LEARNING TO SETTLE: YOUNG STUDENTS LEARNING CANADIAN AND INDIGENOUS HISTORIES IN THE FIGURED WORLDS OF SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOMS

by

Mark Robert Sinke

A draft thesis to be submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

© Copyright by Mark Robert Sinke 2020 LEARNING TO SETTLE

LEARNING TO SETTLE: YOUNG STUDENTS LEARNING CANADIAN AND INDIGENOUS HISTORIES IN THE FIGURED WORLDS OF SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOMS Doctor of Philosophy (2020) Mark Robert Sinke Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning University of Toronto

Abstract

This research study is an investigation into how children in public elementary schools are educated through social studies curricula into ways of understanding themselves and their relationships to the nation-state, the land, and people with whom they share the land. The questions that have driven this research are these: 1) How do young students construct and negotiate the figured worlds of a social studies classroom where they engage in inquiry-based learning about settler colonialism? 2) What do students connect with, and what are they doing with the stories they hear about Indigenous and Canadian history in public school classrooms? 3)

How do students in public school classrooms take up or reject settler colonialism in their learning about history?

Examining these questions through the theoretical frame of figured worlds and employing a post-structural ethnographic methodology, the author relies on the fields of curriculum studies and settler colonial studies to ground this study into the experiences of young students in public schools. The frame of figured worlds allows the author to examine the ways that students talk about and enact identities-in-practice as they learn stories about Canadian and

Indigenous histories. This thesis sheds light on the specific ways students configure, negotiate, and enact their own subjectivities as they learn about the settlement and growth of Canada on the

Indigenous territory it now occupies.

ii

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Data for this study were gathered through research groups, interviews, and classroom observations at two elementary schools in Hamilton, Ontario. Analysis and discussion of these data reveal the complex ways students both take up and\or reject discourses and narratives about settler colonialism, Indigenous resurgence, and reconciliation. The stories and experiences of students in this research reveal ways that education works to maintain settler structures of inequality and elimination through the teaching of social studies. This work also points to ways this can be challenged, and how counter-narratives and discourses are being taken up by students as they navigate their identities-in-practice in response to what they learn, who they learn it with, and the multiple voices that they listen to for guidance.

iii

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Acknowledgements

Throughout the long journey of completing this thesis, I have been blessed with the support and accompaniment of many people for whom I am deeply grateful. I am very grateful for the guidance, membership, and friendship of my supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule. He helped shape my understanding of research and its role while empowering me with the knowledge and practice I needed to pursue this study. Thank you to Dr. Rubén Gaztambide-

Fernández, who helped shape my understandings of many areas that were key to this thesis, and always encouraged me to think deeply about where we find meaning in the things we say, read, write, and research. I am grateful to Dr. Diane Farmer for her model of compassionate consideration about the ways children are included in knowledge production through research.

Her guidance and encouragement helped me see the possibilities of researching with children and played an integral role in the development of this research project and thesis.

Dr. Fikile Nxumalo and Dr. Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, thank you for your thoughtful critique and insight into this work and for challenging me to think deeply about its implications and importance.

The relationships I was gifted throughout the time I spent at OISE are very precious to me, and I owe a great thank you to Lucy El-Sherif, Fiona Purton, Daniela Bascuñan, Shawna

Carroll, Neil Ramjewan, Anjali Helferty, and so many others for your encouragement, love, support, and friendship. I would not have succeeded without each one of you, and I look forward to many more years of conversation and collaboration. The community of my family members, friends, students, and colleagues has supported me for many years with grace and encouragement, and I am grateful for their dedication to getting me through this long process.

iv

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The journey has been long and fruitful, while also challenging and difficult. Throughout it all my partner has held me up and kept me going with her strength and grace. Thank you,

Christine, for your unfaltering belief and support to see me through this.

v

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

Chapter 1: Introductions ...... 1

Introducing the Author ...... 10 Introducing the Landscape: Hamilton and Settler Colonialism at the Head of the Lake...... 17 Introducing the Chapters ...... 23

Chapter 2: Settler Colonialism and the Figured Worlds of Canadian Public Education .... 27

Imperatives of Settler Colonialism ...... 28 Pedagogies of Settler Colonialism ...... 35 Curricular and Educational Responses to Othering and Exclusion ...... 39 Settler Education for Young Children ...... 42 Figured Worlds of Elementary School Classrooms ...... 43 Figured Worlds ...... 44 Constructed and Re-constructed Cultural Practices...... 48 Historical Phenomenon of Cultural Significance...... 51 Subjectivity and Social Relations of Power and Privilege...... 54 Identities-In-Practice ...... 56 Subjectivity, Culture, and Learning in Children’s Lives ...... 61 Student Self and Identity...... 62 Children’s Cultural Worlds...... 64 Conclusion ...... 69

Chapter 3: Social Studies and Inquiry-Based Learning ...... 73

Settler Colonial Perspectives and Ontario Social Studies Curriculum ...... 73 The Formal Curriculum for Elementary School Social Studies ...... 74 Citizenship as Canadian Identity...... 76

vi

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigeneity and Multiculturalism in Social Studies...... 78 Inquiry-Based Learning...... 80 Conclusion ...... 85

Chapter 4: Methodology...... 88

Respecting Relationships with Methodological Considerations ...... 92 Researching with Children ...... 94 Informed Consent ...... 94 Researcher Relationship ...... 96 Incorporating Student Research Perspectives ...... 98 Sites of Research ...... 100 Methods of Data Collection ...... 102 Observations of Classroom Figured Worlds ...... 103 Research Groups with Young Students ...... 106 Interviews with Young Students ...... 109 Analysis ...... 110

Chapter 5: Taking Up and Responding to Settler Colonial Tropes and Indigenous Histories ...... 114

Student Conceptions of Indigeneity and Settler Canada ...... 119 Learning About Pioneer Tropes ...... 121 Conceptions and Narratives of Indigenous Diversity...... 130 Learning from Prior Study in Schools ...... 136 Learning Outside the School ...... 138 Students Understanding Settler Colonial Tropes and Indigenous History ...... 144 Conclusion ...... 149

Chapter 6: Student Conceptions of Education for Reconciliation ...... 153

Group 1 - Explorers Who Time Travel Back to the Past: Education for Reconciliation Through Representation ...... 157 Group 2 - Mark’s Brainiacs: Inclusion and Equity for Individual Well-Being ...... 173 Group 3 - Shared Understanding and Complexity in the Study of Historical Oppression ..... 183 Conclusion ...... 195

vii

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 7: Belonging and Finding a Place ...... 199

Bringing Selves to the Study of History...... 203 Students Struggling to Connect with the Stories of Canadian and Indigenous Pasts ...... 209 Clans and Belonging to a Community ...... 219 Belonging in Relationship ...... 225 Conclusion ...... 230

Chapter 8: Implications for Unsettling Social Studies and Education ...... 232

Implications for Teaching Indigenous Knowledges and Perspectives in Social Studies ...... 233 Theoretical Implications ...... 237 Limitations of the Study ...... 238 Next Steps and Further Study ...... 243 Conclusion ...... 245

Appendices ...... 247

Appendix A - Letter to principals ...... 247 Appendix B - Teacher information letter ...... 250 Appendix C – Student information brochure ...... 251 Appendix D – Information letter to parents ...... 254 Appendix E - Research group letter to parents and students...... 256 Appendix F – Principal and teacher consent forms ...... 258 Appendix G: Parent consent form for research groups and interviews...... 259 Appendix H - Student assent letter for research groups ...... 260 Appendix I - Student assent letter for an interview ...... 261 Appendix J - Introductory script for classroom observation ...... 262 Appendix K - Research group protocol...... 264 Appendix L - Interview protocol ...... 267

References ...... 269

viii

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 1: Introductions

In a classroom at an elementary school in Hamilton, Ontario, I sat with a small group of eager fifth-grade students during their lunch period and asked them to tell me what they thought about the social studies unit they had just completed studying titled, “First Nations and

Europeans in New France and Early Canada”. The first student who spoke up had chosen to go by the pseudonym Buck for this research project:

“I don’t care about social studies”, Buck said strongly and quickly.

I asked him to clarify “Why not, Buck?”

Buck shrugged his shoulders and replied, “I don’t know, it’s just really boring. That’s the past, why do we need to know about it? It’s not like it’s going to happen today.”

Another member of the group, who chose the name Libyan Warrior, began to interject and said, “Well you never know, there’s some…”

Buck jumped in mid sentence and spoke with a dramatic and sarcastic tone, “Yeah

Libyan Warrior, we’re all going to have to go hunting, we’re all going to have to build our houses.”

Libyan Warrior seemed exasperated and replied, “Oh my god, I didn’t say that, did I say that?” while looking around at the others in the group.

Opasinger was sitting across the circle and chimed in, “My dad would enjoy that” and laughed.

“Actually, in some countries, there are stuff like that.” Libyan Warrior added, and his neighbour in our circle, Saudi Cipher, quickly concurred, “Yeah, there is.”

Buck spoke up again in response, “I’m talking about in Canada.”

1

LEARNING TO SETTLE

“Well you could always expand social studies and stuff like that all the way to other countries” Libyan Warrior said, “I know we live in Canada and we’re learning about Canada, but there’s many different countries.”

I spoke up at this point and asked, “So even though social studies can be about other parts of the world, in Grade 5 you learn about early New France and First Nations, right?”

“Yes”, responded Libyan Warrior.

I continued my question, “So, Buck’s saying that’s all in the past; and my question is: what does that have to do with the present?”

Thing 1spoke up at this point, “I dunno [sic], I think it was a fun subject, because I got to learn more, and it does, like, connect to how it is, like, to the past and the present. So, it was a fun experience.”

Opasinger added, “Yeah, well when you think about the past, you have to get used to the change, basically, but some of it, it hasn’t really changed.”

“What do you think hasn’t changed?” I asked.

Opasinger continued, “In some other countries, houses haven’t really changed, because they still build them out of mud.”

“What about in Canada?” I inquired.

“I think there’s a lot of change”, Opasinger said.

Libyan Warrior quickly jumped in, “I just want to say that I feel like in Canada, most of it is more evolution than staying the same. If you go across Canada there’s not a lot of like old, old cities and stuff like that, and even if there are, they have all been upgraded and there’s a lot of technology.”

2

LEARNING TO SETTLE

I asked the group to recall specifics from their studies in class, “Have you studied anything about the First Nations or French communities around us in Ontario today? Did anything like that come up in your unit at all?”

Saudi Cipher responded first and said, “Not really, no.”

Libyan Warrior followed, “A little bit, but not much. I hear a lot of things about it on the news, like I hear about all the situations that they are having, people are like against them and I know there’s been kidnaps of people from First Nations groups, and they’re trying to find people to help them, but I don't ever see them.”

“Yeah, but nothing else”, echoed Saudi Cipher.

“What about in this area around us?”, I asked, “Are there any connections of what you’re studying with our local area?”

Libyan Warrior responded, “I know that there are people that speak a lot of French,

‘cause [sic] I guess their native area is France or something like that, but I don’t know anything else about it.”

I focused my question, “What about First Nations?”

There was silence in the circle and a long pause as the students thought to themselves.

Libyan Warrior spoke first once again, “I know they live around the Great Lakes.”

“Maybe close to the Great Lakes”, Thing 1 added.

Libyan Warrior continued, “I don't have much to say about them.”

A student who had not spoken in this discussion yet, Unicorn, then spoke up and said,

“Mark, actually, when we were on the Early settlers, that unit, I remember I was talking to my dad about it, and then he told me stuff about that unit that we didn't really learn about in class, and he said I don't know why they aren't teaching you this stuff and all that.”

3

LEARNING TO SETTLE

“What kind of stuff?”, I asked

Unicorn replied, “I don't really, I'm not really, I don't really know that much, but they said stuff like how they were treated.” Three other students all quickly voiced their agreement with this statement. Unicorn then continued, “Yeah like how they were like prisoners and all that stuff.”

“And you didn't learn that in your unit?”

Saudi Cipher relied for the group, “No, no, no”, he paused as he recalled, “Um, but we learned the First Nations and the French. You see, as many of you guys know, the French came over just for the beaver fur, and the First Nations were just like, when they [settlers] came, they were like, ‘I don't know what to do, I'm just new here’, and they just discovered this new land and the First Nations. I’d like to learn more of why the French came there, I think its more than just the beaver fur.”

I asked “You have a suspicion that it’s more complex? But you didn't learn about that in social studies?”

Saudi Cipher responded, “No, no we didn't learn anything about that. But life’s more complicated.” Libyan Warrior quickly voiced his agreement, “Yeah”, and Saudi Cipher continued, “And sometimes they focus really on one thing, but there's that same idea, on that type of thing, just in another way, but they won’t talk about anything about that, they will talk about something that is more related to them than to other people. Let’s say like, even some religious things, they'll talk a lot about one religion, but not any others. yeah, they won’t talk a lot about other people, they will just stick to one thing, and then move along from that.”

“And where do you think there's room for those other ideas?” I asked.

4

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Libyan Warrior suggested, “Well you could split the time, you could do like, let’s say you have 15 periods, you could do 5 periods on one thing, 5 periods on one thing, 5 periods on one thing” and Saudi Cipher enthusiastically agreed, “Then it’s double-sided, triple-sided perspectives!”

(Excerpt from the transcript of Research Group 3, Session 3)

The children in the above excerpt were part of a research group that I hosted in their school and were participants in a research study focused on understanding their lived experiences and perspectives on learning Canadian and Indigenous histories in schools. The back and forth dialogue in the excerpt are indicative of the ways the participants in this group and the others who took part in this study bounced ideas off of one another, responded to one another, and shared their experiences, expectations, and hopes with me. Students talked about what they had done in class, how they felt about it, what they thought was missing, where they had learned alternative perspectives, what they wished was included, and whether social studies learning about Canadian and Indigenous histories was personally relevant to them or not. All of these dynamics revealed to me some of the complex ways children in public elementary schools in

Ontario are educated into identities and practices that are framed by the discourses and narratives they learn in the formal curricula of schooling.

As can be seen above (and will be discussed in depth in Chapters 5, 6, and 7), students generally found little connection between what they were learning and their present day lives, so much so that Buck was interested in joining the research group just to tell me how much he didn’t like social studies. The students held ideas about the past that were generally framed by their limited understanding of the encounter between early European settlers and Indigenous peoples. However, they were learning to think beyond these narratives when they learned outside 5

LEARNING TO SETTLE of school about injustices suffered by the Indigenous population at the hands of settler governments. In addition, Saudi Cipher and Libyan Warrior held strong views about the lack of diversity in the perspectives that were included in their curricula, as they highlighted the lack of representation for religious diversity in general in schooling. This was all evident in this single excerpt and is indicative of the idea that the students, even after completing the formal unit of study mandated in the curriculum, had limited, partial, or no knowledge about specific

Indigenous communities from the past or present day. The mythologies of Canada’s beginnings persisted in the minds of these students, and as a result there was little discussion about the relationships that non-Indigenous Canadians have with the land they live on, or with Indigenous peoples whose traditional territories they share.

This research study is an investigation into how children in public elementary schools are educated through social studies curriculum into ways of understanding themselves and their relationships to the nation-state, the land, and people with whom they share the land. Adopting the theoretical frame of figured worlds and employing a post-structural ethnographic methodology, I discuss and analyze data that were gathered from two elementary schools in different regions of the city of Hamilton, Ontario through research groups, interviews, and classroom observations. How students talk about and enact identities-in-practice as they learn stories about Canadian and Indigenous histories reveal some of the complex ways they both take up and\or reject discourses and narratives about settler colonialism, Indigenous resurgence, and reconciliation.

For historical, cultural, and politic reasons there has been a recent increase in academic and social discourse about imagining and creating new ways for Indigenous peoples and non-

Indigenous Canadians to live together in respectful and meaningful relationships. Within this

6

LEARNING TO SETTLE context there are calls for changes to all levels of education to address the historical injustices and contemporary realities of settler colonialism (Liberal Party of Canada, 2015; Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; United Nations, 2007). This thesis engages with these discussions and specifically highlights the importance of understanding and engaging with the perspectives, worlds, and experiences of children for whom educational reforms are designed.

The questions that have driven the research and are discussed in this thesis are the following: How do young students construct and negotiate the figured worlds (cultural and constructed contexts that human actors move through and shape) of a social studies classroom where they engage in inquiry-based learning about settler colonialism? What do students connect with, and what are they doing with the stories they hear about Indigenous and Canadian history in public school classrooms? How do students in public school classrooms take up or reject settler colonialism in their learning about history? By taking up the lens of settler colonial studies and focusing on the figured worlds of fourth- and fifth-grade students in the social studies classroom, I am looking to shed light on the specific ways students configure, negotiate, and enact their own subjectivities as they learn about the settlement and growth of Canada on the

Indigenous territory it now occupies.

Narratives of friendly European settlement and cooperation with Indigenous peoples have dominated the traditional histories that children learn in Canadian school (Freeman, 2010;

Ministry of Education, 2004). As a result, the imperatives of settler colonialism to justify settler domination over Indigenous lands and peoples have continued to hold the position of truth for most children who attend public schools. While important changes to curriculum and pedagogical approaches are being introduced in higher education in several institutions across

7

LEARNING TO SETTLE the country (Wilkes et al., 2017), elementary school training of young children remains a landscape that is mainly populated with monuments to traditional narratives and Indigenous erasure. Within this landscape, educators and researchers have been searching for pathways that students can take to change the narratives and learn new ways of being in relationship with others and with the land that the country of Canada is on.

As understanding of settler narratives in schooling have grown, the recently completed work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada, 2015) has brought the issue of education's role in settler-Indigenous tensions to the forefront of social and political discourses outside of the field of education. While many Indigenous and some non-Indigenous authors, activists, teachers, and families have been calling loudly for the importance of curricular and pedagogical change in public schooling for decades, the work of the TRC has catalyzed a broader conversation about change in education.

As a result, several post-secondary institutions have begun to prepare mandated Indigenous studies courses for all first-year undergraduate students. At the elementary and secondary level such changes may be coming in the near future, as the federal government has pledged to implement all of the TRC's calls to action, including number 62 (i), which calls for all parties involved to "make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal peoples' historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for Kindergarten to Grade 12 students" (TRC, 2015). In anticipation for the possibility of new curricular movements in public elementary schooling, it is helpful and important for educators to consider the ways students experience and understand their own encounters with settler colonialism as it becomes revealed to them as such.

