Hello class! My name is
Christia Ouellette, but just call me Tia. I just graduated from UML as an
English major with a minor in psychology. I work full time as an assistant
manager at American Eagle Outfitters. This is my first
semester in the Master’s program for education. I am planning to graduate from
the program next December, and I am looking forward to begin teaching soon
after. Thanks. I hope you enjoy my blog!
Etta Hollins’ article, Relating Ethnic and Racial Identity
Development to Teaching, opened my eyes to how some teachers feel that it
is unnecessary to incorporate different cultures in their teaching even if some
students would benefit and be able to connect to it. There are three different
types of teaching, Type I, Type II, and Type II, and this article demonstrates
how each type deals with cultural and ethnic differences amongst their students
and the content they are teaching. Hollins (1999) points out how “individuals
tend to dissociate themselves from their own ethnic or racial group in
preference for association with the majority group” (p. 185). This is clearly
not something that should happen. Every person should be proud and connected to
who he/she is and where he/she comes from. Fitting in with the majority is not
what it is important. Truly being able to be comfortable in your in skin is the
ultimate goal.
I think
it is safe to say that being a Type I teacher is not ideal: “Teachers in Type I
seem to prefer a particular model, process, or plan for teaching regardless of
the background experiences, preferences, or competencies of the children they
teach” (Hollins, 1999, p. 186). If a child from a different background cannot
connect to the material, they will not learn. Likewise, if a teacher is unwilling
to change the way she teaches to better suit her students’ needs, she will not
grow and learn to be a better teacher. Also, Type I teachers feel that they need
to teach the dominant culture or ‘American’ culture because “the ethnic pride
resulting from multicultural education is divisive and should be resisted”
(Hollins, 1999, p. 187). Despite this stance, Type I teachers also believe that
the curriculum should be expanded to include different cultures. If this is not
a contradiction of what Type I teachers previously said then I do not know what
is. Most of what was revealed about how Type I teachers conduct a class and
deal with culture that is not ‘American’ irritates me. How is it possible to
captivate a classroom full of students if you are not engaging all of the students
because of your refusal to teach them about topics that are related to them? It
is essential when you teach to talk about relatable material, even if there is
only a little time to touch upon it. Teaching material in a meaningful as well
as applicable way is important.
I
would like to be a teacher that falls more in the category of Type III. I felt
like these teachers were better-rounded and open to different cultures. They
wanted to gain knowledge and incorporate the new material in meaningful ways
into their classroom. It was clear, at the end of the article, that Type III
teachers were the best kinds of teachers to emulate. They want to encourage
students to learn with and learn from their peers, and I believe that is
certainly one of the best ways to allow students to learn. What I took from this article is that a
teacher must be open to exploring new cultures because everything is relevant.
Each student needs to be able to relate to the course in some way. A teacher
must expand the curriculum so it does not solely revolve around the ‘dominant’
culture because this expansion will ultimately be beneficial to everyone in the
classroom including the teacher.
Hollins, E.R. (1999). Relating ethnic
and racial identity development to teaching. In R.H. Sheets and E.R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices:
Aspects of human development.
Mahwah, N.J., L Erlbaum Associates, 183-193.
