Final Project/ Paper

ETEC 521 64A

Instructor: Dr. Michael Marker
Eric Bankes
This paper is a review of techno-imperialism in technology and online learning. It argues how
e-learning is not a culturally neutral technology and education as a hole is individualistic causing
aboriginal learners to feel a sense of psychic disequilibrium in a system designed with
eurocentric ideals. How aboriginal learners learning strategies are separate to the current
system causing students to seem disconnected learners. Colonialism and assimilation is still
occuring by the reluctance of institutions and instructors to be aware of the different learning
strategies of aboriginal learners. They refuse to question their own practices and modify
instructional practices and designs to support the diversity of their learners. Instructional design
is not currently supporting the values and thoughts of aboriginal learners and is instead
supporting only the dominant culture of anglo-american individualists. Academic structures are
built around a eurocentric culture of academic fragmentation and compartmentalization. This
structure is forcing aboriginal learners to adapt to someone else's culture instead of adapting
learning strategies to support their learning styles. Instructor’s need to be aware of how their
culture affects their own practices and biases. Instructors instead need to “develop their skills to
deliver culturally sensitive and culturally adaptive instruction” (Parrish, 2010)

Technology and online learning as well as teaching as a hole is not culturally neutral. The
education system is based on a anglo american individualistic structure. “The creators of the
Internet were predominantly Anglo-American engineers and scientists seeking quick and open
access to others like themselves(Reeder et al. 04). The ethnic and professional cultures of
Anglo Americans are “aggressive/competitive individualistic behaviours” (Reeder et al. 04). In
addition these cultures are “characterized by speed, reach, openness quick responses,
questions and debate and informality” (Reeder et al. 04). What they are reinforcing to aboriginal
learners is “individual-centered relations and forms of consciousness essential to the earlier
phase of the industrial revolution” (Bowers, 2000). Aboriginal learners come from a collectivist
structure one where these ideals are not valued. The differences include “academic
fragmentation and compartmentalization of knowledge in contrast to a more holistic frame of
reference and emphasis on individual status and competition in contrast to collective identity,
consensus and cooperation” (Kuokkanen, 2004). Collectivism is a culture where “students
speak up in limited situations, where hard work is motivated by the greater good and where
content knowledge (learning how) is primary” (Parrish, 2010). This is a culture where
“communicative culture has been predominantly oral” (Reeder et al. 04). In contrast “E- learning
and Internet communication by contrast are largely literate inventions” (Reeder et al. 04). These
literal platforms are done in public places where in aboriginal culture these conversation would
be structured in “private communication” (Reeder et al. 04). This “publicity as it often explicitly
required or implicitly expected in e-learning runs counter to students’ cultural and education
expectations and traditions” (Reeder et al. 04).

The results of Reeder et al. 04 findings was that aboriginal learners posted significantly less
then the mainstream culture. Reeder et al 2004 describes how people “from other cultures with
very different communicative values and strategies might be less successful communicators
according to cyberculture standards”(Reeder et al. 04). “As noted by Pincas (2001), students
entering into professional education in a multicultural context not aligned with their own culture
can experience significant conflict.”(Parrish, 2010). “Scollon & Wong- Scallon (1990) found
contrasting communication styles in two very distinct but neighboring cultures, North American
speakers of English and Aboriginal language Athabaskan” (Reeder et al. 04). The results where
Athabaskan aboriginal learners feeling that Anglo-american learners “always interrupted, asked
to many questions, only talked about what they where interested in, don't give others a chance
to talk and talk to strangers and people they don't know” (Reeder et al. 04) These comments
clearly indicate the frustration of these aboriginal learners working with learners and a
instructional design that is highly individualistic. The result was students “dropped the course
unannounced”. Scollon & Wong (1990) expressed bewilderment and concluded that “members
relatively low value placed on officially sanctioned credit or certifications compare to European
heritage members of the course” (Reeder et al. 04). However there was no attempt made by the
instructor to adapt his teaching strategies to fit these students needs and the etools used “fit
poorly into traditional parameters of communication” (Reeder et al. 04). Missing important tools
found in collectivist culture such as “context perception, parallel visual channels, direct eye
contact, gestural information, side talk, dynamic real-time repair mechanisms, avoidance
mechanisms, and in general the flexibility we normally expect to obtain or emerge between
conversational partners” (Reeder et al. 04). The act of reading is a individualized activity and
educators need to recognize that “print over living reality of the spoken word has been an
important source of Euro American oppression of Native peoples in the past” (Bowers, 2000)