8

LEARNING TO SETTLE

As educators seek ways of opening up new possibilities for student learning, inquiry- based learning has been adopted as a pedagogical approach that has become predominant in faculties of teacher education and within school boards across Canada (Bianchi & Bell, 2008;

Ministry of Education, 2013b; Ministry of Education, 2013c). Inquiry-based learning is an approach that seeks to provide opportunities for children to develop deeply personal encounters with curricular content and discover answers to questions that they bring to the topic which are beyond the limits of traditional curricular units of study. There is potential in inquiry-based classes for students to engage with stories that challenge, dismantle, shake-up, or re-enforce the dominant and prevailing stories about Canada's historic relationship with Indigenous peoples. As students go through the process of developing an inquiry project within the context of these stories, they enact selves-in-practice which reflect the pedagogical impact of inquiry. Analyzing this context can also provide an understanding of the ways school children construct and negotiate socio/cultural identities in a settler colonial context.

Accessing the lived experiences and perspectives of children in public school classrooms is a difficult endeavor because of the power dynamics inherent in schools between adults and children, and because of the differences between adult’s and children’s cultural worlds. For this project I have therefore relied on the valuable work done by scholars of curriculum studies and childhood studies who have walked this path before me. I began my research with classroom observations of social-studies inquiry periods in public elementary schools. As I spent time in the classrooms of these students, I began to understand some specific aspects of how they figure the world around them and their place in it. This work helped to frame the structure and conversations within small research groups that I conducted with students from the classes that I observed. Finally, semi-structured individual interviews that I conducted with students helped

9

LEARNING TO SETTLE me gain insight into their personal motivation and interest in the inquiry projects they developed in class. The insights that I have gained through this critical ethnographic research have helped me understand the ways students construct and negotiate the figured worlds of social studies classrooms and how they enacted their individual and shared identities (or selves-in-practice) as they engaged with stories of Canadian and Indigenous relations. This research has revealed: 1) some of the ways students are engaging with ideas of Indigeneity in the classroom, 2) how the elementary school classroom, social studies learning, and inquiry-based learning are figured in the lives of students as they learn settler colonial realities, and 3) how students bring their own selves into dialogue with these figured worlds.

Introducing the Author

I am very honored to be able to write about this topic, and I think it is important that I begin with an introduction of my relationship to this work. My name is Mark Sinke, my father is

Herbert Sinke, and my grandfather was Huibrecht Sinke, but he was called Herbert after he moved to Canada in 1953. My grandfather came to Canada from a small island in the south of the Netherlands, where the Sinke family has lived for many generations. Grandpa Sinke’s island,

Walcheren, is in the province of Zeeland and was a very important base for colonial Netherlands for several centuries. The large city 10 miles away from where my grandfather grew up was the largest base for the Dutch West Indian Company. Along with its sister company, the Dutch East

Indian Company, these colonialists took Dutch military power and settlers to places far away from Zeeland: South Africa, Indonesia, Guyana, and of course the territory that they named New

Zealand. People from my grandfather’s homeland also travelled to Turtle Island, and built a

10

LEARNING TO SETTLE colony called New Netherland along the Eastern Coast of Turtle Island in the territory of the

Lenape and Mahican people which is presently called New York.

When people from the Kanienkehaka nation on the eastern edge of the Haudenosaunee

Confederacy began interacting with the Dutch settlers of New Netherland, they developed the

Teiohate Kaswenta, or two-row wampum agreement that highlighted the principles of peace, respect, friendship, sovereignty and non-interference (Hill, 2013; Koleszar-Green, 2016). This agreement was remembered by the Haudenosaunee but forgotten quickly by the Dutch settlers and largely ignored by the English who came after them. I doubt that my grandfather knew much about these traditions of living together with Indigenous nations when he moved to the land of the Haudenosaunee 300 years after Teiohate Kaswenta was developed.

My grandfather was in a similar situation as my other three grandparents, who came from different regions of the Netherlands after the Second World War and moved to the land of the

Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe without knowing that it was such. My grandparents came to

Canada and settled into lives as European migrants in a European-style nation that had benefited and prospered from the erasure of Indigenous peoples and nations for centuries. I do not think

Grandpa and Grandma, or Oma and Opa knew anything about Teiohate Kaswenta and other agreements for settlers to live well with Indigenous nations when they arrived in their new homes. I know that even their children, my parents, who were born in Canada did not often hear about or receive education in the responsibilities and relationships that Canada and its people have with these nations.

This is the situation that I have experienced as well, learning as a child about European explorers and Canadian achievements in establishing a nation that had grown strong and wealthy.

My K-12 schooling helped to teach me that Indigenous peoples and nations had once lived in the

11

LEARNING TO SETTLE land of Canada but were relatively inconsequential in the growth or development of the nation.

This theme was continued through my post-secondary educational experiences, and instead of coming to understand my position in relation to land, history, and Indigenous peoples, my formal education helped guide and shape my perceived identity as a citizen of a multicultural and tolerant Canadian society (a trope of Canadian settler education highlighted by St. Denis in her

2011 work). My position as a settler on Indigenous land and my complicity in Canada’s subjugation and elimination of Indigenous peoples were obscured by narratives that exalted white and Euro-centric ideals (Thobani, 2007). Generationally, my educational journey followed the well-trod pathway that my parents and grandparents walked down, as my family and I were educated in a settler identity that erased Indigeneity and promoted our own notions of identity and supremacy. This personal education has been replicated millions of times over through public schools and national pedagogy for non-Indigenous people living in Canada (El-Sherif &

Sinke, 2018), and its effects can be seen in the ongoing settler colonial realities that we live in today (described in Chapter 2).

With this reflection on the role education played in my life, I am aware of the opportunities that I was given in graduate school to learn from Indigenous and non-Indigenous instructors whose teaching and writing worked to unsettle me. It was through formal graduate education that I began to inquire into my own relationship with land, history, and Indigenous peoples, and graduate school gave me the opportunity to pursue the research that is discussed in this thesis. I am grateful for the unschooling that has begun to happen in part through my continued education. This paradox, of the pitfalls and potential that both exist in formal education, have brought me to the work of teaching in elementary school and in post-secondary with the intention to work towards the realization of schooling as a means of bringing students

12

LEARNING TO SETTLE into awareness of oppression and openness to new ways of being in relationship with one another on the land we shared.

I have described my own family and my relationships to the topics of this research because I want the reader to know where I am coming from as I approach the research that is discussed in this thesis. As an academic researcher, I am investigating this topic as a person who is living and researching from a particular experience as a “self-in-practice” (Bartlett & Holland,

2002; Holland, Skinner, Lachicotte, & Cain, 1998). Temporal, geographic, and relational contexts of my research are intimately connected to my own experiences and identity in ways that are best evaluated when honestly presented. My self-in-practice is the lens through which I experience this research, and from which I relate it in this thesis. Holland and her colleagues highlight the importance of recognizing this as a researcher:

This traffic between the scientific and the institutional, between the scientific and the popular, belies the possibilities that social scientists could be what they claim to be: non- interfering, truth-telling observers. Instead scientists, most obviously those whose “findings” enter directly into institutional treatments, become implicated in a kind of forced reductionism. Local knowledge is disregarded and replaced by scientific categories imposed by those with power. No matter how scrupulous the attempts of individual researchers to be objective, social scientists, today as in the past, are studying what their field of study has helped to create. In this Foucauldian vision, un-reflexive claims to “objectivity” are hollow at best; at worst they are a self-serving means by which science rhetorically claims authority. (Holland et al., 1998, p. 24)

This thesis describes situated research which considers embodied experiences of education alongside theoretical and ideological contexts, and so it is important to understand my relationship to the issues being considered. Kathleen Absolon has written about the self in research, and her work provides a framework for examining the relationships between the academic context one finds oneself in, the methods of investigation, the ontological roots of the inquiry, and the social/political/historical location of the self (Absolon, 2011). Absolon discusses how several different aspects of the self are central to research and understands that the motive

13

LEARNING TO SETTLE for research and the reason for its initiation are based in the person of the researcher rather than solely in the academic literature which may have the proverbial ‘gap’ that needs to be filled.

Necessarily, the motive and purpose for academic research is connected to the location of the researcher’s self and informs the work from its conception to its completion (Absolon, 2011;

Hampton, 1995; S. Wilson, 2008). For this reason, I am interested in the relation of my own position as a researcher and as member of the community that I want to research with. In addition, my motivation also stems from the imperative to examine the historical, political, and sociological impressions of racism, colonialism, white dominance, and hetero-patriarchy on the people and places that I relate to in research. As such, my roles as a graduate student of education and a schoolteacher living in the community where I work motivate me to approach this inquiry from a geographically and theoretically located position. As a non-Indigenous settler in this place, I personally engage with the settler colonial initiatives of Canadian society that necessarily marginalize Indigenous peoples and nations, and as a teacher I am a pedagogical agent of public education that is sanctioned by the national and provincial governments. The focus of this thesis is therefore rooted in a deeply personal desire to understand the complicity and complexity of the institution of public elementary education as it relates to the education of students into positions of privilege and exclusion.

Academically the questions of this study open-up the possibility of building on the work of the field of curriculum studies in the role of schooling as a site of cultural and social reproduction, especially for the purposes of furthering the development of citizen subjectivities that affirm the existing state (see Chapter 2). My social position as an academic researcher in education provides the tools and opportunity to investigate these personally relevant questions in ways that connect to the discourses of academic fields of inquiry and theory. This academic

14

LEARNING TO SETTLE exercise is also meaningful beyond its relevance to the field precisely because of its salience in the everyday lives of teachers such as me, and for students in the geographic locations that are the focus of this research. Eber Hampton argues that this convergence of self and study is extremely valuable for meaningful inquiries into human experiences that opens possibilities for gaining new knowledge and insights (Hampton, 1995). However, moving forward in this way with academic and subjective convergence requires me to begin my work by engaging thoughtfully with questions of privilege and complicity.

Janet Mawhinney’s thesis on white privilege in anti-racist pedagogy paid attention to the specific ways that people working in “progressive white service organizations” made certain

“moves to innocence” in their discourses related to their work, which they labelled as anti-racist work (Mawhinney, 1998). Mawhinney details the “seductiveness of the innocent position”

(1998, p. 94) that removes a person from complicity in the historical and ongoing oppression of racialized others. This notion of moves to innocence was taken up quite famously by Tuck and

Yang as they argued that “the metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or ‘settler moves to innocence’, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity” (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p.1). These moves to innocence in both cases entail work by a person whose social location and physical embodiment permit their access to and association with dominant and privileged positions, but who wish to simultaneously establish themselves as clean or innocent from the oppression that this privilege necessarily enacts. The systems and processes that enact the violence of settler colonialism and racism are left unquestioned and unchanged as the privileged subject declares them self free of guilt while continuing to re-inscribe dominance.

15

LEARNING TO SETTLE

A commonly performed move to innocence in academic contexts is the declaration of privilege whereby a person acknowledges their social location and its benefits, and then moves forward with their work in a manner that leaves this privilege unchallenged and unaltered.

Andrea Smith argues that this manner of self-reflection and confession itself serves as an enactment of dominance and privilege by positioning the confessing subject as the one who is capable of self-reflection and therefore is the discerning, constantly evolving, and ultimately unknowable subject who willingly offers their gift of confession (Smith, 2013). Sara Ahmed also highlights the different modes of “declaring whiteness”, which “involves a fantasy of transcendence in which ‘what’ is transcended is the very ‘thing’ admitted to in the declaration”

(Ahmed, 2004). This critique of the “self-reflexive turn in whiteness studies” (Ahmed, 2004, p.1) draws attention to the reality that my academic work cannot constitute an anti-colonial or anti- oppressive contribution to the field of curriculum studies and education merely based on the inclusion of a declaration of my privilege and social position. However, a refusal to engage with the realities of white-supremacy and their impacts on both this researcher and this research would similarly be an implicit ‘move to innocence’ that ignores the realities of subjectivity and dominance in the contexts that I interrogate in this thesis.

Lorenzo Veracini’s work titled “On Settlerness” (Veracini, 2011a) highlights how the field of whiteness studies (which, as mentioned, is often critiqued for re-centering white subjectivity through its emphasis on confession and self-reflection) does not fully engage with the realities of the racial oppression practiced in settler societies like the one I live and study in.

For Veracini, the existence of the settler on the land taken from Indigenous peoples and nations is something that cannot be absolved simply through confession and self-reflection. As Tuck and

Yang emphasize, in settler contexts work that acknowledges privilege without engaging

16

LEARNING TO SETTLE meaningfully in discourses specifically about land is simply a move to innocence that leaves the structure of oppression intact. They state that decolonizing in settler contexts “means all land is repatriated and all settlers become landless” (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p. 27), so my research in school contexts around identities-in-practice must engage meaningfully with my own location as a person who is living and settled on land in a way that challenges and uproots with systems of privilege, oppression, and dominance. As I present my research in this thesis, I am aware of these inherent complexities and contradictions in the figured world of academic research that I am participating in, and I have thoughtfully organized my work to sharpen focus on the landscape of settler colonialism and public schooling. It is my hope that this work will present insights that shine light on a pathway forward for Indigenous peoples and Canadians to live on this land together in a good way.

Introducing the Landscape: Hamilton and Settler Colonialism at the Head of the Lake.

Situating this research within an academic and social frame should begin with an understanding of the place and history within which it takes place. Absolon (2011) reminds researchers that we are working in a particular landscape and place that has given rise to the questions and contexts that we are investigating. This physical and temporal location is often ignored by scholars in our descriptions of the research contexts that we are working in, but it is an important place for this thesis to begin.

The schools where I conducted this research are near the sovereign reserved territories of the Missisaugas of New Credit and Six Nations of the Grand River, and on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Huron, Wendat, and Petun Nations. While the history of

17

LEARNING TO SETTLE this territory is long and rich, I think it is important to highlight specific aspects of the region and its history that are evidently relevant to the questions and research that I share in this thesis.

The landscape of the region is dominated by two natural places that have played a major role in the lives of people who have lived in the area and continue to have lasting influence on people who live in and around the city of Hamilton today. The first of these is Lake Ontario, one of the five Great Lakes, and is the body of water that brought sustenance and economy to the traders and fishers of the past as well as the steel workers of the most recent century. Running parallel to the shore of Lake Ontario is the Niagara Escarpment, whose name means “Loud

Water” and is named after the Niagara Falls that tumble down the edge of the escarpment 50 km east of the city of Hamilton. Called “the mountain” by locals, the Niagara Escarpment divides the region of Hamilton and its neighbouring communities into upper and lower parts, each of which have unique cultural and historical features that are separated by an 80m tall rock face crisscrossed by road accesses and pedestrian staircases. The importance of the Escarpment in the contemporary cultural, economic, and educational life of the region is discussed later in this chapter as well as in Chapter 6.

Historically, the two features of Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarpment had major impacts on the people and societies who lived in the region. For many centuries, a cousin nation of the Haudenosaunee named the Attawandaron lived and farmed in the area, taking salmon from the rivers that runs through what is now called Red Hill Valley, gathering berries from bushes in that area of what is now named Sheffield, and burying their loved ones near the shore of Lake

Ontario in what is now called Grimsby (Kenyon, 1990). Attawandaron, Huron, and

Haudenosaunee traders took their canoes from throughout the larger region to the end of Lake

Ontario and portaged through the city that is now called Dundas to the Grand River where they

18

LEARNING TO SETTLE could travel on the water again to Lake Erie. The whole area was important to many of the local nations, and they enacted a shared covenant called Gdoo-naaganinaa (Simpson, 2008), or the

Dish with One Spoon Agreement, to live well together with the land.

In the 17th century, French and Dutch traders and settlers begin moving from the Atlantic coast up the St. Lawrence River and Hudson River respectively. The French had a difficult and well-documented relationship with the Lnu (Mik’mak), Kanienkehaka (Mohawk), Wendat, and

Anishinaabe nations, and occasionally interacted with the Attawandaron who they called

“Neutral” because of their refusal to side with any particular European settler nation (Head of the

Lake Historical Society, 1941). While the Attawandaron names of the landscape have for a long time been buried under the settler city, a remnant of the first French settler to travel to the area is memorialized in LaSalle Park on the south-west shore of Lake Ontario.

With the disruptions brought on by the Dutch and French settlers, and the resulting trade disputes between the Haudenosaunee and the Huron, the Attawandaron nation found itself in a difficult neutral position and were eventually dispersed by the Haudenosaunee during the 1650s

(Garrad, Abler, & Hancks, n.d.; Head of the Lake Historical Society, 1941). Physical evidence of a particularly large battle between the Haudenosaunee and Attawandaron was clearly seen at the end of the traditional portage trail on the shores of Lake Ontario for over two centuries, and

European settlers discussed the burial mounds and memorials to fallen fighters that they deliberately plowed under to make room for crops and settlement. The place where this happened is at the end of what is now called Emerald Street, and at the time of writing is being developed into a new industrial park after more than a century of housing industrial buildings that produced elevators and Studebaker cars (Strohl, 2014).

19

LEARNING TO SETTLE

After the British took over control of New Netherland settlements in the 1660s, the

Haudenosaunee Confederacy negotiated the Nanfan treaty with British Monarchs to allow the

Haudenosaunee continued rights to travel, hunt, and fish in the areas that were being increasingly encroached upon by English settlers (Six Nations Lands & Resources, n.d.). However, the next

100 years saw many Indigenous nations in New York, Ohio, Ontario, and Quebec continually suffer under settler colonial practices that removed them from their traditional land and brought them into conflict with white settlers. This continued with the American Revolution which furthered the elimination of Indigenous communities and nations. Many members of the

Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the followers of Thayendanegea, or Joseph Brant, fought alongside the British in the American Revolutionary war. At the end of the war, Brant’s followers asked for and were granted possession of the Haldimand Tract of land, nearly 3000 square kms, along the Grand River in what is currently called Ontario (Six Nations Lands &

Resources, n.d.). This territory was purchased by the British governor of the region from the

Mississaugas of New Credit, who later were granted residency on the land by the Six Nations of the Grand River when the Mississaugas of New Credit moved from the region of the Port Credit

River where it empties into Lake Ontario (what is now part of the city of Mississauga)

The American Revolution affected the landscape around the Hamilton region in another major way, as many Loyalist settlers came to the Hamilton region due to the potential industrial power of the waterfalls that tumbled over the edge of the Niagara Escarpment. The names of the men in these settler families are written on the landscape as the names of neighbourhoods, streets, parks, and even the city itself.

