braids and backsourcing

My first stop in Kallis’ writing was her use of the term “backsourcing.” Compared with the term “outsourcing,” this conveys the idea of taking back the means of production. But not like in a “seize the means of production” kind of way, more in the sense of being self-sufficient, returning to the ancient values of producing goods with our own hands to serve our own needs (and the needs of the local community). Another stop for me was in the idea that backsourcing encourages environmentalism without all of the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric so often employed to scare folks into buying electric vehicles and such. Compared with rampant consumerism, I think this is a much healthier, natural way to promote a sense of place within our communities, and even to feel more connected with ourselves.  

 

With regards to the first video… the thought of trying to make those braids/ropes in class makes me a little anxious. The Turkish lace and multi strand braid especially look pretty difficult and I can already see myself getting frustrated with my fat stupid fingers. The S or Z-ply rope look more manageable, but I was much more interested in the idea of rope making being amongst the most ancient of technologies. Basically anything being “ancient” greatly appeals to me, and that there are mathematical connections to be made on top of that is like icing on the cake. If my fingers were more dexterous, I can definitely see braiding/rope-making being a semi-regular hobby of mine. Relating this back to Kallis' writing, it certainly seems like a skill which would promote backsourcing, and I'm definitely on board, but also I wonder: for what purposes might I actually use braids or ropes in my daily life.

Garden-based learning

    I actually did enjoy this article - it's always interesting to read the works of your teachers. I liked learning about the Orchard Garden, Roots on the Roof, Landed Learning, the CLN, and the intentions behind these projects. I also really got a kick out of the slight anti-establishment edge that would pop-in-and-out of the writing. This quote in particular: “This anthropocentric view of the world as a collection of resources to be exploited and controlled by humans has been taken beyond the limits of sustainability,” makes me want to take to the streets and start eco-terrorizing some folks. It does feel a little bit like living in the twilight zone when having a garden and using it as a learning space requires justification. In general, I think swapping out the constrictions of a man-made environment for the open-air of a natural one is an overlooked human necessity. For example, how excellent would it feel to never again be subjected to fluorescent lights? That being said, it’s super interesting to think about all of the lessons which are implicitly reinforced from specifically using a community-run garden as a classroom. With regards to the three points about how to make the most of garden-based learning, I really like the point about making the garden the main space. I imagine disuse is the death of a lot of these types of projects, and it makes sense that you really do need to commit to the concept to make it work, especially in the face of all the infrastructure already in place propagating more “traditional” classroom settings.

Gartden Exercise

    My art is actually not very pretty, but I do quite enjoy drawing. I think I might actually be an artsy-fartsy kind of person, but I just haven't devoted any time to that sort of thing (dang STEM always getting in the way of what's important). So as the "student bird," I certainly enjoyed this activity. I found that when I was drawing man-made objects, I was much more concerned with getting the lines and angles exactly as I saw them. On the other hand, any natural objects seemed much too complex to reproduce faithfully. So instead, I simply tried my best to capture some vague sense of vegetation. To me, this exercise clearly contrasts the ordered world of the man-made with the complex, impossible-to-replicate chaos of the natural.

    Now as a "teacher bird," I do think this exercise imparts some kind of lesson along those lines. But at the same time, there are a lot of open-ended variables, and one student's takeaway isn't necessarily going to be the same as another's. That was clear from the class discussion, which, I'm starting to realize, is like some kind of teacher cheat code. I'm also wondering, if the effectiveness of having students learn from each other might be context-dependent. For instance, wouldn't a class discussion be extra effective with, say, a group of thoughtful and articulate teacher candidates?

    In the context of a primary or secondary math class, I do like this exercise anyway. And I think the class discussion portion probably works pretty well here regardless of the grade level. What really interests me though, is that I think this drawing exercise promotes certain ideas almost subliminally. For example, a student might be forced to wrestle with their perfectionism. On the other hand, maybe they're getting to practice their attention-to-detail. Or maybe it's an exercise in creating abstract representations of real world objects. Or maybe it's a lesson in the loss of fidelity inherent in such abstractions. Or maybe it highlights the clear geometry of human constructions and piques an interest to apply such geometrical ideas to the complex shapes of the natural world! It's actually all of these and more, and different students are going tune-in to different things. So to me, this kind of exercise is more like an experience which washes over the students, and directs their awareness to many interesting ideas, even if they don't vocalize them like a group of teacher candidates might.

 

Shoutout to Caris, pictured below:

Entrance Slip (Sept. 12)

    This article did not speak to me very much. I think I could actually summarize it pretty well with a single question: “do you think thinking about how to be better at your job will make you better at your job?” Maybe I’m taking for granted the importance of self reflection when it hasn’t always been obvious, but I did find the article at least a little condescending. They briefly mention previous conceptions of classifying teachers according to some pre-defined dichotomies, they then go on to cite the work of Dewey who does some categorization of his own, and then finally they settle into discussing their two “distinct” types of teachers: reflective and unreflective (by the way, I feel this need to categorize everything is unhealthy, but maybe that’s why I’m not an academic). After extolling the virtues of being reflective for several pages, by the end of the paper they’re like, “so… what kind of teacher do YOU want to be: the good thoughtful kind or the crappy lazy kind? The choice is yours.” So anyway, I don’t appreciate the tone of the writing here, but I do have to acknowledge my privilege in being brought-up in such a way as to value self-reflection. Perhaps there are people who disassociate while they’re teaching, and don’t give it another thought after the day is done. Those people aren’t going to read this article anyway. Personally, I find it difficult to turn off my brain and not be reflective. 

    That’s not a brag by the way - I think it can be a problem. And I don’t want to be overly-dismissive of the article. For instance, I did really enjoy the bit where they address some of the criticisms of the "reflective teacher." With regards to turning off one's brain, I think teacher burnout is very real, and the degree to which teachers (myself included) view their cause as noble can be a double-edged sword which creates this constant pressure to do more for the students and community. I think Grant and Zeichner are feeding into that a little bit here, which is another aspect of this article which I maybe don't like. I think we've all seen disillusioned teachers before, who after decades of service, simply don't have it in themselves to care as much as they once did. I do understand that this article is targeted at teacher candidates, and we're all super excited to be teachers here of course, but balance is important, and I definitely appreciate that they acknowledge some of the arguments against.

Exit Ticket 1

    From listening to Frank McCourt speak about his journey to becoming a teacher, as well as his experiences as a teacher, it seemed clear that he was a charismatic, well-spoken individual. Thinking back on some of the more memorable teachers of my childhood, it struck me how being charismatic really lends itself to the teaching profession. Not to say there isn't more to Frank McCourt (and the teachers of my past) than a cool accent and a handful of good stories, but I definitely do think these sorts of things are tools, or maybe gifts, that can help a teacher to connect with their students. What resonated most with me was Mr. McCourt's ideas about engaging with students and adapting his lessons to align with their attitudes. He spoke of adolescents and their angst and raging hormones or whatever, and in being sensitive to the independent spirit of these teenage folk, he seemed to have developed a "give-and-take" approach to teaching. I definitely believe that a positive student-teacher relationship does the most to promote learning, and Mr. McCourt's stories demonstrated to me that when an educator is also learning from their students, it facilitates this super valuable two-way engagement. Ideally, both students and teachers are engaging with each other's ideas, attitudes, and emotions, thereby challenging each other. I would think then, that part of Frank McCourt's success as an educator is the result of his willingness to learn from his students. 

Tester Blog

 Hello, this is a blog.