E-learning is progressing down a similar track of the industrial revolution and has a expectation
for aboriginal learners to adapt to a system set up for individualized learner success instead of
adapting teaching practices to individual learners needs. “Computers continue the tradition of
representing print as a form of cultural storage that was more progressive than the oral tradition”
(Bowers, 2000) Aboriginal students “must adapt to the requirements of the machine and to the
thought patterns of the people that wrote the software” (Bowers 2000). This form of “individual
subjectivity that it amplifies is profoundly different form the forms of moral reciprocity found in
face to face intergenerationally centered communities” (Bowers, 2000). Aboriginal learners are
forced to adapt to western individualistic ideals. This directly contradicts the needs of the
aboriginal community which wish to “ determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future
generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity as the basis of their continued
existence as people in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal
systems.”(Kuokkanen, 2004).

Techno-imperialism continues the doctrine of assimilation that “european ideas about progress
and development were self-evidently correct and could be imposed on aboriginal people without
reference to any other values and opinions” (The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People,
1996). The education system operates “on the assumption that Eurocentric content, structure
and process constitute the only legitimate approach to knowledge” (Kuokkanen, 2004). When
aboriginal learners then struggle in this system “these concerns are often defined in terms of
inadequate achievement, retention and attrition”(Kuokkanen, 2004). The focus is usually “on
indigenous students, rarely on themselves or the institution and its structures, discourses,
practices and assumption that operate in the academy”(Kuokkanen, 2004). This “epistemic
ignorance” in education expects learners “to leave the cultural predispositions from their world at
the door and assume the trappings of a new form of reality, a reality which is often substantially
different from their own (Kirkness and Barnhart 6). Instead instructors and instructional
designers “especially those in online environments and struggling to maintain sufficient
presence and student engagement, should develop skills to deliver culturally sensitive and
culturally adaptive instruction (Gunawardena & Lapointe, 2007).

Educators need to realize that “when they teach, their teaching culture” (Parrish, 2010). Their
own culture, usually the dominant culture influences their instructional strategies and design.
“They should be cognizant of how these cultural perspective are represented in the design
decisions that they make”(Parrish, 2010). Thus requires educators to identify their “cultural
biases and to account for them in their own practice” (Parrish, 2010). This will require them to
“take a neutral position in developing their courses and materials” (Parrish, 2010). “Rather then
assimilate minorities into the organization, the conditions need to be created where alternative
discourses can be heard” (Kuokkanen, 2004). There is a need to listen to students as well as
the community they are serving and modify programs in order to not continue the “psychic
disequilibrium” (Battiste, 1998) currently in a eurocentric education system. A post- colonial
framework cannot be constructed without Indigenous peoples renewing and reconstruct the
principles in which our system is built on. Educators often “refuse to examine the blind spots of
their own epistemic foundations or acknowledge their privilege and participation in the academic
structures and the various ongoing colonial processes in society in general” (Kuokkanen, 2004).
At the same time there is a balance needed to help “students adapt to specific professional,
academic and mainstream cultures and the need to embrace the culture in which the student is
embedded.” (Parrish, 2010) Kuokkanen describes this method as “bridging” and describes this
as a necessary component “in addressing and correcting the effects of historical and
contemporary systemic discrimination.(Kuokkanen, 2004). However instructors need to have a
respect for the preservation of culture is an important value for instructors and instructional
designers to hold because they are clearly in the position of social agents having substantial
influence over their learners” (Parrish, 2010). Instead instructors need to have “increase
awareness, culturally sensitive communication, modified instructional design processes, and
efforts to accommodate the most critical cultural differences” (Parrish, 2010)