The city and region grew in European population as more migrants came from different places, including Ireland, the United States, Scotland, and England, and were joined by Black

20

LEARNING TO SETTLE former slaves from both the United States and Canada. The city grew around the initial town square right up to the bottom edge of the escarpment, and the marshy land around several parts of the city were settled by poor labourers as the industrial sector and manufacturing sector grew.

At the same time, Black loyalists and freed slaves settled on the upper edge of the Escarpment in a community that came to be called “Little Africa”, and became important leaders in advocating a link between the upper and lower city (Shadd, 2010). Members of Six Nations moved into the city as well, and at the turn of the 20th century the city had a population of over 50,000 citizens, and was home to the first public school in Ontario In the following decades, other migrants continued to come to the city and the population grew as a large manufacturing sector grew up on the shores of Lake Ontario where transport ships had easy access to goods.

The neighbourhoods of Hamilton and the surrounding communities stretched onto the lands that were previously home and territory of various Indigenous communities, and

Indigenous presence was continually erased and overwritten. The landscape itself was physically transformed as factories were built on the shores of the Hamilton harbour, resulting in pollutants that destroyed the ability of the shoreline to sustain vibrant aquatic ecosystems. The majority of people who lived in the lower city were employed in the steel mills for many decades, and the lower city gained a reputation as a working-class region while the upper mountain and surrounding communities grew more prosperous. In recent years the industrial heart of the city has slowed down, and higher-tier economic sectors have pumped new life into the communities of Hamilton, with healthcare and education taking over the place that steel once held. This changing dynamic has shifted the views that many people have of the region, but historical economic and socio-cultural differences between the lower and upper city continue to have an ongoing impact on where people live and their relationship to their communities.

21

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Children who live in the Hamilton region are also affected by the historical and geographical realities of their city. Educational achievement varies greatly between schools on the upper region of the Escarpment, those in the lower city, and others in the wealthier outer edges of the region (Statistics Canada, 2016). Schools in different parts of the city receive vastly different amounts of non-governmental funding for extra programs and activities, and students are much less likely to graduate secondary school and attend post-secondary school if they live and attend school in the lower city than elsewhere (Statistics Canada, 2016). Similar disparities are also seen in other important aspects of children’s lives, such as poverty, access to housing, proximity to parks and conservation areas, and community programs and resources (ibid). It is clear that the lives of children who attend school in Hamilton are greatly affected by the specific geography of their community. As a researcher of student experience and learning, I am reminded again of the important lesson that Indigenous leaders have been sharing with non-

Indigenous settlers for a long time: when looking at how we live, we must begin by thinking about the land and our relationship to it (Freeman, 2010; King, 2005).

With this in mind, I have begun this thesis by introducing the specific geography of the research context, and the relationships this land has had with the people who have lived here and the communities they have created. Land and geography have intimately shaped the experiences of people in the Hamilton region, and throughout this thesis I pay close attention to how children who have participated in this research highlight their relationship to land and place. As these children studied geography and history in their social studies classrooms, they understood these stories in varied ways and incorporated them into their own identities and conceptions of themselves. This research reveals important insights into how students understand their own place, and their relationships to the specific history of Canada and its interactions with

22

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous peoples and nations. Throughout the following six chapters, I will outline the context and process of this research study, share and analyze the results of the work, and discuss the important implications for educators, policy makers, and researchers.

Introducing the Chapters

In Chapter 2 I set the stage for the details of the research project with a review that links together the relevant academic literature in a variety of fields within which this study is situated.

Settler colonialism is defined and explained with specific reference to the way it has functioned and been enacted in the Canadian context. The theoretical framework is expanded through a discussion of “figured worlds”, which was brought to the academic consciousness through the work of Dorothy Holland and her colleagues in 1998 and has contributed to building a richer and more in-depth understanding of student experience in several different educational contexts.

Figured worlds as a framework highlight the interactions between the cultural and constructed contexts that human actors move through and enact. This chapter discusses how settler colonialism and the concept of figured worlds both point to the process of “subject making”, and how children in schools are learning to enact settler subjectivities.

Chapter 3 is a close look at the world of the social studies classroom, and how it is figured with settler colonial narratives and subject positions ready for students to enact. This chapter contains an in-depth review of the ways curriculum studies and education have been intimately linked with the erasure of Indigeneity throughout Canadian history, and the ways this history is incorporated into contemporary Canadian social studies curriculum and pedagogy.

In Chapter 4, I describe the methodology of the research project, specifically linking the framework of figured worlds to classroom ethnography and the important considerations for

23

LEARNING TO SETTLE researching with (as opposed to on) children. Here I detail the strategies that I used to gain access to the lived worlds and embodied experiences of the participant students, and how I worked with them to understand the ways they moved through and thought about their education about

Canadian and Indigenous histories.

Chapter 5 begins the look into the data and analysis portion of the thesis, which runs through this chapter and the two following chapters. In Chapter 5 I look at the ways student participants think about Indigenous and Canadian histories, and their frames of reference through which they consider the importance of learning from these stories. It becomes clear in this chapter that through their school experiences, students are generally educated into settler colonial understandings of Indigenous peoples, the Canadian nation-state, and the past. While they encounter this foundational understanding, however, students readily adopt counter-narratives about settler injustices to Indigenous peoples and about the strengths of Indigenous communities.

It becomes clear that students learn these narratives either outside of schools or from personal interactions with adults who challenge settler colonial norms. We see in this chapter how students take the position of being learners and are not explicitly tied to categories of identity that are framed by others, but rather are open to learning and understanding complexity and nuance as they learn about social studies.

Chapter 6 builds on the findings discussed in the previous chapter to demonstrate how students in this study take up the notion of “reconciliation” in response to their understandings of the fraught relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canada. As students in each of the three research groups discussed their social studies experiences in school, they worked together in each group to conceive of some possible ways schools could address historical marginalization of Indigenous peoples and educate children into new understandings of

24

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous-Canada relations. The responses of the three groups highlight the ways personal experiences and background knowledge of oppressive systems frame potential responses of students, and how they conceive of educational responses to systematic oppression and racism.

Chapter 7 steps back from the specifics of the previous chapter and looks at the discourses and narratives that the participants employed in their discussions about the study of history in schools, and how they consistently sought to find places where they could personally connect to the stories told in social studies. This was enacted when students framed their general dis-interest in local, Canadian, and Indigenous histories when compared with their desire to learn histories of people and places that are personally important to them, such as parents and grandparents who migrated from other countries to Turtle Island. Specifically, it became clear that students want to find a sense-of-belonging in the narratives they learn in social studies when they learned about clan relationships from two Indigenous educators, and their subsequent desire to understand the mechanics of finding a place to belong. Children were keenly interested in understanding how a person might find a place of belonging in relationship with others. These dynamics point to possibilities for understanding how students might be engaged and focused in social studies learning when they are positioned as being with-in the stories of Indigenous and

Canadian relations. The details and implications of this finding are discussed in depth in this chapter.

Chapter 8 consolidates the arguments of the three chapters preceding it and discusses the implications of the findings for educators, curriculum writers, and academics in the area of schools and settler-Indigenous relations. In this chapter I also articulate some of the limitations of this study and highlight how further research could help round out the findings of this study with in-depth analysis of the preliminary themes that were uncovered here. Finally, I look at next

25

LEARNING TO SETTLE steps for researching in the area of young students, education, and settler colonialism and call for focused attention on student experiences of learning and expressions of agency in these areas.

With clarity about the path ahead through this thesis, I begin by bringing attention to the literature that helps guide and frame this research. The literature in the next chapter provides a foundation upon which I built the research methods and approach and that guided my work throughout the process of data collection, analysis, and discussion. I rely on the excellent and instructive work of other researchers and writers to provide the categories, discourses, and frameworks upon which I can lean to describe the phenomena that are the focus of this project.

Their teaching and writing are discussed in the following chapter, and with their work I begin a conversation that continues through the later chapters, and of which the research, findings, and discussions of this thesis are a part.

26

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 2: Settler Colonialism and the Figured Worlds of Canadian Public Education

Hamilton represents a specific history and story of colonialism and settlement that has erased and overwritten Indigenous presence in the region and on the land. Despite this,

Indigenous presence has persisted, and in two important ways the ongoing process of settler colonialism is revealed to be incomplete. Firstly, the land functions as palimpsest and retains the impressions and markings of the long histories of Indigenous presence that predated settler presence (Green, 2003; Lozanski, 2007). In Hamilton and throughout Canada, the long-standing and ongoing presence of Indigenous peoples and the cultures and traditions that they have shared have left a mark on the landscape and refute the claims of the doctrine of Terra Nullius or the implication that Indigenous peoples and nations left little impact on the land (Battiste &

Henderson, 2000; Canada, 1997; Lawrence, 2002). Secondly, Indigenous nations and people have survived settler efforts to eliminate their culture and traditions, erase their identities, and claim their territories and bodies as subject to Canadian settler sovereignty. Ongoing and sustained Indigenous presence has challenged settler colonialism as Indigenous leaders call for new relationships and responsibilities between Indigenous nations and Canada, and Indigenous peoples and Canadians (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Education has historically served as a battleground for settler colonial policies and practices of erasure and is now at the centre of many discussions about new relationships. For this reason, I begin this chapter with a description and discussion about settler colonialism and education in Canada to describe both the context and theoretical framework of this thesis, and to illuminate the rationale for this research study.

27

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Imperatives of Settler Colonialism

In his 2012 book about Indigeneity in North America, Thomas King writes what he calls a “curious account of Native people in North America” (King, 2012). As he describes the histories, realities, and lived experiences of Indigenous peoples and nations within the Canadian and American national contexts, he points very clearly to the other party that is not mentioned in the title of his book but is present throughout the work; non-Indigenous settlers. In the later chapters, King makes this settler presence very explicit when he takes a question commonly asked by white and non-Indigenous people in Canada and turns it around to focus back on the questioners. Redirecting the question, “What do natives want?” he inquires instead, “What do white settlers want?” and the answer that he arrives at is inevitable in the context of settler-

Indigenous relations in Canada: settlers want land. The field of settler colonial studies takes up this topic by examining the dynamics of settler-Indigenous relations in the context of nation- states such as Canada, where history of European colonialism takes on a particular embodiment in settler desire for land.

Within Canada, the tensions between the ongoing settler-project of the state and the continuing presence of Indigenous peoples (refusing to assimilate and give up the land) results in ideological conflicts in many domains of social and political life including history, politics, development, economics, trade, health, the environment, and education. For each of these areas

King and others argue that the fundamental issue upon which the ideological differences hinge is the settler need for land and the resulting need to pursue what Patrick Wolfe termed the

“elimination of the native” (Wolfe, 2006). Elimination as described by Wolfe begins with the settler desire for land and necessitates the removal of Indigenous people from the land, followed by the need to remove distinct Indigenous identity, presence, and claim. Settler colonial studies

28

LEARNING TO SETTLE therefore seeks to focus a lens on the various ways that institutions, policies, structures and dominant discourses in settler societies function to promote the privileging of non-Indigenous settler claims to Indigenous spaces and places, while simultaneously and necessarily seeking the exclusion and elimination of Indigenous peoples.

European colonialism in places such as Ghana and India was distinctly different from the contexts of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, or Palestine (Veracini, 2010). Settler colonialism represents not only the hegemonic influence of European nations in countries outside of Europe (which is essential to all forms of colonialism), but the movement of European peoples into continually expanding permanent settlements in non-European lands. Rather than governing an Indigenous majority through ongoing connections with the metropole, settler colonial societies like Canada require an upsetting of the Indigenous population to such a degree that the

European settlers become the majority that governs in situ. This movement to settling requires an ethics of the other that permits Wolfe’s (2006) description of the "elimination of the native".

While colonialism has often required an Indigenous workforce that supplies labour to harvest the materials required for export to the European metropole, settler colonialism requires the elimination of the Indigenous other who presents a direct challenge to the dominance, expansion, settlement, and governance by the European settler. The cleared and workable (exploitable) land is made useable through the removal of the Indigenous others, and then is made productive through the exploitation of enslaved racialized others (Veracini, 2011b). Settler colonial states begin and develop through an exploitation of resources and land that is build on a triad of relationships between the white settler, Indigenous native, and racialized slave. While the states are developing, settlers engage in constant work to eliminate Indigenous natives while forcing exogenous others to serve the white settler’s desires for power, expansion, and wealth. As the

29

LEARNING TO SETTLE project of settler colonialism develops, white settlers look forwards to – and work towards - a future that accomplishes three goals of settler futurity: 1) the exaltation of white settlers, 2) the effective elimination of native presence, and 3) the sustained marginalization of exploitable

“ethnic others”. Veracini describes the goals of a settler state and its citizens:

The successful settler colonies ‘tame’ a variety of wildernesses, end up establishing independent nations, effectively repress, co-opt, and extinguish indigenous alterities, and productively manage ethnic diversity. By the end of this trajectory, they claim to be no longer settler colonial (Veracini, 2001b, p. 3).

While settler futurity strives towards this goal, it cannot be possible for such a “settled” and “post-colonial” state to be complete in its achievement, because there remains settler anxiety, guilt, and complicity as long as Indigenous “others” are part of the settler nation’s present and past (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Veracini, 2011b). Part of the process by which settlers assuage this guilt and rescue the possibility of settler futurity is through the telling of stories which allow settlers to imagine fantasies where they come to be indigenous on the settled territory and the Native is relegated to the past (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). Settler colonialism relies on narratives such as described by Tuck and Yang:

…narratives in the settler colonial imagination in which the Native (understanding that he is becoming extinct) hands over his land, his claim to the land, his very Indian-ness to the settler for safe-keeping. This is a fantasy that is invested in a settler futurity and dependent on the foreclosure of an Indigenous futurity (Tuck and Yang, 2012, p. 14).

Taking various forms yet always pointing to a settled and post-colonial future, these narratives make possible the continued dissolution of Indigenous communities and elimination of

Indigenous claims to land. This happens while settler identities are promoted and reinforced through social, legal, and governmental structures, which simultaneously marginalize formerly enslaved populations of racialized “others”. In the Canadian context, slavery has officially been outlawed since decades before the establishment of the formal nation-state independent from

Britain, but the labour and exploitation of non-white endogenous others remain essential to the

30

LEARNING TO SETTLE production of wealth and capital. The relationships between non-white endogenous others and

Indigenous peoples in settler states are often tainted by the persistence of settler-native-slave dynamics in settler colonialism that marginalize endogenous others while working to eliminate

Indigenous peoples (Lawrence & Dua, 2005). Structuring society in this way reifies and continually reinscribes a coloniality of power (Quijano, 2000), which permits the settler state to exalt white settler identities and institutions to such an extent that the former Prime Minister of

Canada could claim on an international stage that “Canada has no history of colonialism”

(Ljunggren, 2009).

Settler colonialism has persisted in many places around the world beyond Canada and

Turtle Island. Wolfe traces the relations of settlers and Indigenous peoples through a variety of contexts (Israel, Australia, etc.) and over time to highlight the ongoing process of elimination that extended beyond the initial point of invasion. Different authors and researchers have debated the appropriate descriptive term to use for the process of settler colonialism and the ways

Indigeneity is attacked through settler structures and practices. Some argue that this elimination constitutes a genocide, or a cultural-genocide, while others argue that the process includes assimilationist practices or integration of Indigenous subjectivities into a settler multiculturalism

(Buller, Audette, Robinson, & Eyolfson, 2019; MacDonald, 2015; Wildcat, 2015; Woolford,

2015; Woolford, Benvenuto, & Laban Hinton, 2014; Yellow Bird, 2004). Wolfe calls this ongoing process of colonization the elimination of Indigenous peoples and nations. These terms draw attention to the ways that this process is ongoing and embedded in the very nature of settler colonialism, which demand life and land from Native peoples and can only exist as settlers continue to eliminate the Native.

31

LEARNING TO SETTLE

In contexts around the world, this logic of settler-Indigenous relationships has been replicated several times to achieve the goals of white-settler expansion at the expense of

Indigenous land, culture, and lives. Wolfe (2006) and Smith (2012) contrast the ways that

European whites produced the Indigenous other to the way they produced the non-Indigenous racialized other, based on the contrasting aims of the otherization: elimination vs. domination or subjugation for the purposes of labour. Whereby the population of Black bodies useful for labour by white settler economies was increased through the so-called ‘one-drop rule’, Indigenous populations were deliberately reduced as the settler government enacted exclusionary rules about

Indian status to limit the governments’ responsibilities and destabilize Indigenous communities

(Cannon & Sunseri, 2018; Smith, 2012; Wolfe, 2006).

According to Sylvia Wynter, the dynamics of colonization and settler colonialism (as highlighted by Wolfe) find their ethics in a conception of European rationalism that constitutes who counts as a human being, and who counts as the other, non-human. Wynter argues that this distinction was not only present in the era of imperialism but continues today. For Wynter, there is an ongoing struggle between the hegemonic ideal human (what she calls the overrepresented

Man) and the 'Other' that exists outside of this ideal representation of humanity. For this reason,

Wynter argues that every discussion about race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, poverty, wealth, environmental issues, or global inequalities must necessarily be understood as "differing facets of the central ethnoclass Man vs. Human struggle" (Wynter, 2003, p.261).

As European nations engaged in the violence of colonialism and imperialism on the continents of Africa and North and South America, this racial distinction between the Man and the Other was employed against people whom Wynter refers to as, "the peoples of the militarily expropriated New World territories (i.e., “Indians”), as well as the enslaved peoples of Black

32

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Africa (i.e., “Negroes”), that were made to reoccupy the matrix slot of Otherness" (Wynter,

2003, p.267). This distinction allowed a coloniality of power that established hierarchies, institutions, cultural norms, and knowledge systems which perpetuate settler colonial social relations between white settlers, Indigenous others, and exogenous others in settler states.

