Page 435 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

410 D. Sutherland and D. Henning

how the contextualised and inclusive approach to mathematics education as
described by Luitel and Taylor may be feasible with an adult population. However,
I struggle to see how the idea of glocalisaton – the interplay of local and global –
can be incorporated into the First Nations and North American Indian elementary
or middle years classrooms, the student populations with which I am most involved.
Based on our research with Manitoban First Nation communities, identity and the
incorporation of locality were identified by science teachers as essential components
of a successful science program in these Indigenous settings (Sutherland and
Henning 2009). These teachers we spoke with identified the need to teach from a
localized perspective first, one that includes Elders, language, culture and the oppor-
tunity to go onto the land. It is only after this localized instruction takes place that
students should be asked to compare eurowestern science and local Indigenous
knowledge. This is what can facilitate a discussion and exploration of the similarities
and differences between these two knowledge systems. Perhaps the latter part of this
instructional strategy is an example of glocalisation, but it could not occur without
first establishing a grounded knowledge of one’s sense or understanding of place.
I believe that all educators think they are providing a transformative education to
their students. I don’t think they would remain in the field of education if they did
not believe they were having a positive effect. However, there are different opera-
tional ideas of what constitutes “transformation.” For example, the director’s views
on the importance of eurowestern curricula in a mathematics teacher education
program are just a different opinion on what constitutes transformation in teacher
education. Luitel and Taylor describe their transformative vision for mathematics
teacher education as a glocalisation approach. I know that I have had my share of
frustrating conversations with educators who uphold the foundations of eurowestern
science. Therefore, I can relate to the narrative that is depicted in Luitel and Taylor’s
paper. At the same time, I also know how difficult it is to try to change their opin-
ions. I am not convinced that writing a letter to the Director is the best use of time.
Why not write the letter to teachers and ask them for their input on this transforma-
tive model for math education? Thus, initiate the change from the grassroots.
I wonder what you think about the idea of glocalisation as discussed in the paper.
I really don’t want to get into a discussion of the term itself. I am not much for
creating technical language to identify an idea; this is primarily an academic tradi-
tion that results in excluding others from participating in a conversation. I think this
is a trap the authors and the supervisors have fallen into where both participate in
rhetorical practices that have historically excluded local approaches. To me, there
is an irony to the letters and the “analysis” because the writers create a terminology
that may advance themselves as individuals through academia by creating a differ-
ent foundation, the right foundation. I think what is missing from the whole chapter
is the voice of the teacher.
Luitel and Taylor make the distinction between globalisation and “localisation”
and argue that as an approach, the latter would exclude other perspectives. However,
I don’t see it this way. The overwhelming message we received from the Securing
Aboriginal Goals in Education (SAGE) conference (a conference that encouraged
Aboriginal science educators to discuss successful programs that integrate science