Blog 1

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.