Wynter proposes that, “one cannot ‘unsettle’ the ‘coloniality of power’ without a re-description of the human outside the terms of our present descriptive statement of the human, Man, and its over-representation" (2003, p. 268). This understanding of Man has been conditioned by the production of knowledge post-Enlightenment, in ways that are particular to the secularist and rational humanist understandings of the world. Academia, then, may be and has been complicit in the production of knowledge that continues to perpetuate the 'natural order' because it most often fits into the conceptions of truth that are permissible in the present ideologies (Tuhai-

Smith, 1999). This contrast between the inhuman (being anything other than the Western rational-political subject) and the overrepresented Man was not merely a justification for the initial act of colonization but continues beyond that moment to the ongoing colonialism that depends (even more so now, in Wynter's opinion) on the ethnoclass Man, which is the only real human in its own conception.

Specifically looking at the Canadian context, it is helpful to examine the work of Sunera

Thobani whose work allows me to build on Wynter' arguments about the hegemonic subject of

European rationalism, and to engage with the conceptualization of the ideal Canadian, Thobani’s

"Exalted Subject" (2007). Thobani examines the ways that Canada as a nation was formed and continues to be formed in particular ways and through particular means that exalt some people as

‘Canadian’ and denigrates individuals and groups that do not fit as part of this Canadian identity.

Thobani argues that the creation of Canada as a nation depends and depended not only on the

33

LEARNING TO SETTLE discrimination against and elimination of the Native subject, but also on the exaltation of a particular Canadian subject and identity. This exaltation is necessary for the forming of a national identity and ethos (an element of Anderson's “imagined community”[Anderson, 1991]) that is re-inscribed in the practices of the nation and its citizens. Through processes that identify and maintain the lawful subject versus the unlawful subject1, a particular view and practice of the good Canadian citizen, and the dominant discourses of multiculturalism, Thobani builds on

Said’s work and argues that the creation of the outside other happens simultaneously as the interior self is created. By examining the exaltation and elevation of the Canadian subject rather than simply the denigration of the Indigenous one, Thobani highlights the ways that colonial practices and structures are maintained and strengthened for the sake of maintaining the hegemonic power and domination held by the Canadian subject over others.

While Wynter and Thobani emphasize the insider self that is maintained to enhance the structural benefits enjoyed and employed by the dominant white subject, Sara Ahmed borrows concepts from Lacan (Lacan, 1977) and closely examines the processes that create and maintain the outside Other against which the self is contrasted. Ahmed explicitly states that the other is essential, or "central to the constitution of the subject" (Ahmed, 2000, p. 24):

…the very act through which the subject differentiates between others is the moment that the subject comes to inhabit or dwell in the world. The subject is not, then, simply differentiated from the (its) other, but comes into being by learning how to differentiate between others. (ibid.)

Others must be recognized for them to be known as others, and Ahmed argues that this process can happen only because there exists a prior understanding of who is an insider and who is an outsider, before the other is encountered. This capital 'o' Other is a conceptualization of the outsider that is not based in the presence of any particular person, but in the mind of the insider,

1 see also Laura DeVries’ (2011) work on the land claims dispute in Caledonia, Ontario 34

LEARNING TO SETTLE so that when a new body is encountered, the Other can be projected on to this new body to label that person as an outsider - a stranger - immediately. Ahmed says that this process means that the stranger is not really strange but is already known prior to their arrival. Ahmed brings this framing to the specific contexts of post-coloniality and shows the racial dimensions of Otherness with states based on white supremacy, where racialized bodies are marked with outsider status and Otherness wherever their presence in European colonial places.

As can be seen from Wynter, Thobani, and Ahmed, the other in Canadian society does not come from the absence of the self but rather comes into an encounter with the self from the place that is already defined by the self. The other is not strange, but is known (as Said proposed), and so the parameters for encounter and relationship are set before the encounter occurs. Though the individual other may be unknown to the individual self, social discourses create the conditions through which the generalized Other is represented by the individual other, regardless of their personal ontology. Such conditions are reflected in structural racism, for example, that presupposes the character of any individual because of their positioning relative to the non-Other insider.

In the specific context of settler colonialism, the Other has been prefigured to be either an

Indigenous Other who is to be marginalized to the point of elimination, or an exogenous Other who is to be exploited for the benefit of the exalted white settler. These are the categories available in the figuring of white settlerhood, and into which Others are determined to exist. As such, the triad of relations between people in a settler state are maintained through positioning and objectification.

Pedagogies of Settler Colonialism

35

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Since settler desire for land and the elimination of the native are central ideologies intrinsic to a settler state (Wolfe, 2006), it follows that young generations of Canadians must be educated into a settler identity of privilege and exclusion. The field of curriculum studies has shown that educational institutions play a vital role in the functioning of the nation-state as sites of cultural reproduction and the development of good citizens (Apple, 1990; Bourdieu &

Passeron, 2000; Giroux & Purpel, 1983; Starkey, 2012). Through the development of citizenship, the reproduction of social norms, and the re-articulation of privilege for members of dominant groups, the curricular experiences of students are intimately involved in the making of the nation.

Linking the theoretical concepts of settler colonial studies with what curriculum studies tells us about social and cultural reproduction through schooling opens the possibility of examining the role that public schools play in educating children in Canada to participate in the project of settler colonialism through privilege and exclusion.

Important work has been done on the intersection of settler colonialism and education, both in Canada and in other settler states around the world (Ng-A-Fook & Rottmann, 2012;

Restoule, Mashford-Pringle, Chacaby, Smillie, & Brunette, 2013; Willinsky, 1994). In this thesis, I am engaging with and building on this literature by bringing focus to the particular experiences of young students as they engage with the social studies curriculum in Grades 4 and

5. In these specific grades the erasure of Indigeneity is an open topic for discussion and engagement because of the focus in formal social studies curricula on the settlement and growth of Canada on the land that it now occupies. As students encounter stories about Canada's past and its relevance to our present, the opportunity exists to learn about their conceptions of themselves as participants in those stories. Learning how these children engage or refuse to engage with the difficult knowledge of traumatic history, and how they understand these

36

LEARNING TO SETTLE experiences of learning provide deeper understandings about the affective lives of students as they navigate their own subjectivity in the school context.

As an educator and researcher who is also a white settler and a cis able-bodied male, it is imperative that I consider how the realm of academic research itself carries with it a history of white men performing research on and about “others”. In 1979 Edward Said published his widely known book titled Orientalism (Said, 1979), highlighting the perceptions and generalizations that Western nations and people have about the people and nations of the non-

West. The Orient represents not only a geographic region of the world that is contrasted with the

Occident because of its global location but is also a conception of the people and culture that exist at the periphery of the Enlightened European 'centre' of the world. Said was able to reveal the ways that Western academic study of the Orient has constructed perceptions about the 'other' that exoticized and eroticized people from Islamic or "Eastern" nations and cultures while simultaneously positioning them as inferior in intelligence, culture and morality. The premise of

Orientalism and academic study of the non-West was the idea that the exotic other, living beyond the borders of proper civilization, can be studied by the insider Western academic in a way that reveals the truth and reality of the other to the observer. This knowledge about the know-able other allowed for representations and depictions of non-Westerners by Westerners that legitimated the European Enlightenment ideals of rationalism and careful academic study, while simultaneously cutting off the possibility for any alternative truths about the other to be revealed.

Said highlights how, "From the beginning of Western speculation about the Orient, the one thing the Orient could not do was to represent itself" (Said, 1979, p. 283).

The work of Said made evident the comprehensive ways that Western people and nations not only colonized the lands and people of the non-West, but also deliberately colonized the

37

LEARNING TO SETTLE knowledge and representations of these lands and people by extracting what Westerners found useful or interesting in the other, while working to destroy any possibility for the supremacy of

Western knowledge and representations to be challenged. The possible truths about the other were those created by the Western anthropologists, missionaries, explorers and merchants. Such a relation to the other/outsider/non-West organized the world and its people according to what was known about them by the West, and established the other as an object of study, capable of being interpreted and represented by the subject (who necessarily, was Western and not 'other').

Through this study of the other, Westerners created the ‘other’ by delineating its boundaries, defining its characteristics, and establishing a catalogue of its practices, all of which allowed the other to be placed in an organized taxonomy of being, relative to the non-other Western Man

(Wynter, 2003) and to such other objects of Western study as baboons and early humans.

This taxonomy that created and organized the non-Western object of Western study was found not only in the work of Said's Orientalists (those who studied Islamic cultures and places

East of Europe), but also in the Caribbean Islands like Martinique (Césaire, 2000), the Indian subcontinent (Chakrabarty, 2000), and all areas where European power was exerted to dominate local, non-European populations (Tuhai-Smith, 1999). Knowledge of the objective other was determined by the knowing subject, who was permitted through this knowledge to define the ethics of engaging with the other through violence, extermination, slavery, exploitation, education, conversion, commerce, governance, and assimilation (Fanon, 1963). This intricate relationship between knowing the other and dominating the other was employed by settlers in the world that was called “New” by Europeans (as in, “here’s something new for us to study”), and the creation of knowledge about the newly researched other (Indigenous peoples of the

Americas) became a central tenet of the ongoing system of violence and domination of the

38

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous ‘other’. This has been described by Berkhofer in his work on The White Man’s

Indian (Berkhofer, 1978) where he articulates how the creation of the objectified “Indian” as a stand-in for the diversity of over 2,000 Indigenous cultures on Turtle Island worked to serve in the imagination of the white settler to allow continued expansion of colonial power and settlement. Additionally, David Francis (Francis, 1992) wrote about the persistence of the imagined “Indian” in Canadian consciousness and how the mythology serves to extend the perceived validation for settler colonial elimination of Indigenous peoples.

Curricular and Educational Responses to Othering and Exclusion

This educational ontology, epistemology, and ethics of the other, had severe consequences for the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous and non-Indigenous others living under

Canadian sovereignty, and the national and social discourses have been opened up by the stories of survivors. In the broader educational and academic context, there has been an emergence of theories put forward as attempts to challenge the framework of insider-outsider dichotomies that perpetuate discrimination and violence in educational practices. One important example of this is

Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism (Nussbaum, 1994). As the trend of globalization has continued to bring societies, nations, cultures, and people into contact through migration, trade, media and politics, questions about the engagement with the other have gained a renewed importance in the minds of many educational policy makers. While Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism was focused on the education of children in the United States about nationalism and patriotism in the face of globalization, other ideas about education for the encounter with difference have been presented with particular emphasis on the possibilities that exist for education to prepare students for globalized encounters with others. While contextualized within the globalized world, there are

39

LEARNING TO SETTLE clear threads and continuities between these recent pushes for education about diversity, and the themes of the imperialistic, colonial and Orientalist education described above.

Policies and practices such as global citizenship education, for example, have become mainstream topics in Canadian and global education discourses. Questions about engaging with the other (in ways that supposedly differ from the traditional violent colonial practices) have become topics for discussion for academics, policy makers, and classroom teachers. Scholars such as Kwame Anthony Appiah have suggested that the differences that are often used as a basis for divisions between groups of people must be relegated to their proper position as secondary to the similarities among a common humanity (as exemplified in the arts and literature) for the sake of living together peaceably (Appiah, 2006). Appiah suggests that through knowledge about the other (public education is a useful vehicle for such knowledge); we can more easily recognize the other as not being truly other because of shared humanity that becomes apparent through interactions across borders that divide. Such approaches are manifest in multicultural educational frameworks and have been criticized as a continuation of colonial domination and an exercise of power by white settler knowledge systems that permit exogenous others to exist only in a marginalized space far from the centre of power (Rahim, 1990; Salazar,

2006).

Sharon Todd provides a useful tool for analyzing such trends towards global citizenship or cosmopolitan education, by engaging with the notion of what a shared humanity across borders is expected to be. Todd argues that rather than assuming a common goodness that is present in all humanity, and upon which positive encounters with others can be established, one must examine what is represented in humanity in all of its iterations, including its most violent and negative. Todd states:

40

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The idea of humanity itself must include human limits as well as human possibilities and needs to be read in relation to the very violence and antagonism that inheres in specifically human interaction. Therefore what follows shifts from a position in which education is seen to "cultivate" an ideal of humanity, to a position in which education concerns itself with the more concrete - and difficult - work of "facing" humanity... it must do so without appealing to an idealized humanity that is solely based on universal and intrinsic goodness. (Todd, 2009, p. 9).

Comparing Todd's work with that of Nussbaum reveals how both conceptions of education and the other rely on encountering the face of the other (Levinas, 1963), but they arrive at conclusions that differ in their application. Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism requires the recognition of the humanity of the other which is shared by the self, evoking the possibility for recognition of the other, despite their difference, because of their similarity. Todd argues that such a conception assumes a goodness of humanity that is present in all people but denies the contradictions evident in the expressions of 'inhumanity' perpetuated by those with whom we all share 'humanity'. Therefore, Todd's proposal is education that finds its foundation not in generalized understandings about commonality across all differences (i.e. human goodness or humanity) but is instead premised on the expressions of humanity and inhumanity that are both part of human interaction, specifically interactions across differences. This education deals with conflict between people and groups as an inevitable outcome of interactions between others, and therefore the desire for peaceful engagement in a diverse world (and classroom) exists in exploring the complexities of interactions between others, in both their beauty and their ugliness.

Todd’s conception of education is grounded in experiences, histories, interactions and relationships rather than ideals, and is therefore useful for consideration of education in settler contexts which have historically and deliberately erased the genocidal domination and conquest perpetuated by white settlers from educational curricula. Without bringing to light, addressing, and reconciling with the power and effects of settler colonialism, education in settler contexts

41

LEARNING TO SETTLE perpetuates the coloniality of power upon which the state is built and from which relationships of domination, exploitation, and elimination are created.

Considering the dynamics of colonialism that result in settler privilege and Indigenous exclusion in Canada, the discourses of public education do not for the most part engage with the expressions of inhumanity as Todd suggests. Such an engagement requires the nation to undermine the very basis of its establishment (the “two-founding nations” myth of Canada) and the continued violence perpetrated against Indigenous people and nations. The discourses of equitable and inclusive education that are prevalent in Ontario’s education system instead engage with diversity and multiculturalism in a way that appeals to more cosmopolitan ideals of shared humanity, while simultaneously closing down any possibilities for discussions of land, sovereignty, and conflicts over place in Canadian society (Bannerji, 2000; Thobani, 2007; Tuck

& Yang, 2012). The specifics of how this is formalized in government-sponsored curriculum is detailed in chapter 3.

Settler Education for Young Children

In the above sections, I have worked to connect the theory and literature of several related yet distinct subject areas to build a foundational understanding of the context surrounding this research study. Borrowing from settler colonial literature, I have laid out the arguments for recognizing Canadian society on Turtle Island as necessarily and continually contingent on the removal, displacement, exploitation, and elimination of Indigenous people and nations.

Curriculum studies has helped reveal how public education generally, and history education about historically marginalized “Others” often work to educate young children into an understanding of the state and their place within it that is framed by white supremacy. Within

42

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Canada specifically, education has served as a means of eliminating Indigenous cultures and people through multiple approaches from cultural genocide to the literal murder of Indigenous children at schools. This devastation was wrought upon Indigenous communities while settler children and non-Indigenous children have been educated into ideals of European settlement and

Canadian nationalism.

The interplay of discourses, normative narratives, hegemonic practices of settler reification and Indigenous marginalization are enacted as students learn curricula in school that seek to teach them how to understand their society through the lens of settler colonialism.

However, as will be described below, children are not passive recipients of predetermined ideals and ideology. Examining student agency is enlightening in regard to how students are navigating their world, how they adopt ideas and make them their own, and how they reach beyond the limits of the structures and curriculum to make surprising and welcome changes to what happens in the classroom. To research in this context I choose to view the context through the lens of figured worlds, which examines this world of the social studies classroom and sees how it works, what happens within it, and how students are maneuvering through the system and knowledge and discourses. This frame is taken up in depth in the next section of this chapter.

Figured Worlds of Elementary School Classrooms

With an understanding of the contexts of settler colonial education it is important to examine the complexities of how students learn to take up normative discourses in their classrooms and schools, and how they internalize it as part of their identification. The field of curriculum studies has widened the scope of available frameworks that can be applied to understand the complexities and nuances of the teaching and learning that occurs in school

43

LEARNING TO SETTLE classrooms. Since the reconceptualization of curriculum studies, the cultural and political contexts within which learning happens have become central to understanding the meaning- making that students of all ages participate in (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2006). In addition, the meaning of ‘curriculum’ has stretched and expanded to represent all that happens in a learning environment (L. O. Wilson, 2006), which in the case of this research study is an elementary school classroom and research groups. For this reason, it is important as a researcher for me to consider how I can best frame my investigation within the relevant academic literature to understand the complexities and nuances of student experiences in social studies classrooms.

The framework of figured worlds has been increasingly relevant to educational research on classrooms and student experience and can bring into focus important and relevant insights about how students are made into settler colonial subjects and whether or how they reject this subjectification.

Figured Worlds

When students enter a school building, they step into and become participants in a socially produced and culturally constructed activity of organized learning - the "figured world" of schooling. The institution of schooling has certain characters, narratives, storylines, discourses and meanings that define how schooling is experienced. As children become recruited into this world – and by extension into cultural and institutional frameworks of settler colonialism- they begin to participate in it through their responses and engagement with these different aspects of the world of schooling and the figures within it. As Urrieta Jr. explains, “people ‘figure’ who they are through the activities and in relation to the social types that populate these figured

44

LEARNING TO SETTLE worlds and in social relationships with the people who perform these worlds. People develop new identities in figured worlds (2007, p. 108).

The concept of figured worlds was first explained and applied in the 1998 book titled:

Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds written by Dorothy Holland, William Lachinotte Jr.,

Debra Skinner, and Carole Cain. In this book, the authors highlighted how attention to the constructed nature and enacted cultural practices of a figured world allows a researcher to distinguish the ways that people reinforce dominant or expected narratives, and possibly challenge or remake these narratives. A figured world can be understood as "a socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others" (Holland, Skinner, Lachicotte, & Cain, 1998, p. 52) Increasingly employed by educational researchers, the framework of figured worlds allows researchers to negotiate the landscape of culture, identity, and subjectivity that their participants are living within. Figured worlds

“contextualizes the interplay between self and the social environment, attempting to explain the ways that collective cultural and social constructions work together in the processes of identity and agency in our lived worlds. (Stewart Rose, 2008, p. 214). In researching with children, this theoretical lens highlights how students figure out who they are in a context, and how they are figured within that context, both of which are “a function of each person’s subjective experience, or personal history, and interactions with other participants who populate these worlds”

(Robinson, 2007, p. 193).

