Module II

Before doing the reading and viewing for this week’s assignment, I had some knowledge about the similarities and differences between my culture and various Alaska Native cultures.  However, I had never thought much about these similarities and differences with respect to science specifically.  I had always just thought about them in a general way as they affect people’s lives.  I have gained insight on what I think it means for living and non-living things to be connected.  I hope I can pass on the importance of these connections to my students.

The main thing I learned was the general idea about how western science isolates and indigenous science integrates.  In western science, we single out a topic to learn more about it on its own.  The more you further your education at a university, for example, the more you specialize.  By the time you are pursuing a PhD in science, you are probably studying something so specific that not very many other people outside your discipline may even understand what it is.   On the other hand, Alaska Native science studies something as it relates to the whole.  Natives don’t seem to separate one topic from another. 

In the video about the spirit of subsistence living, it was mentioned that Alaska Native science does not necessarily seek to explain nature, but rather gathers knowledge about how to coexist with nature. I found myself thinking that personally I do both of these things.  I have always felt a connection to the natural environment of wherever I have lived and have a sense that I am not the most important species on the planet.  However, I have always asked “why” about things for as long as I can remember.  I get great satisfaction from learning how things work, both in the natural world and elsewhere.  It reminded me of the quote by John Muir (http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/) that says, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”


As far as using this week's resources goes, I was thinking it would be a good idea to introduce certain earth science topics by having the kids look at maps from Google Earth.  I try to make a lot of my lessons specific to Alaska, if possible.  For example, if we were studying volcanoes, we would talk about Alaska volcanoes.  But it would be neat to have them look at volcanic areas in places where their families are from or places that they are interested in.  Filipino students, for example, might be interested in seeing Google Earth images of Mt. Pinatubo.  Or a kid who has always wanted to visit Hawaii could look up one of the volcanoes there. Then kids could share what they found.  They could see where else in the world there are volcanoes, and they could learn something about the places where their classmates are from.  This would build connections between students and also build connections to other landscapes besides Alaska.

I did disagree with one thing that I read in the assignment.  The comparison was made that indigenous knowledge is learning by doing and experiencing, and western science is learning by formal education.  Any good science teacher practices hands-on learning as much as possible.  In my classroom we are doing and experiencing almost daily.  This is how many kids learn best.  So I am not sure what exactly was being referred to, but I don’t think the phrase "formal education" is an accurate portrayal of best practices in current science education . . . unless I misunderstood?


Blogs I visited and commented on:

http://amysexplorealaskablog.blogspot.com/
http://explorealaskawithalison.blogspot.com/
http://wwwkrisexploresalaskacom.blogspot.com/