Individual Writing #2

Vanessa Marcotte

Department of Education, McGill University

EDEC 260-003

Professor Jason Lister

November 1st, 2020

 2
Individual Writing #2

First, Marie Battiste’s writing focuses on indigenous knowledge, education, and the divide

between IK and western epistemologies. Put simply, she describes how the framework of

indigenous education pursues an all-encompassing and lifelong learning model which has been

disrespected and omitted by most of the western education. Indigenous education uses a more

cooperative approach in which teachers are regarded as guides or mentors to facilitate learning

rather than merely being holders of knowledge. The inequalities experienced by indigenous

peoples in westernized education are explained as having resulted in underdeveloped capacities,

self-esteem and identity, as well as having halted academic achievement. For a better learning

system to take place, Battiste proposes a respectful exchange of knowledge between western and

indigenous education in order to create a better system for future students.

Bialystok and Kukar discuss the meaning of authenticity and empathy while questioning whether

one can exhibit both simultaneously. Authenticity refers to being true to one-self while empathy

refers to having the ability to care about another’s experience. They point out certain tensions that

can lead to the two virtues coexisting such as the reinforcement of narrow viewpoints as they

give the example of an authentically racist or homophobic person demanding empathy. They

further dispute the possibility of instructing these virtues in a school setting despite the

unexpressed agreement that such virtues are teachable. The struggle with empathy is that it is a

complex notion to teach as it is generally directed towards marginalized groups consequently

creating forms of privilege for the majority group. 

Finally, Seixas discuss the matter of content and pedagogy. Althought both are considered as two

completely different entities, the author express the nonsense to not consider one without the

other. Indeed, according to Seixas, as content is the Subject-Matter and pedagogy is the act of
 3
Individual Writing #2

teaching, the method used in class, both are complementary. In this context, “the subject matter,

or content, thus becomes inert knowledge, while pedagogy becomes a matter of ‘delivery’”

(Seixas, year, page). There are however multiple perspectives on the matter such as how teachers

are experts of pedagogical and historians are the experts of content and therefore teachers use the

content known by historians and make it fit in their classroom to teach it. This perspective comes

back to the completeness of both terms. However, as historians are not experts of pedagogical, it

is difficult for them to understand the structure of teaching and apply it. Thus, it is where

discipline come into place. By “doing the discipline”, content can become pedagogy and vice

versa which connects the notions of history with the present and therefore help students, teachers,

historians making judgement and decisions considering the past.

All three of these authors are known in our post-modern society where educators and learners are

ready to apply these theories to improve their way of teaching. First, Battiste who has written

“Indigenous knowledge and indigenous peoples’ education” (2010), knows the current issues

present in our society and is doing everything she can to educate people about her culture to raise

awareness. Then, there are Bialystok and Kukar who first published “Authenticity and empathy

in education” (2017) explaining the problems and solutions found between empathy shown by

people and their authentic self. Finally, Seixas, in his article “Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy': In

search of away to talk about history education” (1999), is more concerned about the content and

the pedagogy in the education field. These three articles therefore have a lot in common as they

all express an issue currently happening in our reality. And they all offer a way to fix these

issues.
 4
Individual Writing #2

Considering every article individually, I strongly believe that Battiste demonstrates an important

problem that too many people have been ignoring. Indeed, indigenous knowledge is part of our

history and it is essential that the future generations learn about this when nowadays classes are

very diverse. In fact, teaching about IK is important, but the way to teach it needs to be

considered too. As a matter of fact, Battiste explains a lot, in the Chapter I read, how IK is more

about sharing through symbolism, and discussion. For instance, western education and

indigenous knowledge could merge together to form a class focused on sharing different views

and on showing students multiple different cultures such as IK. This is what Battiste proposes as

she would desire for indigenous knowledge and western knowledge to be shared in a respectful

way through learning opportunities.

On another subject, Bialystok and Kukar share about the empathy that needs to be showed in a

classroom and the authentic behaviour that needs to stay present. Personally, I agree with their

idea of balancing both to create a better dynamic in class. Indeed, It can sometimes be hard to

stay empathetic as a teacher if a student presents hateful ideas in class, but it is, in my opinion,

important to stay empathetic towards the student without ignoring the issue. For instance, if a

student would come to me talking against minorities, I believe it would be difficult for me to stay

empathetic and genuine at the same time. However, as a teacher, I believe it is important to stay

professional and respectful, without being dishonest. Therefore, I would calmly explain to the

student how statements like this can be taken in the wrong way for many people and that it can

hurt people, thus to be careful about what they say. However, that can also lead to “conflicting

conceptions at work in educational discourses” which “give rise to situations of teachers or

students being authentically unempathetic or inauthentically empathetic.” (Bialystok, Kukar,

 5
Individual Writing #2

2010, 33). Thus, It is complex to understand how to deal with these specific situations, which is

why I find interesting and helpful articles such as Bialystok and Kukar’s article.

Finally, Seixas approach on content and pedagogy is truly interesting for teachers. Indeed, I find

common sense to think that content and pedagogy can only work as one, together. However, the

thinking and process behind it is complex and fascinating. In fact, as content is about the subject-

matter and pedagogy is about the methods used in class to teach, it seems clear that both are used

together in a classroom to create a logical and interesting class and a positive dynamic. Therefore,

as a future teacher, I find this article essential.

To sum up, I believe that Battiste, Bialystok and Kukar and Seixas all had similar beliefs in life

which meant to fight for what they believed in. Considering this, I strongly think that this is the

kind of attitude a teacher needs to have in their classroom. In fact, when you stand by your beliefs

and transmit those beliefs through educational knowledge, just like Battiste who transmitted her

culture through the mean of sharing her knowledge.

 6
Individual Writing #2

References

1. Battiste M. (2010) aditional knowledge in policy and practice: Approaches to development and

human well-being, “Indigenous knowledge and indigenous peoples’ education”, United

Nations University,

https://mycourses2.mcgill.ca/d2l/le/content/466872/viewContent/5109762/View

2. Bialystok, L. Kukar, P. (2017), Theory and Ressearch in Education, “Authenticity and

empathy in education”, Vol. 16(1) 23 –39, Sage Journals,

https://mycourses2.mcgill.ca/d2l/le/content/466872/fullscreen/5109753/View

3. Seixas, P. (1999) “Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy': In search of away to talk about history

education”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31:3, 317-337,

DOI:10.1080/002202799183151