When utilized in this way, figured worlds has proven itself a useful concept for understanding the phenomena of school classrooms and the actions of people in them. By using figured worlds, researchers have been able to describe some of the ways that social practices and

45

LEARNING TO SETTLE cultural norms are reproduced, challenged, and changed as people participate in the world that they create with those around them. Esmonde and Langer-Osuna (2013; Esmonde, 2014; Langer-

Osuna, 2015) examined how high school mathematics students from marginalized communities were shaped by the positional identities available to them, and also how the participants responded to and challenged these dominant narratives. Similarly, Chang (2014); Mayes, Mitra,

& Serriere (2016); Roth & Erstad (2016); and Caraballo (2017) reported on various studies investigating the figured worlds of students engaging with activism and social justice. Other researchers have employed the framework to understand the complexities of identity, subjectivity, and culture in science classrooms (Gonsalves, Rahm, & Carvalho, 2013; Carlone,

Scott, & Lowder, 2014; Sulsberger, 2018), special education (Thorius, 2016), pre-school

(Barron, 2014), second language learning (Dagenais, Day, & Toohey, 2006), and social studies pre-service teaching (Robinson, 2007).

This approach helps to provide clarity around areas of schooling that may be open or closed to new ways of making meaning and finding openings to challenge settler colonial discourses and practices of knowledge production. By examining these figured worlds and how the participants engage with them, educators and researchers can build a more complex knowledge of how students construct understandings of themselves as subjects in settler colonial contexts, and how they negotiate these identities-in-practice in schools.

While some researchers have understood figured worlds to be singular (i.e. a classroom is a single figured world) Esmonde (2014) has helped to clarify how multiple figured worlds are present and overlapping within a single context. People who are part of these narratives move into and out of these figured worlds multiple times. Within a single class period, I was able to observe students performing various typical student roles (independent researcher, peer-tutor,

46

LEARNING TO SETTLE writer, reader, disobedient conversationalist, work avoider, rule-follower, helper, etc.) and I also observed students simultaneously enacting the figured world of friendship by making plans for after school, discussing favourite games and books, or talking about recess and shared experiences outside of the classroom. While this was happening, other students were engaged with me in the figured world of academic research as they looked over my shoulder to see what I was writing in my notebook, showed me their work, or responding to my inquiries about what they were doing. Each of these three different figured worlds were overlapping in the same classroom at one time, with their respective norms of practice and discourse enacted or challenged as students moved in and out of them throughout the hour-long class period.

Each of the overlapping figured worlds described above is recognizable for what it is because it is inhabited and enacted in multiple places and times so people who have previously experienced a classroom can recognize the norms, discourses and character positions of a different classroom without having to be re-introduced to the basics of how each figured world works. This similarity and familiarity are important for the functioning of social relations both in schools and outside of them. Figured worlds as a conceptual framework of inquiry allows a researcher to observe and analyze how these familiar social relations are constructed and maintained, and subsequently bring attention to the effects and limits of the social positions within them.

Several aspects of figured worlds make them particularly useful for my research into the construction and negotiation of student identity in contexts of settler colonialism. Firstly, figured worlds emphasize the constructed nature of cultural practices such as schooling, and the re- construction of these practices by people as they continually engage with them. Secondly, figured worlds are historical phenomena that are directly related to the traditions and processes

47

LEARNING TO SETTLE that are given cultural significance in a particular time and place. Thirdly, figured worlds focuses on the position of subjects as discourses, power, and privilege are enacted in social relations within a figured world. Each of these aspects will be examined below, their relevance to the questions of this research study will be presented, and their usefulness in understanding the everyday practices of settler colonialism will be discussed.

Constructed and Re-constructed Cultural Practices.

The concept of figured worlds was proposed by Holland and her colleagues in response to the debates that were happening in the field of cultural studies between academics who argued for either a culturalist or a constructivist view of the nature of social relations. In understanding how and why social relations are enacted in various ways, culturalist thinkers emphasized the structures, norms, and historical frameworks that guide the behaviours and thinking of individuals. Constructivists, however, placed a greater importance on the ongoing building and rebuilding of social relations that happens as individuals act and react in unique encounters with others in society. Figured worlds is an approach that draws from the strengths of both views to emphasize the ways that social practices are both constructed through discourse and reified as persistent cultural norms. Holland et al. emphasized the dialogic process of social relations that reveals the complexity of how subjects engage with cultural practices such as schooling:

Humans are both blessed and cursed by their dialogic nature - their tendency to encompass a number of views in virtual simultaneity and tension, regardless of their logical compatibility. Our own perspective puts together the culturalist and the constructivist positions in a dialogic frame (1998 p. 15).

The frame that Holland et al. produced for researchers - figured worlds - leaves space for understanding the ways social practices and discourse are constructed in everyday encounters

48

LEARNING TO SETTLE between people, and the ways they are made ‘normal’ and culturally salient through reproduction.

Within the context of this research study, the emphasis on the constructed cultural practices of public schooling is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, the actions of children attending elementary school highlight how the practices, discourses, and routines of schooling have been learned as cultural practices that exist as norms that students must learn to adopt for themselves.

These cultural logics determine the limits and possibilities for much of their actions and experiences and are recognized by students as the way things are meant to be at school

(examples and discussion are provided in Chapter 5). The points at which these cultural logics interact and intersect with the individual subjectivity of students in settler colonial classrooms are what this research study focuses on. Secondly, this culturalist-constructivist link is also important for this study because it allows the norms of schooling and cultural practice of student life to be examined with specific focus on the subjective response of and effects upon individual students during their classroom experiences. In the words of Holland et al.:

We do not look directly at either cultural logic or subject position as a phenomenon unto itself. Instead we consider the practical artifacts of the moment - the verbal, gestural, and material productions - emerging from the situation, and ask how, and to what end, these artifacts might be taken up and, in later events perhaps, become conventionalized or made into culture. (1998, p.17)

These authors who described figured worlds understood that the “practical artifacts of the moment” are not often neatly assigned to either the pure categories of culturalist or constructivist phenomenon and are more often an interplay between cultural logics and the subjectivity of those involved. This view provides room for understanding the improvisations that are brought about by subjects at work within a cultural context and may serve to re-construct the figured worlds in new ways. Improvisations in figured worlds are challenges to cultural logics and normative discourses which people enact in subtle or overt ways. What Holland and her colleagues have 49

LEARNING TO SETTLE pointed out is the ways that improvisations are not merely constructed effects of the social practice, “Constructivists think of improvisation as an expected outcome when people are simultaneously engaged with or pushed by contradictory discourses. They view it as an endpoint, however, not a beginning” (1998, p. 17). Instead, improvisations become a point of divergence from both the a priori cultural environment and subject position and develop into a new re- construction of social practices to such an extent that they become normalized. Holland, reading

Bourdieu, suggests:

Improvisations are the sort of impromptu actions that occur when our past, brought to the present as habitus, meets a particular combination of circumstances and conditions for which we have no set response. Such improvisations are the openings by which change comes about from generation to generation. They constitute the environment or landscape in which the experience of the next generation ‘sediments’, falls out, into expectation and disposition. The improvisations of the parental generation are the beginning of a new habitus for the next generation…In our view, improvisations, from a cultural base and in response to the subject positions offered in situ, are, when taken up as symbol, potential beginnings of an altered subjectivity, an altered identity. (1998, pp. 17-18)

Applying this insight to the practices of schooling gives me as a researcher an opportunity to examine the improvisations that students make in the culturally constructed

(figured) world of their classrooms. Gonsalves et al. argue that “since figured worlds are dynamic and continuously remade, there is room for change and agency, and the authoring of new worlds” (Gonsalves et al., 2013, p. 1072). Through this research I am searching to understand how school culture and norms are encountered and experienced by students in ways that build, challenge, reinforce, and/or deconstruct traditional and historical notions of Canadian settler-Indigenous relations. The framework of figured worlds allows me to give attention to the intersecting ways the world of public schooling limits and opens up possibilities for non-

Indigenous students to develop and challenge understandings and connections to settler colonial realities.

50

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Historical Phenomenon of Cultural Significance.

Recognizing the importance of improvisation to the changing nature of figured worlds helps highlight another strength of this approach for this research study, which centres on the historically situated nature of cultural phenomenon in everyday experiences. The narratives and characters of social studies classroom learning can be understood as the outcomes of historical narratives and processes that have helped to shape them, and as such are situated within the specific time and place within which they are enacted. Holland et al. explain that: "'figured world' provides a means to conceptualize historical subjectivities, consciousnesses and agency, persons (and collective agents) forming in practice." (1998, p. 42). The relevance of this approach to my research is evident in how it places the actions and discourses of students within a historical context that must necessarily refer to the settler colonial realities that have built and shaped the education system and the society within which students are living. In other words, the framework of figured worlds highlights the idea that students are studying specific histories in specific ways for reasons that, when contextualized historically, give cultural meaning to these practices. “Figured worlds are historical phenomena, to which we are recruited or into which we enter, which themselves develop through the works of their participants. Figured worlds, like activities, are not so much things or objects to be apprehended, as processes or traditions of apprehension which gather us up and give us form as our lives intersect them” (Holland et al.,

1998, p. 41).

To understand social studies education as a historical phenomenon with cultural significance means that researchers can look both to the broader cultural context within which schooling occurs and to the minutia of classroom artifacts and routines to understand meaning and importance within a figured world. As young children enter the school, they are stepping

51

LEARNING TO SETTLE into a figured world that casts them (whatever their individual subjectivities are) as a student, which is a familiar character that is wrought from the historically and culturally relevant practices of children’s education and public schooling that have developed over the last two centuries. Individual children become students, who act and are treated as such within the settings, narratives, and discourses that have been figured for them even before their arrival.

Holland and her colleagues realized that students are not only children who come to school to learn (in the sense of ‘student’ as a simple label differentiating children in school from those not in school), but students are those who bring “human voice and tone” to historically developed and culturally salient figures. Indeed, children more thoroughly embody the role of ‘students’ as they spend more time in that figured world and become better accustomed to historically developed norms of behaviour, action, expression and thought in schools. Holland et al. describe how this interaction between subjectivity and cultural worlds results in historically developed identities:

Figured worlds distribute “us,” not only by relating actors to landscapes of action (as personae) and spreading our senses of self across many different fields of activity, but also by giving the landscape human voice and tone... Cultural worlds are populated by familiar social types and even identifiable persons, not simply differentiated by some abstract division of labor. The identities we gain within figured worlds are thus specifically historical developments, grown through continued participation in the positions defined by the social organization of those worlds’ activity (1998, p. 41).

In the section above, I described how the framework of figured worlds considers improvisations that can become the sediment which solidifies into re-constructed cultural practices. Here I want to emphasize the important consideration that these improvisations happen within the landscape of practices that have developed historically through the cultural constructions and re-constructions of previous generations. It can only be considered strange for a student to discipline a teacher in a school, rather than the typical interactions of teacher governing student behaviours, if the figured world of a classroom exists as one where historically 52

LEARNING TO SETTLE student-teacher relations are of a particular kind in which teachers have the role of leader and students have the role of follower. This is what makes it possible for a new school year starting in September - where students meet new teachers with whom they have not previously had a relationship - to run according to the norms of previous teacher-student relationships and roles.

Historically, the roles of students and teachers have developed in response to broader cultural events and discourses, and as a result the norms that govern them within most public-school classrooms do not need to be constantly reiterated once students have become accustomed to the figured worlds they are learning within. It is possible to imagine a world in which students and teachers have different roles, but the figured worlds of schooling have integrated the concepts that teachers will act as if they are in charge and responsible, while students will act as if they are learning and obliging. These roles exist as historical phenomena with cultural significance as they have an immense impact on how the actors view themselves and others within these contexts:

Figured worlds rest upon people’s abilities to form and be formed in collectively realized “as if” realms. What if gender relations were defined so that women had to worry about whether they were attractive? … What if there were a world called academia, where books were so significant that people would sit for hours on end, away from friends and family, writing them? People have the propensity to be drawn to, recruited for, and formed in these worlds, and to become active and passionate about them. People’s identities and agency are formed dialectically and dialogically in these “as if” worlds (Holland et al., 1998, p. 49).

The historically framed and culturally significant nature of figured worlds results in the ever-present possibilities for new improvisations and culturally significant changes in figured worlds to become the new norms moving forwards. Robinson highlights this possibility in their discussion of pre-service teachers developing their pedagogical frameworks for teaching social studies in public schools:

Figured worlds are historical phenomena with today’s actions becoming part of its collective past. If these actions gain significance within its collective history, then shifts 53

LEARNING TO SETTLE

occur within the figured world—different or new characters are recognized, different or new acts are assigned significance, and different or new outcomes are valued. (Robinson, 2007, p. 194)

As the student participants in my research study encountered the social studies curriculum focused on Canadian history and took part in the research groups as part of this study, their actions and words reveal some of the possibilities for new significant characters, acts, and outcomes that may challenge the settler colonial narratives of traditional public schooling. These possibilities are discussed in depth in Chapter 6.

Subjectivity and Social Relations of Power and Privilege.

In this research, as I am attempting to centre and keep in focus the experiences and lives of young students, it is helpful to consider how the framework of figured worlds can be used to specifically delineate and frame these experiences. While it is clear that students are the objects of public education, research in the fields of pedagogy and curriculum studies has often struggled with the challenges of bringing to light the subjectivity of young students. Figured worlds has proven useful in this area because this framework places emphasis on the positions of participants within a culturally constructed world and highlights the pushing and pulling that these participants experience and engage in. Within this framework, children in schools are recognized as both objects of curricular instruction and agents of improvisation and change.

Urrieta Jr, describes how this power and positioning takes place in figured worlds:

Figured worlds distribute power and teach their participants how power works explicitly and implicitly, both in societies at large in relation to figured worlds and their participants, and within figured worlds themselves. In figured worlds people are ordered and ranked and power is distributed. (Urrieta Jr., 2007b, p. 121)

While it may be tempting to recognize power as being situated with the adults in a school building, power in schools is not just about teachers/students, but also about the ways discourse

54

LEARNING TO SETTLE and knowledge are privileged, and certain subjectivities are privileged over others. Foucault demonstrated the relevance of discourse and knowledge to dominant societal institutions

(Foucault, 1978) and linked it to power more traditionally understood by framing it as

“power/knowledge”. He developed the notion of power/knowledge as being the ability to limit the actions/choices of others and demonstrated how it is exercised by many different actors in social situations and institutions at different times. Holland and her colleagues took up this notion when they described how figured worlds are populated by various actors and characters whose social positioning reflects the rank they have within the world, and the resulting power they may exercise:

Figured worlds, like activities, are social encounters in which participants’ positions matter. They proceed and are socially instanced and located in times and places, not in the “everywhere” that seems to encompass cultural worlds as they are usually conceived. Some figured worlds we may never enter because of our social position or rank; some we may deny to others; some we may simply miss by contingency; some we may learn fully. (Holland et al.,1998, p. 41)

Within the school power has been used by teachers, principals, curriculum makers, politicians, religious leaders and individuals to eliminate indigeneity and recruit young people into settlerhood (as shown in Chapter 2), so attention to the specifics of students’ experiences of power/discourse is a necessary focus of this study. Figured worlds as a lens allows attention to be paid to the positions of the participants in the classroom, and how power is at work to open or limit possibilities for children to address settler colonialism in school. The framework highlights how students develop their conceptions of what knowledges are valued and important to learn, which discourses they may participate in, and the relevance of insider-outsider relationships in social organization. Tan describes this process in their work on the figured worlds of middle school science classrooms, “On initial entry into a figured world, novices gain social positions

55

LEARNING TO SETTLE that are accorded by the established members of that world. Such ‘positional identities’ are inextricably entangled with power, status, and rank” (Tan, 2010, p. 41).

Researching how students engage with and are shaped by the discourses, practices, and knowledges of the social studies classroom allows me to gain a deeper understanding of the ways that "socially constructed selves are subject to positions by whatever powerful discourse they happen to encounter" (Holland et al., 1998, p. 27). In addition, I am able to pay close attention to the ways students might challenge the normative positionings that they desire to escape from, and present alternatives to the knowledges that are privileged in the social studies curriculum.

Bartlett and Holland have highlighted how in figured worlds, “social actors develop the ability to challenge the incapacitating effects of negative social positioning” (Bartlett & Holland, 2002, p.

14) and Langer-Osuna’s work on marginalized students in secondary school math classrooms demonstrates how figured worlds frameworks of inquiry allowed them to discover “how classrooms that make use of student-led collaborative work, and where students are afforded autonomy, have the potential to support the academic engagement of students from historically marginalized communities” (Langer-Osuna, 2015, p. 51).

Identities-In-Practice

When Dorothy Holland and her colleagues introduced the framework of figured worlds, they drew direct links to socio-cultural theories of learning that informed their work. Describing the socially constructed nature of subjectivity highlighted by Foucault, these authors refer to the ways people employ communication to make claims about one's self and others. The discourses that are employed by people in social interaction therefore carry meanings and descriptions of who the various actors are in relation to one another within that particular context. Holland et al

56

LEARNING TO SETTLE are not content to theorize the social construction of subjectivity and the self through discourse alone, however, and turn to the work of Vygotsky (1986) to build an understanding of how people learn to enact these subjectivities beyond the context within which they are created. This is the basis of their use of "identities-in-practice" as a term to describe how the self- understandings people have are not essential to their being but are (re)constructed and negotiated in social spaces. In the words of Holland et al., "Behaviour is better viewed as a sign of a self in practice, not a sign of a self in essence" (1998, p.31). Vygotsky's (1986) work on semiotic mediation of learning brings focus to the various signs that are infused with meaning in social contexts, and are therefore available for people to use as a mediating tool for constructing new selves-in-practice.

For example, a bell ringing in a classroom signifies the beginning of a school day because it has been infused with historical and cultural meaning to such a degree that students don't have to think twice about what that sound means. However, a student who is sitting in their desk when they hear the bell ring does not have the same experience of that sign as a student who hasn't entered the building yet and is therefore deemed 'late'. The ringing bell is a sign that mediates how these two students negotiate conceptions of themselves as a late student or a prepared student. These self-understandings could have implications for how they enact these identities- in-practice at that particular moment and in the future when the bell rings the next day, as they have learned to associate the mediating device of the bell with particular ways of being in the figured world of the school.