The new B.C curriculum of a learner- centered teaching practice tries to accommodate
aboriginal learners . One that “acknowledges and celebrates the cultural identity of all students
represented in your learning cohorts” (AWP, 2015). Making it a priority as a instructor to reach
out to the local community. In order to go through ​“pervasive reflection and a willingness to modify
ones first inclinations about instructional design and Interaction with students or student
representatives during design (Carr-Chellman,2006). Aboriginal support workers can be a invaluable
asset in making these connections. This community involvement can help the “family feel involved
and respected” and help break down years of distrust in the education system. E-learning instructors
need to embrace a learner- centered practice that “interacts with students to ascertain their strengths
and preferences when it comes to learning experiences” (AWP, 2015). This approach should include
“reflective learning, frequent use of self assessment activities and a willingness to see themselves as
facilitators of student learning rather than classroom managers” (AWP, 2015). These changes in
instructional design need to give “aboriginal students a sense that they belong and can make and
important contribution to student engagement and participation” (AWP, 2015)
Even though “Indians are to be full participants in the modern world, then they must stake out a
place in cyberspace” (Howe, 1998). As instructors we must be adaptable, respectful, and be
inclusive of the community in their instructional design in order to make their classes more
inclusive of aboriginal learners in e-learning. There needs to be a recognition of the eurocentric
design in education and try to mitigate and modify this system to include holistic learning
opportunities in order to support students that come from collectivist cultures. How print has
been used against aboriginal learners and how the use of face to face interactions need to
incorporated into e-learning course design. Instructors need to recognize the inherent
individualism of e-learning and work to modify their teaching strategies in order to support
students to be able to explore their own identity. Instead focusing on learner- centered approach
acting as more of a facilitator and allowing students to identify their own strengths and
weaknesses. Instructional design needs to incorporate collectivist ideals and Aboriginal
perspectives in a authentic manner.
Bibliography

Aboriginal Worldviews and Perspectives in the Classroom. ​Queen's Printer for British Columbia
Victoria: Ministry of Education, 2015

Battiste, Marie and Jean Barman, ed. ​First Nations Education in Canada: The Circle Unfolds.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia P, 1998.

Bowers, C. A., Vasquez, M., & Roaf, M. (2000). Native people and the challenge of computers:
Reservation schools, individualism, and consumerism.​ American Indian Quarterly, 24​(2),
182-199.

Carr-Chellman, A.A(2006). ​User Design. ​Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Gunawardena, C. N., & LaPointe, D. (2007). Cultural dynamics of online learning. In M.

G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 593-607). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Howe, C. (1998). Cyberspace is no place for tribalism.​ Wicazo Sa Review, 13​(2), 19-28.
doi:10.2307/1409143

Kirkness, Verna J. “Creating the Dream”. ​The first Nations Longhouse, Our home away from
Home.​ Ed. Kirkness and Jo-ann Archibald. Vancouver: First Nations House of Learning,
2001. 5- 57

Kuokkanen, R. J., & Xwi7xwa Collection. (2004). ​Toward the hospitality of the academy: The
(im)possible gift of indigenous epistemes

Parrish, P. & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). ​Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the

challenges of multicultural instruction​. ​International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning,​ 11(2), 1-19.
Pincas, A. (2001). Culture, cognition, and communication in global education. Distance
Education: An International Journal, 22(1), 30-51.
Ray Banhart. “First Nations and Higher education: The Four R’s - Respect, Relevance,
​ 0.3 (1991): 1-15
Reciprocity, Responsibility” ​Journal of American Indian Education 3
Reeder, K., Macfadyen, L. P., Roche, J., & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in
cyberspace: Participation patterns and problematics.​ Language, Learning & Technology,
8​(2), 88-105.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996)

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637

Scollon, R., & Wong- Scollon, S. (1990). Athabaskan-English interethnic communication. In D.

Carbaugh (Ed.), ​Cultural communication and intercultural contact (​ pp. 259-286). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.