion and worldviews.
Module 3: Human Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – To describe the range of civil rights of Canadian citizens in connection to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Utilizing these objectives as my guide, I began to map out my course, starting with the assessment I had in mind. Although the course does not have the perfect layout, it will continue to adapt, and extra lessons may be added to each module as the course is developed.
As I began to look into primary resources for my Law 30 course, I am keeping it a priority to include a variety of perspectives and worldviews. Following the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FNESC, 2015), I am starting to embed assessments that look at the various worldviews and analyze our identities and worldviews and how this impacts society and laws within Canada. I have focused on ensuring that Indigenous knowledge and voices are heard and seen within each module in the course.
Early into ETEC524, I discovered a course structure called the Modern Classroom. The Modern Classroom is based upon three key practices.
Blended Instruction – Students have access to teacher-created videos
Mastery-Based Learning – Students only progress from one lesson to the next when you demonstrate mastery
Self-paced – Students control the pace of their own learning
I wanted to incorporate this design into my course. Within the structure of my lessons, you will see that each lesson features the following:
A description of the lesson’s learning objectives and outcomes covered
An introduction activity
Lesson Path: This includes the activities the students must, should, and/or aspire to do.
Check your understanding: Students have access to these resources to assist in completing the mastery check.
Mastery Check: This is a short assessment piece that will be able to indicate to the teacher whether or not the student was able to meet the learning objective or if the extra review is needed to find success.
In this layout, I find it beneficial to utilize the backward by design model to identify what you want the students to know and then develop the assessment. This follows by working towards completing the other components of the lesson. The learning activities are engaging experiences utilizing various digital components offering instant feedback and in-class learning experiences.
Curtis Bourassa 