Semiotic mediation of learning can also be recognized as a process that occurs when people engage in the practices of a figured world. Since figured worlds are narratives that are infused with historical and cultural meaning, children at school develop beliefs and behaviours in

57

LEARNING TO SETTLE response to the meaning that social practices are infused with. This can be observed when students respond to a principal who raises their hand and puts their finger on their lips at the front of a school assembly. This action has been infused with meaning so the students learn the expectation that they should sit still and be quiet from the simple gesture made by the principal.

While some students respond accordingly, others may enact a different identity-in-practice because they have learned that as long as they whisper, they can continue conversing with their friends and will not be reprimanded by the principal. The figured world of friendship is playing out while the figured world of the school assembly simultaneously occurs, and the students play a role and embody a character in both. In neither case is the identity of the student fixed and unmoving, but it is an identity-in-practice that defines the agency and positioning of students in either situation. Stewart-Rose described how figured worlds as a framework highlight the “many ways that we can construct concepts of identity and how those constructs affect the understanding of a person's actions. Figured worlds are concerned with the ways that we conceive of identity as a cultural-logical self and sociological self” (2008, p. 218).

Recognizing how figured worlds are navigated and negotiated through semiotic meaning attached to relevant symbols helps to show how the figured worlds are constructed, but also the ways power is enacted and maintained within them. It is helpful to consider Foucauldian understandings of power in this context, where power is enacted to limit or constrain the possible actions of people (Foucault, 1978, 1979). Within the scenarios suggested above, there is room for students to enact possible actions that confront or challenge the norms of the figured worlds, such as ignoring the ringing of the bell to start the day or speaking over the principal at a school assembly. Within the figured worlds of schooling, however, these actions carry very clearly understood repercussions that result in the adults within the figured world enacting powerful

58

LEARNING TO SETTLE responses that limit the child in what they can do (for example, giving detention or suspending the child from school). In these examples, power is enacted to limit and constrain the actions of the students as they transgress against the norms of the figured worlds. This reality of power over children in schools has both individual and collective implications. In the first case, students who act out or speak against the norms in schools receive punishments. In the second case, students who are poor, gender non-conforming, religious minorities, of diverse abilities, culturally marginalized, and/or racialized are restricted in their ability to enact their identities-in-practice by the norms and discourses of schooling and so they often face severe consequences for confronting or countering hegemonic discourses. The interplay of power and privilege with marginalized students have been studied extensively in educational research and are of particular interest to researchers who employ the framework of figure worlds in their work.

Since Holland and her colleagues wrote at length about figured worlds in 1998, the concept has been taken up in various ways in the fields of education (Gonsalves et al., 2013;

Robinson, 2007; Stewart Rose, 2008; Urrieta Jr., 2007a), health research (Bennett, Solomon,

Bergin, Horgan, & Dornan, 2017), gender studies (Lara & Franquiz, 2015; Wade-Jaimes &

Schwartz, 2019) and childhood studies (Barron, 2014; Dagenais et al., 2006), and has also been employed in sociological examinations of workplaces (Garsten, 2008), nationalism (Schwimmer,

Poirier, & Clammer, 2004), and politics (C. Strauss & Friedman, 2018). By focusing on the identities of people in practice and in relationship, figured worlds allows for a more complex and useful analysis of the ways that people maneuver and act within a particular social context that may provide varying power or privilege to certain identities and subjectivities in particular times and spaces.

59

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Diane Gérin-Lajoie (2005) has considered similar phenomena in her work with linguistic minority youth in Canada, and has used the term mouvance to describe the negotiation of identities within educational contexts. In previous research (Sinke, 2012), I worked with youth who had arrived from Liberia as refugees to construct life histories. These life histories highlighted the ways these youth constructed and negotiated the identities of 'refugee',

'immigrant', 'Black', 'African', 'poor', 'English speaker with an accent', etc. as they navigated their interactions with peers, teachers, and administrators at Canadian secondary schools. The mouvance of their subjectivity was demonstrated as they claimed or refused particular labels at different times, or enacted identities-in-practice in different ways.

Through the lens of figured worlds, these 'identities' could be understood as roles and characters within the figured world of the public high school, English as a second language classroom, school cafeteria, and other settings that these youth participated in. The youth were recruited into particular figured worlds that had normalized plot lines that the youth can negotiate and maneuver within, and even entirely reject if they choose to. When the youth were placed in the first level of the English Language Learner program, they sometimes followed the expected storyline of learning the alphabet and then beginning to read and write, but at other times they challenged this storyline by demonstrating their expertise in English. This expertise had been hidden from a school intake worker because of the youth's concern about how their Liberian accent would be perceived, an action that makes sense within the figured world of an intake interview for a newly arrived former refugee. This dynamic and shifting nature of identity was indicative of the notion of identity with figured worlds, where "people's representations of themselves in the stream of everyday life reveal a multitude of selves that are neither bounded, stable, enduring, nor impermeable" (Holland et al, 1998, p. 29).

60

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Engaging with the normalized and predictable storylines, characters, plots and settings of social contexts provides a researcher using the lens of figured worlds the ability to understand the ways that the internal world of people engages with the external world of social relationships.

The results of these interactions are the identities-in-practice that people enact, constituting the experiences of social phenomena. Public schools are particularly well suited to research through the lens of figured worlds because schools are sites where the normalized discourses of provincial ministries, regional school boards, and traditions of education confront the enormous diversity of students who negotiate these figured worlds in vastly different ways. Research has shown how differently students negotiate the figured worlds of mathematics classrooms, school discipline, or pre-school learning. In each of these cases, the lens of figured worlds reveals how children negotiate the world that is created for them, and simultaneously recreate it as they bring their selves into the story and respond to the discourses they encounter. By employing this theoretical framework, we can view the figured worlds of schools and classrooms as

"interactively constructed narratives that give meaning to the actions of participants within those narratives" (Esmonde & Langer-Osuna, 2013, p. 290).

Subjectivity, Culture, and Learning in Children’s Lives

Despite a growing body of research that has focused on the figured worlds of education and classrooms, there is still a limited amount of work that engages with the lived experiences and perspectives of young students, and with the figured worlds of settler colonial classrooms.

Tan (2010), Carlone et al. (2014), and Sulsberger (2018) each focused on the figured worlds of science learning in middle school, Dagenais, Day, and Toohey (2006) examined identity and language practices in a French immersion classroom, and Caraballo (2017) used figured worlds to understand how middle school students negotiated and responded to pedagogical approaches 61

LEARNING TO SETTLE that challenged normative discourses of culture, ethnicity, and race in middle school classrooms.

These studies have begun to shed light on how children may differ from teenagers and adults in the ways they engage with culture and subjectivity (see for example, Farmer & Cepin, 2015;

Mayes et al., 2016). The research does seem to suggest that children are living within and experiencing cultural worlds of schooling differently from older people, but the limited scope of this research allows Barron to argue that, “there is often little sense of the ways in which children respond or take up positions in relation to the social practices that they experience” (Barron,

2014, pp. 253-254). This study is therefore concerned with not only the discourses of settler colonialism and Indigeneity that are prevalent in the social context of schooling, but with how students' sense of self and identity are formed and acted out within this context as students respond to settler colonial curricula.

Student Self and Identity.

For this study, identity is understood as a "central means by which selves, and the sets of actions they organize, form and re-form over personal lifetimes and in the histories of social collectivities” (Holland et al. 1998, p. 270). Universalist and culturalist discourses of identity, which Holland and her colleagues were in dialogue with as they developed the figured worlds framework, each located the source of a person's sense of self in different conceptions of identity. Universalist ideas conceive of a natural self that is independent of culture but expressed through culture. Culturalist ideas instead conceive of the self that formed within culture and exists only in the cultural frameworks and logic that give it shape and meaning. Rejecting this dichotomy and building on the experiences of their ethnographic research, Holland et al. argued that:

62

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Culturally and socially constructed discourses and practices of the self are not recognized as neither the “clothes” of a universally identical self nor the (static) elements of cultural molds into which the self is cast. Rather, differentiated by relationship of power and the associated institutional infrastructure, they are conceived as living tools of the self - as artifacts or media that figure the self constitutively, in open-ended ways (Holland et al., 1998, p. 28).

This notion of the self allows for an perception of identities-in-practice that are neither situated within a person nor existing outside in a cultural form a person would inhabit. Stuart Hall described this connection between a subject and their social position as being a "suturing" (Hall,

2011) that develops as people identify with and claim cultural positions that are available and open to them. Holland et al. describe this similar process of identity formation as "co- development", where “improvisational responses to social and cultural openings and impositions elaborate identities on intimate terrain even as these identities are worked and reworked on the social landscape. (1998, p. 270).

This notion has been applied by various researchers to educational settings through a figured worlds framework, and has produced meaningful insights into how students engage with and form an identity and sense of self, such as this by Urrieta Jr:

Identity and Self are concepts that are not only constituted by the labels - ‘‘smart girl’’, ‘‘delinquent’’, ‘‘incompetent’’, or ‘‘beloved teacher’’ - that people place on themselves and others, especially in schools. Identity is also very much about how people come to understand themselves, how they come to ‘‘figure’’ who they are, through the ‘‘worlds’’ that they participate in and how they relate to others within and outside of these worlds (Urrieta Jr., 2007, p. 107).

Additionally, Baron highlights how "a figured worlds reading enables us to theorise young children’s responses and agency as they encounter social and cultural practices that shape their identities" (Barron, 2014, p. 260). The dynamics of schools and classrooms, including but not limited to: relationships with teachers, peer culture, discourses of behaviour, academic expectations, and curricular norms, are what constitute the figured worlds that children grow and develop in for hours a day and several years. As they participate in these figured worlds, students

63

LEARNING TO SETTLE

"‘figure who they are’ and produce personal and social identities" (Roth & Erstad, 2016, ,p. 59) from which they can act and re-act as they continue to figure the worlds in which they live.

When bringing this understanding of children's identity development to research about settler colonial education, we can develop a greater understanding of the ways normative discourses of Indigenous elimination and settler dominance shape how students understand themselves personally and socially. Possibilities exist for students to encounter settler colonial discourses and reject them or enact identities that refute the validity of ongoing Indigenous elimination. As a researcher, I can therefore pay close attention to the interplay between the cultural world of social studies learning and the selves-in-practice of students engaging with these worlds, highlighting the disruptions and improvisations that indicate sites for changing and confronting injustices.

Children’s Cultural Worlds.

As children spend more time in educational settings, they become socialized into the cultural norms and practices of schooling. They begin this process as novices, with little understanding of the reasons for the actions or words they are learning, but the nature of this cultural world allows them to learn and integrate the norms into their actions and identities-in practice. However, children are in the process of learning the adult-formed rules of the school culture, and this distinction matters greatly for researchers interested in student experiences, as

Corsaro's work on children's cultural worlds describes:

Children’s participation in cultural routines is an essential element of the interpretive approach. In adult-child interaction, children often are exposed to social knowledge they do not grasp fully. Because of the predictable participant structure of cultural routines, however, interaction normally continues in an orderly fashion, and ambiguities often are left to be pursued over the course of children’s interactive experiences (Corsaro, 1992, p. 163).

64

LEARNING TO SETTLE

It is therefore important for researchers interested in children's experiences to engage with the aspects of children's cultural worlds that are unique when compared with more broadly understood adult cultural worlds. An example of this is the research Mayes et al. (2016) conducted on the differences in understandings between adult conceptions of young student civic engagement, and the experiences and viewpoints of children when they are not constrained by nor measured against the engagement and activism of adults. As a result, the researchers were able to argue for new approaches to education for civic engagement that were focused on the ways students learn differently from how adults would.

Children’s cultural worlds are not entirely distinct from adults worlds, because they are constantly impinged upon by the socialization and limits set out by adult worlds for children.

However, as children socialize and interact together, they are pushing against the limits of childhood set out by the adult world and enacting their agency and individuality in response to the ways children and childhood is figured for them. As such, children’s cultural worlds are unique but not distinct from adult worlds. Children are socialized into ways of being in the world by parents, teachers and other adults who expect children to behave, think, and communicate in ways that fit with the norms laid out for children by adults. In these interactions, the field of childhood studies has emphasized how children are participants in creating the worlds they inhabit. Karen Wells clarifies this conception of childhood in her 2017 work and says, “Children are conceptualized within Childhood Studies as agents who are constrained by the social structures that they are situated within but who do not passively succumb to these structures; they are agents or actors and they make society as much as society makes them” (Wells, 2017).

65

LEARNING TO SETTLE

In educational contexts, an understanding of this agency permits examinations of education that link culturalist and constructivist notions of learning, as described by James and

James:

Contemporary education policy is constructing childhood through its particular positioning of children within the schooling process. At the same time, it considers how children themselves respond to the power, authority, and value systems through which their position, as children, is being shaped within and through these social structures and societal practices and then how ‘childhood’ is also, in this sense, being constructed by children too (James and James 2004, p 118).

As students are participating in the figured world of schooling, they are embodying roles and practices that are set out for them by the social structures and societal practices that adults lay out for them, but they are simultaneously constructing the figured world of schooling itself by their actions and words. As such, it is imperative that researchers understand the complexities of specific classroom figured worlds that will bear similarities to other classrooms because of persistent institutional norms but will be unique because of the agency of the children who are continually constructing the classroom as figured world itself.

Farmer and Cepin (also Spyrou, 2018; Wells, 2017) have specifically applied this understanding to research by arguing for conducting research with children (as opposed to conducting research on children) and understanding their experiences as valuable and instructive for educational policy and planning:

This perspective envisions children and young people as social actors capable of affecting their world. It also acknowledges that young people, in their everyday lives, navigate for the most part a world shared with adults. This is especially true in institutional settings. Schools, in particular, are social spaces initially defined by adults for young people in a given society. They are inhabited and transformed by both adults and students. However, acknowledging young people’s world views has been largely neglected in education. (Farmer & Cepin, 2015, p. 3)

Spyrou goes further in his discussion of research and childhood by saying that, “research plays a significant role in the production of knowledge about children and childhood, and therefore a

66

LEARNING TO SETTLE critical childhood studies needs to reflect systematically on its knowledge practices” (2018, p. 5).

The kinds of research I employed for this thesis are engaged in the production of knowledge about children’s figured worlds, and as such must hold careful consideration for how children’s agency is both limited and expressed within the context of academic research. Researching with the children participants in this study provides insight into these dynamics and can reveal some of the ways children exercise their agency while being figured as particular subjects in settler colonial classrooms.

What is the nature of these cultural worlds that children inhabit and within which they engage in the co-development of their identities-in-practice? Barron has highlighted how educational communities are uniquely relevant to children's identity formation and, "children’s experiences in particular communities shape their beliefs, behaviours and early experiences of education in formal settings" (Barron, 2014, p. 253). This perspective allows me to interrogate the cultural world of my student participants as being extremely relevant and formative for how children develop a sense of self in relation to the figured worlds of their classrooms. Indeed, this is part of the reason this study has relevance to broader societal conversations about reconciliation because the school classroom is one of the most important places within which children develop ideas about themselves and others.

As children go through school, they are not simply learning from the culture that has been created for them, however, as Wilson points out:

Since students learn all the time through exposure and modeled behaviors, this means that they learn important social and emotional lessons from everyone who inhabits a school — from the janitorial staff, the secretary, the cafeteria workers, their peers, as well as from the deportment, conduct and attitudes expressed and modeled by their teachers” (L. O. Wilson, 2006).

Many people move into and affect the figured worlds of students in schools, but the importance of peer groups and peer culture for how students develop identities-in-practice seems to exceed 67

LEARNING TO SETTLE the others mentioned by Wilson. This was evident in my research, as I saw students choosing topics for inquiry study that were based solely on what their friends were interested in, or what they could study in small groups rather than individually. Corsaro also highlights this fact in his work on children's socialization by arguing that peer culture is the most relevant context in which children learn how they will act and react in the figured world of school (Corsaro, 1992). He describes this peer culture as, "a stable set of activities or routines, artifacts, values, and concerns that children produce and share in interaction with peers” (Corsaro 1992 p. 162). These routines, artifacts, values, and concerns can be as material as the Rubik's Cube that students used as a measure of status and currency in the classroom I observed, or as nuanced as the gestures and glances that indicate a student's feelings about working with or sitting beside someone else in their class. As I am seeking to understand the ways students learn about and develop understandings of their sense of selves in relation to Indigeneity and settler colonialism, it is imperative to consider how important these peer cultures are. Corsaro understands this when he writes:

Theories of children’s social development must break free from the individualistic doctrine that regards social development solely as the child’s private internalization of adult skills and knowledge. Childhood socialization must be understood also as a social and collective process. In this view, it is not just that the child must make his knowledge his own, but that he must make it his own in a community of those who share his sense of belonging to a culture (Corsaro 1992 p. 161).

With this perspective, I can delve into analysis of children's figured worlds of social studies classrooms and make connections to the broader societal discourses around Indigeneity and Canadian nationhood. While children's peer cultures are distinct from those of adults, and their relevance to young students' lives cannot be dismissed, they work as a foundation upon which children begin to test how they want to live and be outside of the school context. Corsaro again highlights this when he argues that "children are always participating in and are part of two

68

LEARNING TO SETTLE cultures – their own and adults’ – and these cultures are intricately interwoven. (Corsaro, 2012, p. 489). In this way, continually growing identities-in-practice through peer culture and figured worlds of childhood, "is a process in which children, in interaction with others, produce their own peer culture and eventually come to reproduce, to extend, and to join the adult world"

(Corsaro 1992, p. 175). As children learn about Canadian and Indigenous histories in social studies classrooms (the specifics of which are described in Chapter 3), they are beginning to develop their own conceptions of the worlds outside the school, and how they want to live in and engage with it.

Conclusion

Settler colonialism is a framework for understanding how Canadian society is structured and is importantly useful for analyzing discourses, symbols, narratives, and institutional practices that exist within Canadian society. It also is a theoretical framework that provides tools for anticipating possible future actions and motivations of white settlers who seek to maintain settler futurity. As a framework and theory, it has explanatory power in analyzing the figured worlds of particular contexts within a society, such as schools and classrooms. Settler colonialism is at work in the figured worlds of social studies classrooms, as it has shaped how schools are developed in Canada, guided the stories that are normalized in the study of history, and shaped roles that students can readily adopt as either white settlers/Indigenous native/exogenous others.

Within settler colonialism, Indigenous peoples are figured to be in the way of settler futurity, exogenous others are figured to be exploitable and expendable, and white settlers are figured to be powerful and entitled. Students enact identities-in-practice as they engage with the realms of

69

LEARNING TO SETTLE interpretation within the figured worlds of the classroom, shaped by the discourses of settler colonialism.

Here it is helpful to be reminded of the three aspects of figured worlds described in this chapter that make it a useful framework for examining the experiences of students learning settler colonial social studies curricula: 1) figured worlds are culturally constructed and continually re-constructed by people engaged with them, 2) figured worlds are historical phenomena, and 3) figured worlds highlight the development of subjects in relation to power and privilege.

Firstly, figured worlds emphasize the constructed nature of cultural practices such as schooling, and the re-construction of these practices by people as they continually engage with them. It is clear that public education in Canada has been constructed specifically to perpetuate

Eurocentric ideals of white settler identity that position exogenous others as outsiders and

Indigenous natives as historical and increasingly irrelevant to modern Canadian settler society seeking a futurity of replacement. In this way, public schooling is constructed through various cultural practices of marginalization, exaltation, replacement, moves to innocence, elimination, and racism. This first aspect of figured worlds also recognizes that settler colonialism not only works to culturally construct the classroom, but it also reinscribes the practices, discourses, actions, and beliefs of white settlers when educators and students perpetuate the norms of settler colonialism in their everyday actions and relationships.

Secondly, figured worlds are historical phenomena that are directly related to the traditions and processes that are given cultural significance in a particular time and place. We can see how settler colonialism shapes the figured worlds that students participate in at school through specific practices and traditions that are recognizable as “educational” because of their

70

LEARNING TO SETTLE historicity. An example of this is the singing of “O Canada” at the beginning of every school day, and the reverence that educators often ask students to display by standing while the national anthem plays and students sing, “O Canada, our home and native land…”. If a student moves from one school to another, the traditions of the national anthem are recognizable in the new building because of their historicity within the figured worlds of schools. Social studies, history, and geography curricula are more examples of the dominance of settler colonial discourses within the figured worlds of schools that reflect the historical practices that give cultural significance to the particulars of the classroom.

Thirdly, figured worlds focuses on the positioning of subjects through the enacting of power and privilege in social relations and discourses at school. Settler colonialism as both a theoretical framework and as a practice places power and privilege in the hands and institutions of white settlers, at the expense of Indigenous and endogenous Others. Schools are thus figured to be generally occupied by white teachers from European backgrounds, despite increasing populations of non-white students, and Indigenous students are subjugated under Eurocentric epistemologies and pedagogies. Within the figured worlds of schools, it is normalized for Black,

Brown, Latinx and Indigenous students to be given fewer resources, support, and guidance while simultaneously being penalized and disciplined more harshly than white students (Battistich et al., 1995; Shin, Daly, & Vera (2007); Wade-Jaimes & Schwartz, 2019). This is recognizably in line with the discourses and frameworks of settler colonialism that provide justification for the institutionalized racism of settler public education.

As settler colonialism can be seen in each of these aspects that make up figured worlds in public schools, it is important in this thesis to bring focus onto specific contexts that can provide insights into how students act as agents and subjects within the context of settler colonial

71

LEARNING TO SETTLE classrooms. For this study, I examine two specific figured worlds, connected to each other yet unique in the specific interactions and discourses at play within them. The first is the figured world of the settler colonial social studies classroom, with a deep historicity and recognizable norms that students engage with in their daily lives while at school. The second figured world that makes up a significant part of this research is that of the voluntary research groups that I ran with student participants in both of the schools where I conducted research for this thesis. In these figured worlds, the role of teacher (authoritative and potentially disciplinarian) was unfulfilled, and the students were enacting identities-in-practice along with me as fellow researchers, participants, and experts in their experiences of learning. In the figured world of the research groups, the students were not free from the settler colonial discourses that were at play in the classroom, however, because they had learned in the classroom how to think and speak about history at school. The research groups were therefore extensions of the classroom figured worlds in some ways but provided new opportunities for improvisations and discourses that were unique to the figured worlds of the research groups. In the following chapter I will describe in detail and critique the normative frameworks that are at play in the figured world of the social studies classroom, namely the social studies curricula and inquiry-based pedagogy. This will provide the necessary foundation to understand and analyze how students act and react in the figured worlds that are populated by the discourses of the curricula and the inquiry process.

72

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 3: Social Studies and Inquiry-Based Learning

Settler Colonial Perspectives and Ontario Social Studies Curriculum

While many Indigenous and some non-Indigenous scholars, activists, students, and parents have been calling for changes in the representations of Indigeneity and Canada within the school curriculum, recently these movements have taken up more space in mainstream educational discourses. The recently published Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

Final Report has called for the incorporation of curriculum around treaties, residential schools, and "the historical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada" (TRC,

2015). Some post-secondary institutions in different parts of the country have begun introducing mandatory Indigenous studies courses for all undergraduate students, and the potential exists for secondary schools to introduce courses on Indigenous studies in particular schools or throughout different school boards. However, in public elementary schools in Ontario the examination of

Indigenous history, treaties, and contributions to Canada by Indigenous people are often limited to either the personal introduction of these topics by the classroom teacher through their own initiative, or the formal social studies curriculum that was most recently updated in 2018.

In the book he edited with George Dei, Arlo Kempf highlighted the effect that formal curriculum – such as Ontario's social studies curriculum - could have on the construction and negotiation of students' identities-in-place:

Formal curricula, at all levels of study (elementary, high school, and college/university) serve to construct meaning for students as far as self-identification, cultural belonging, and school engagement. History, with its philological, cultural, economic, geographic, political and social strands is perhaps unique among so-called 'disciplines' in that the implications for the learners are so broad. In the case of popular representations of Aboriginal Peoples and perspectives in dominant Canadian history, not only are the people and perspectives largely absent, but so too is the story of the attempted genocide of the People of Turtle Island and their history. A reconsideration of such history is thus

73

LEARNING TO SETTLE

not only a strategic examination, but also one that quite simply, seeks greater accuracy and thoroughness in order to combat the removal of so much from the history of Turtle Island (Kempf, 2012, p. 131).

Schools and formal education played a crucial role in the formation of the Canadian settler nation-state, as seen in the history and legacy of residential schooling, or missionary endeavors of education, but many Canadians understand these practices and ideologies to be relegated to the past. While it is accurate to say that in present-day schools there is no longer the physical, sexual, psychological and emotional violence that was used to force conformity in the residential schools, research has demonstrated the subtle and nuanced ways that formal and informal curriculum, discipline, institutional norms, and pedagogy reflect the dominant discourses of privilege and exclusion that permeate broader society. Kempf (2012) argues that in the public education system, mandated and controlled by the government, ideologies of the settler state are perpetuated and maintained (Kempf, 2012). However, as Cummins and Early

(2011) point out, schools are also sites where power can be collaboratively created to challenge the dominant ideologies of exclusion. Teachers, students, parents and administrators engage with the dominant discourses in a variety of ways that have the potential to recreate the normalized figured worlds and also challenge them through people's participation within them. To understand the context in which students are developing their sense of self and enacting their identities-in-practice, it is important to examine closely the formal curricula of Ontario’s public schools. This examination will frame the discourses, narratives, and norms that are presented to students in the figured worlds of the classroom and lay the foundation for examining how students take up, reject, and are shaped by these figured worlds.

The Formal Curriculum for Elementary School Social Studies

74

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The Ontario curriculum document for elementary school social studies was published in

2013 by the Ministry of Education and small language changes were made in a 2018 update (the

2018 curriculum changes were put into effect after the conclusion of the data collection for this study, so the students who participated were learning the language of the 2013 curriculum document). By examining the discourses and dominant themes of this curriculum, we can develop an understanding of the normative storylines and themes that make up the figured world of the elementary school social studies classroom in preparation for examining how students navigate and construct these worlds.

The curriculum document begins with a preface that is entirely new relative to the previous curriculum (published in 2004), and is introduced with a section titled, "Elementary

Schools for the Twenty-First Century". Summarizing this section, the document says, "The

[social studies] curriculum...helps all learners develop the knowledge, skills, and perspectives they need to become informed, productive, caring, responsible, and active citizens in their own communities and in the world" (Ministry of Education, 2013, p.3). Here it begins to become clear that social studies education in elementary school is meant to develop citizens. The

"Vision" of the new program continues this discourse and is described as following:

The social studies... will enable students to become responsible, active citizens within the diverse communities to which they belong. As well as becoming critically thoughtful and informed citizens who value an inclusive society, students will have the skills they need to solve problems and communicate ideas and decisions about significant developments, events, and issues. (2013, p. 6)

Citizenship (both local and global) is understood in the curriculum to be a major theme of the current curriculum guidelines for social studies. This is a striking difference to the themes of the

2004 curriculum, which focuses instead on the particular "knowledge and skills" that students would be expected to "acquire, demonstrate, and apply" (Ministry of Education, 2004, p. 7) through the teaching of social studies. 75

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Citizenship as Canadian Identity.

It is important to understand what this citizenship would look like, and how it is expected to be taught in the province's classrooms by its teachers. The curriculum describes how citizenship education is understood at the beginning of the document: "The responsible, active citizen participates in their community for the common good. Citizenship education provides

'ways in which young people are prepared and consequently ready and able to undertake their roles as citizens'" (2013, p. 9). This vague statement uses the language of citizenship without clarifying the very relevant issues of where this citizenship is held, to whom a citizen is responsible, or specifying the particular roles that citizens of this unannounced place have.

While it may seem obvious that the type of citizenship that the students are encouraged to learn about is specifically citizenship to the Canadian nation, it is helpful to notice how this particular Canadian citizenship is presented throughout the narratives of the social studies curriculum across the grade levels. In various sections of the curriculum, the only options presented for national belonging and citizenship are to the settler nation that emerged from New

France and Early Canada. In the "Heritage and Identity" strand, students learn about

"Communities in Canada, 1780-1850" in third grade, "First Nations and Europeans in New

France and Early Canada" in fifth grade, and "Communities in Canada, Past and Present" in the sixth grade. Under the People and Environments strand, students will progress through third to sixth grade learning about "Living and Working in Ontario", "Political and Physical Regions of

Canada", "The Role of Government and Responsible Citizenship", and "Canada's Interactions with the Global Community" (p. 21). It is clear that the citizenship which students are expected to develop is a very specific and defined version of Canadian citizenship. This is further made

76

LEARNING TO SETTLE clear in the second-grade unit on the local and global community, where, "students will explore a variety of traditions within their families and their local communities, developing an understanding of how these traditions contribute to and enrich their own community and

Canadian society" (p. 73).

Specifically, in the fifth grade, students will study a unit titled, "The role of government and responsible citizenship" (p. 112). Among other things, students are expected in this unit to learn about the ways that they as individuals are to fulfill their roles and responsibilities as citizens of Canada. Here they will learn about the responsibility all Canadians have to

"participate in the electoral process and political decision making", and ask questions about

"what does it mean to be a good citizen?" (p. 114). As described by Michael Mitchell (1989), the very issue of participation in the Canadian election process is an assertion of the legitimacy of the Canadian nation state, something which de-legitimized First Nations are not always willing to do. The assumptions of this unit, then, are that Canadian nationhood and citizenship are taken- for-granted concepts that need not be justified, despite the loud calls of Indigenous authors and peoples to require this justification in light of the lack of recognition for equal status nationhood and citizenship for Indigenous peoples and nations (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005; Cannon &

Sunseri, 2018; Thobani, 2007). This conception of citizenship that students are presented with in their early elementary years positions the Canadian settler state as the legitimate and only lawful nation within the boundaries of the territory that Canada claims, erasing the potential for claims to national citizenship that exist in Indigenous nations and not in the Canadian state. This process can be described as fulfilling the work of "making Canadians" (Thobani, 2007, p. 40), whereby the British and Canadian governments were and continue to be determined to be lawful, and

Indigenous individuals and nations are deliberately positioned as lawless in relation to the settler

77

LEARNING TO SETTLE state. This positionality ultimately allows the perpetuation of extreme violence and genocide against Indigenous peoples who exist outside of the law. The fact that the present-day curriculum continues to allow only one conception of legal citizenship within Canada's borders is a subtle way to continue the process of positioning Indigenous peoples and nations on the periphery of the law and allowing the negation of their national claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

Indigeneity and Multiculturalism in Social Studies.

While First Nations are explicitly named as a topic of study in one unit in Grade 5 ("First

Nations and Europeans in New France and Early Canada"), references to First Nations are made throughout the curriculum document, initially in the introduction sections, and later in the examples and "sample questions" that are provided to help teachers plan the specifics of their lessons. The first references made to any Indigenous peoples or nations is in the introductory section on accommodations that need to be made for certain students, where "First Nations,

Métis, or Inuit students" may require English Literacy Development help (p. 41). This type of reference continues as "the beliefs and practices of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples" are to be respected in diverse classrooms (p. 45), and where "special outreach strategies and encouragement may be needed to draw in parents of English language learners and First Nations,

Métis, or Inuit students, and make them feel more comfortable in their interactions with the school" (p. 46).

As the references to Indigeneity continue, it soon becomes very clear that this formal curriculum places Indigenous peoples and nations in the equivalent position as other diverse groups within the Canadian multicultural landscape. Students are expected to "learn about the living conditions of different groups of people in the past and present, including women, First

78

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Nations, and people in developing countries" (p. 46), and to "learn about various religious, social, and ethnocultural groups, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people and their distinct traditions" (p. 46). This discourse of diversity and multiculturalism continues in the examples provided for teachers to prepare their lessons. In the second-grade curriculum, traditions and celebrations to be studied include Christmas, Chinese New Year, Eid, Hanukkah, and First Nations powwows (p. 76). In the third-grade curriculum, important groups that were living in Canada between 1780 and 1850 are listed as, "First Nations, Métis, French, British,

Black people" (p. 86), and suggested topics for study include the challenges faced by "First

Nations people or African Canadians" (p. 87). In fourth grade, students can learn about social organization in early societies by studying "the caste system in India, the matriarchal organization of some First Nations, classes in imperial Rome, or in feudal societies in Europe or

Asia..." (p. 98) or can study games and sports by looking at the "ancient Greeks, or pre-contact

First Nations" (p. 98), for example.

Throughout the social studies curriculum guide, Indigenous peoples and nations are positioned as one of the many threads in the diverse tapestry of Canadian society and history.

The effect of this discourse is the elimination of the distinctive claims of Indigenous identity and history in comparison with the various other social identities and histories that one can find in

Canadian society. As such, there is no distinction worth making between the study of the traditions and practices of Indigenous peoples and those of Dutch immigrants, because both groups and their traditions are equally relevant to the diversity of Canadian citizens. For social studies, Indigenous history is merely as important to study as the history of ancient Rome,

Greece, or India, and the Indigenous peoples and nations who existed during the period of 1780-

1850 were merely another group of people living alongside the British, French, and African

79

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Canadians. Troy Richardson argues that this practice of including Indigenous epistemologies, histories, philosophies, and cultures as objects of study in traditional curricular frames works to enclose and contain Indigenous ways of knowing and being (Richardson, 2011). It effectively removes Indigenous epistemologies and teachings from the specific relationships that are their source of their importance and meaning. This erasure of the distinctive aspects of Indigenous identity and nationhood reflects Wolfe's "structural genocide" and "elimination of the native”

(Wolfe, 2006) in Canadian settler society, ultimately assimilating Indigeneity into Canadian multicultural identity, while eliminating the possibility for a discussion of Indigeneity that exists outside of the broader diversity of Canadian settlers.

Inquiry-Based Learning.

A recent trend in public school pedagogy in Ontario has been a move towards inquiry- based learning in particular areas of the curriculum, including social studies, history, and geography. This pedagogical emphasis on inquiry has become increasingly prevalent in the school board where this research study was conducted, and as a result many students are engaging with the social studies material on 'First Nations' and 'Communities in Canada' through an inquiry-based model. Both my own experiences in the school board, and the literature around inquiry-based learning, shed light on the possibility that students in these inquiry-based classrooms may engage with settler colonialism and Indigenous presence in ways that challenge the curricular goals and settler norms laid out for them.

The Ontario Ministry of Education describes inquiry-based learning as "an approach to teaching and learning that places students' questions, ideas and observations at the centre of the learning experience" (Ministry of Education, 2013b, p. 2). For several years the Hamilton

80

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) has been increasing the breadth and integration of inquiry-based learning throughout all the different areas of the curriculum in its elementary and secondary schools. The approach itself has often been framed from a scientific viewpoint, where students are encouraged to develop their own ideas about conducting experiments to understand scientific concepts but has been expanding to mathematics and social studies as well. In all these contexts, an inquiry-based learning approach can vary widely in its application where students and teachers take differing levels of leadership roles in introducing the inquiry focus, setting up the questions to be asked, choosing and developing a means of answering these questions, pursuing the inquiry, and sharing the results with the rest of the classroom community.

Bianchi and Bell (2008) describe the different applications of inquiry-based learning as existing on a continuum with four different levels: confirmation, structured, guided, and open. In

Bianchi and Bell's confirmation level of inquiry, the teacher leads the entire process by providing the students with a question, a method or procedure for pursuing answers, and the central idea that is being reinforced by the inquiry. The next level of inquiry can be described as structured, where students are given a question and a procedure for answering that question, but the central idea or hypothesis is not explicitly provided. Guided inquiry entails giving students the research question and leaving the rest of the process up to the students. The final level of inquiry would be an open process, where the students are instructed to develop their own question, pursue it as they think best, and develop the ideas or lessons learned from their own process.

Within the figured world of a social studies classroom, inquiry-based learning could be implemented at any of these levels, but because of the demands that elementary school teachers meet the expectations of the curriculum document, most inquiry-based learning in junior level classrooms will be confirmation or structured, with a possibility of guided inquiry but little open

81

LEARNING TO SETTLE inquiry. The 2013 curriculum document itself describes the inquiry process in social studies as having five steps, where students 1) formulate questions, 2) gather and organize information and evidence, 3) interpret and analyze the information and evidence, 4) evaluate the information and evidence and draw conclusions, and 5) communicate findings. When students are engaged in inquiry-based learning each of these steps may be structured for them by the teacher, and the possibilities for which questions they ask, how they pursue these answers, which answers are acceptable, and how they share these stories are often guided by the teacher to a large degree.

However, the possibilities of inquiry-based learning are what make it most interesting for my research project, because by its very construction, inquiry-based learning is intended to provide opportunities for students to engage with material in ways that are meaningful to them and potentially unexpected or unforeseen by the teacher.

Considering the application of inquiry-based learning models to social studies, and more specifically the study of historical time periods and events, it is helpful to consider whether students do take opportunities to make historical study meaningful and personal so they can frame inquiry questions and projects around their interests. In the broader literature on how students learn history, researchers have examined the ways students develop what is called historical consciousness (McLean, Rogers, Grant, Law, & Hunter, 2014; Seixas, 2004; Stearns,

Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000; Thorp, 2014). Historical consciousness is a way of framing how people think about and understand historical events and stories, and Thorp (2014) describes historical consciousness as “a concept that deals with people’s understanding of the relation between the past, the present, and the future; an understanding of how past, present, and future relate to each other in history” (p. 498). Historical consciousness describes how a person makes meaning from the study of history, and students who are in inquiry-based fourth and fifth grade

82

LEARNING TO SETTLE social studies classrooms are asked by their teachers to find ways of making the historical topics laid out in the curriculum document meaningful.

Despite the lofty goals of inquiry-based learning to develop personal connections to historical topics, the work of Skjæveland (2017) shows how children’s conceptions of historical time are not closely linked to making connections to events in the past, or to understanding relevant and concrete causal links between the past and the present. The specifics of how students develop a deep and meaningful historical consciousness in history classes is not yet clearly understood in academic research, nor is it clear that students in fourth and fifth grades are able to evaluate the relative impact of various past events on their personal lives and experiences.

Dixon and Hales (2014) describe the limited understanding academic researchers have of how young students in schools understand historical thinking beyond facts and information. Inquiry- based learning seeks to go beyond the learning of facts and information to build personal interest and connections between topics in the curriculum and the students personal lives, but the extent to which this is achieved in fourth and fifth grade social studies is still unclear.

By immersing my research in the context of inquiry-based learning, I am focusing on the possibilities that students create in the structured world of school learning to look at and learn about traditional and normative topics in new ways. Earlier, I described the constrictive discourses of settler colonialism that are prevalent throughout the formal social studies curricula in Ontario. If I were to conduct a research study in a traditional non inquiry-based classroom, it would be difficult to recognize the fissures and improvisations that are possible in these normative formal classrooms. Inquiry-based social studies learning, however, focuses student attention on asking critical questions and making judgements about the relative importance of and long-term impacts of particular events in history. This context provides opportunities to

83

LEARNING TO SETTLE research how students are responding to the encouragement of teachers to inquire, investigate, and build knowledge as they learn about Canadian and Indigenous histories.

The specific questions that I am asking in this research engage with the understanding that students enter into the figured worlds of their classrooms and negotiate their roles in many different ways that may be unexpected or even upsetting to others participating in the same figured world. In an inquiry-based learning figured world, the stage is set for students to engage differently with the topics being discussed than traditional educational instruction (through textbooks or structured instruction by the teacher) would allow. Embracing Foucault's teaching that knowledge and power are inseparably linked - to the extent that they are best discussed as knowledge/power (Foucault, 1978, 1979) - the roles of teacher and student in an inquiry-based learning classroom may change the traditional power dynamic because new knowledge can be brought forward by the student. Conversely, teachers may retain their dominance in the figured world of the classroom by strictly structuring which knowledge counts as worthwhile to inquire about or bring forward.

The dynamic interaction between teachers and students who are playing roles within their shared figured world is a worthwhile topic for research and examination in itself to understand the dynamics of power and knowledge in an inquiry-based learning setting. However, it also is a fruitful setting for a specific examination of the ways students engage with this figured world as it relates to concepts of settler colonialism. As students are given (varying levels of) autonomy to ask and answer questions about Canada's past, I am interested in understanding how they make decisions to pursue or ignore stories of Canada's colonial reality within the figured world of a school classroom. Also, it is valuable to understand how the students enact or challenge the normative roles that are available to them as 'students who inquire', and 'students who are

84

LEARNING TO SETTLE evaluated' while they examine histories of white settlement and Indigenous dislocation and genocide. It is important to investigate how these students take up their roles in an inquiry-based social studies classroom and negotiate their own relationships to the stories of Canada's settler colonial reality. Whether and how students connect their own experiences of living on this land and in this country with an Indigenous history and presence will help me understand the ways they construct and negotiate relationships to settler colonialism while learning about social studies at school.

Conclusion

By examining the formal curricula that is being taught to young children in Ontario elementary schools, I have discussed some of the ways that the study of history has slowly changed and even nominally includes Indigenous perspectives, but settler colonial tropes and the othering of Indigenous content and perspectives remain. Curricular changes have been introduced slowly to the study of Canadian and Indigenous histories, and alongside these changes there has been a growth in the pedagogical approach of inquiry-based learning. This approach highlights the importance of student-led learning, and the value of student interests in guiding decisions about who, what, and how to study history. Inquiry-based learning has been adopted as a desired approach to study social studies, history, and geography in several school boards and classrooms in Ontario, including the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. It is at this nexus of pedagogical openings in traditional practices, and curricular openings in traditional historical narratives that I place the focus of this research.

This research is focused on the shared lives and stories of the students in Ontario’s public-school classrooms, who are at the receiving end of the curricular and pedagogical work

85

LEARNING TO SETTLE that is being done. As the study of history, geography, and social studies is shifting within the current political and social landscape of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, students are being asked to think about history in personal ways that connect with their interests and diverge from narrow pathways of thinking governed by textbooks and teachers. This context is rich with potential data to understand what effects this is having on students as they are asked to learn

Canadian and Indigenous histories – and the foundational stories of the settler nation-state – in ways that are personally relevant, interesting, and meaningful. The frame of inquiry-based learning allows me as a researcher to dive into the dynamic worlds of students who are not simply responding to hegemonic stories and mythological tales of Canada’s first European settlers but are given at least a small opportunity to frame their study for themselves guided by their experiences and worldviews.

As I proceeded through the research study and data collection, it became clear that students were indeed having dynamic interactions with the curriculum they were encountering in their schools. They responded to the classic tropes of pioneer Canada in ways that were not unexpected, except when they were given opportunities to learn alternative or counter-discourses which challenged white settler exaltation, and which promoted the resilience, strength, and importance of Indigenous communities. Students in this study took up the challenge to develop their own inquiry questions in varying ways, and when given the opportunity to work together on a project of interest to them they expressed their complex and nuanced ideas and viewpoints confidently. Inquiry-based learning in this context provided the opportunity for students to go beyond what is in the textbook and beyond what the teacher has told them, making new knowledge accessible to the children in the classroom and acceptable in their discussions. How this was taken up by the students in this study is discussed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

86

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Using the literature described in this chapter and relying on the theoretical framework discussed in chapter 2, I focus my attention next onto the problem of how I can access the lived experiences, figured worlds, and identities-in-practice of students in two Hamilton-area elementary schools. The theoretical frames of settler colonialism and figured worlds, and the context of settler colonial curricula in elementary school classrooms play important roles in guiding the methodological considerations discussed in the following chapter.

87

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 4: Methodology

The focus of this research is on learning about and understanding the figured worlds of elementary school social studies classrooms, and the ways that students construct and negotiate their identities-in-practice within these worlds. The complexity of this context mirrors the complexity of the methodological considerations for this research study. The first consideration is regarding how I will approach this phenomenon, and how I will understand the problems that are examined. In the preceding three chapters, I have laid out the context and the theoretical lenses for the study: settler colonial theory and figured worlds. These theoretical approaches share an understanding of people as participants in the historical and cultural narratives that surround them and into which they are recruited. The roles that people assume within these narratives are dynamic and fluid, both influenced by the stories that have been told and people who have been here before their arrival, and also changing as people enact their own subjectivities and respond to what they encounter. Both settler colonialism and figured worlds frameworks emphasize the importance of recognizing where people are in relation to the discourses and narratives that surround them and pursuing an understanding of the ways people are enacting powerful roles at the expense of others within these places. A public elementary school classroom in a settler colonial context is a figured world that works to recruits students into specific roles as subjects of a settler colonial state and perpetuates the possibilities of settler futurities on stolen Indigenous land. Using a figured worlds framework to understand the processes of subject-making that are at play in these classrooms allows an investigation into how students understand and respond to the discourses, norms, and narratives of settler colonialism

88

LEARNING TO SETTLE they are learning. This work requires methods and methodology that highlight and uncover the processes of settler subject making at schools.

To understand these dynamics of power, position, identities, roles and relationships in the specific context of this research, I have adopted a post-structural ethnographic research methodology. Traditional ethnographic research contributed greatly to the objectification and domination of the colonial Other that I described above, because of its reliance on the objective observations of the knowing researcher. Post-structural approaches to ethnographic research have turned this notion on its head by emphasizing the subjective position of every person within a research context and the resulting unreliability of one person's observations to fully encapsulate and describe a phenomenon. An ethnographic account is therefore a textual representation of the researcher's subjective understanding of something that they can never have free and complete access to (see for example, Britzman, 1995).

While this does present an insurmountable challenge to researchers who would attempt to write a definitive account of what occurs in a classroom, post-structural ethnographic research is built on the idea that there is no definitive account possible, due to the myth of accurate objective representation and because what occurs within a particular space and time is never fully understood by those who are present and part of that experience. Rather, post-structural ethnographic research seeks to develop an understanding of how subjectivities are constructed and enacted that acknowledges the partiality of this understanding. All classroom research done in a particular place and time will have a distinct incongruity with any other classroom experience, whether it is in a different place or even just in the same place with the same people but at a different time. It will also not be the same research if it’s done by someone else, or by myself at another time. Post-structural thought leaves room for this incongruence but gains

89

LEARNING TO SETTLE credibility by emphasizing the similarities that are present in the experiences of different subjects in different contexts. For example, the work of the post-structural thought leader Michel

Foucault does not represent a complete picture of sexuality or imprisonment (Foucault, 1978,

1979), but instead describes centuries of practices and discourses that show some of the ways we have constructed present-day notions of these things in relation to the past. The importance of this work often lies in the way that it presents alternative stories and narratives of phenomena that highlight the discursive construction of what is often taken-for-granted as factual, natural or true. By adopting a post-structural lens when performing an ethnographic examination of students in school we can begin to see how the figured world is constituted by the subjectivities of student and teacher; knower and learner; settler and native; child and adult; immigrant and

Canadian citizen. We can understand how these subjectivities are constructed and negotiated in ways that re-inscribe or challenge the 'natural' way things are understood to be. In the figured world of a social studies classroom that relies on inquiry-based learning, possibilities exist for students to engage with alternative stories and counter-narratives that challenge the natural conceptions of Canada as a benevolent country with two founding nations that worked alongside

Indigenous peoples in mutually-beneficial ways (see Chapter 5).

Ethnography within a figured worlds framework is a study of social phenomena that relies on my participation in the telling of a story in which I am also an actor playing a role. This type of work has deep roots in the theoretical understanding of figured worlds, which the original authors developed as a result of their research in various social contexts that they observed and participated in: universities, Alcoholics Anonymous, mental illness and its treatment, and rural

Nepalese communities (Holland et al, 1998). In each of these cases, the researchers made recordings of the actions and words that they saw and observed in their interactions with the

90

LEARNING TO SETTLE people that were part of these figured worlds. Alongside transcripts of interviews and focus groups that they conducted, the researchers wrote out their representations of how they understood people to be constructing and negotiating their subjectivities and identities-in- practice within specific figured worlds. In each of these worlds, the researchers were participants who were recruited into particular roles (what it means for a 'researcher' to be present in each world may differ) and also negotiated these roles as they engaged with the storylines, setting, and other characters present.

Other researchers since Holland and her colleagues have used ethnographic methods in meaningful ways to understand several unique figured worlds in educational settings. Each of the following researchers employed ethnographic observation to collect field notes on classroom figured worlds, and several of them also coupled this work with in-depth semi-structured interviews and/or focus groups with some of the participants in their studies. This approach was employed in pre-school and daycare settings (Barron, 2014; Hatt, 2007), through all levels of schooling up to undergraduate classrooms (Chang, 2014; Chang, Welton, Martinez, & Cortez,

2013), pre-service teacher education (J. Y. Ma & Singer-Gabella, 2011; Robinson, 2007; Urrieta

Jr., 2007b), and in-service teacher professional development (Thorius, 2016).

Within elementary and secondary school settings, researchers have used ethnographic methods to investigate language and literacy instruction (Leander, 2002), French immersion classroom identity and language practices (Dagenais et al., 2006), science education and engagement (Carlone et al., 2014; Gonsalves et al., 2013; Price & McNeill, 2013; Sulsberger,

2018; Tan, 2010), mathematics learning for social justice (Esmonde, 2014; Esmonde & Langer-

Osuna, 2013; Langer-Osuna, 2015), student civic engagement (Mayes et al., 2016), gender identity (Roth & Erstad, 2016), and racialized student achievement (Caraballo, 2017; Rubin,

91

LEARNING TO SETTLE

2007). The work of these researchers has guided and informed my methodological considerations for ethnographic investigations of figured worlds described below.

Respecting Relationships with Methodological Considerations

Acknowledging my participation in the figured worlds where I am conducting my research emphasizes the relationality of this research study and the importance of respecting the people who I am in relationship with. Kathleen Absolon (2011) teaches that research is relationship, and that we can only know something through our engagement with others and never on our own. This ethic places an importance on recognizing, valuing, and treating well the students and teachers who are helping me understand the contexts that I am researching. Also, the parents of these children, principals in the schools, and school board personnel are all people with whom I built relationships and am committed to treating with honesty, respect and integrity in all parts of my thesis work.

Respecting these relationships means that I follow the relevant protocols of the

University of Toronto with regards to confidentially in research. Confidentiality was maintained for all participants, with special attention paid to the confidentiality of the students who participated in the research groups and interviews outside of the classroom. While I know firsthand the interest that many teachers have in the opinions and ideas of their students, respecting my relationship with these children required me to refrain from revealing to interested teachers what any specific child had said about their teaching, the classroom, or their learning.

This extends also to my relationship with the teacher I observed in their social studies classroom, and the importance of respecting their confidentiality when I discuss findings with the school board and principals.

92

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Alongside confidentiality, respecting relationships also requires me to consider how my research work is helpful and meaningful to the children, their teachers, and the school board more generally who consented to allow me to conduct my research within their schools. The children who allowed me to play a role in their figured worlds remarked and showed that they enjoyed sharing their thoughts and ideas with an interested adult and were engaged in the process of building ideas together. With the teachers and the school board, my focus on inquiry-based classrooms provided insights into how students understand and think about inquiry-based learning and its application in social studies. This meets a stated goal of the Hamilton-

Wentworth District School Board to perform research that contributes to knowledge about

"inquiry-based learning environments" as well as other less specific aspects of their research priorities.

Finally, I recognize the importance of considering how I represent the actions and words of people in this written thesis and any subsequent publication and presentation. Some trends in critical research, including research about settler colonialism, have placed high value in critique that points fingers at a guilty party. In the work of white researchers and the field of whiteness studies, this can be done through a self-reflexive act of confession that turns into a move-to- innocence (Mawhinney, 1998; Tuck & Yang, 2012) where a researcher moves them self out of the frame of view when critique is leveled at an oppressive system, discourse, or group of people. I can't make this shift because I am an employee of the Hamilton-Wentworth District

School Board, a colleague of its teachers, and a teacher of its students. As such, I am part of the education system that teaches students about social studies and Canadian citizenship while embodying a settler presence in the places that I live and work. These things remain in my mind not because they deny the possibility for me to make critical arguments that challenge hegemonic

93

LEARNING TO SETTLE realities, but because I cannot remove myself from implication in the oppression. It is precisely because I am a teacher with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board that I am most interested in the ways that students construct and negotiate identities-in-practice at school, and I envision having meaningful conversations with people in the school board well beyond the conclusion of this thesis project. They may be difficult conversations for everyone involved, but the goal of this research project is to better understand some of what students experience to help us present alternative narratives of possibility in education as we move forward.

Researching with Children

In Chapter 3 I began to discuss how the work of researching with children provides unique opportunities and challenges that differ from research done with or on adults. In order for me to understand the figured worlds of social studies education, I must pay close attention to the identity formation, discourses of power and privilege, and cultural worlds of children in the classroom. As I was conducting this research, I encountered three specific methodological concerns that were important to consider when researching with children, namely: informed consent, researcher relationship, and incorporating student research perspectives. In the following section I discuss these issues when researching figured worlds, and I explain how I worked through each of these concerns while conducting my research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is often obtained from research participants by having people sign a formal document that lists the structure, objectives, methods, and potential harms of the research plan. After conversations with each of the site school’s principals and classroom teachers, I

94

LEARNING TO SETTLE obtained this formal written consent from each of them (Appendix F). When working with children, this formal consent must be obtained from the parents of the potential participants, and for my study this was completed (Appendix G). However, it was important for me to engage with the child participants themselves to make sure that they were fully informed about the research project and their rights while participating. To do this, I first visited the concerned school and spoke with the whole class about the project, answered any questions they asked, and made myself available for more questions during break time for individual conversations. I discussed the parent consent letter with the children and provided them with a pamphlet of information about the research with age appropriate language.

For the research groups and interviews that I conducted alongside classroom observation,

I sought additional parental consent for the children who wanted to participate, and I asked each child in the groups and interviews to sign an “assent letter” (Appendix H and Appendix I) after having open discussions with the students about what the research groups and interviews entailed. For my classroom observation, I made clear that students had the option to opt-out of any single day of classroom observation if they desired, as well as the option to opt-out of all of the classroom observations. Students could speak with me at any point and ask me to not record any field notes about their actions or words for any period of time. Though no students chose to opt out of my data collection at any point, in this way I was hoping for ongoing consent based on a relationship of trust between the students and me as a researcher.

As a researcher I received a few questioning looks from the students when I repeatedly asked for their consent throughout the research process. The students acted as though they trusted me, seemed to be unconcerned by the potential risks that I described to them, and were aware of their ability to refuse participation at any time. Despite these responses that seemed to

95

LEARNING TO SETTLE decrease the need for ongoing reminders about consent, the process of having the children sign an assent form seemed to lend some weight to the research group meetings in a positive way.

Though I did not ask them to focus their attention on me or to stop an off-topic discussion, students who participated in the research groups reminded each other to sometimes stay on the tasks they had set out for the group and when their peers were perceived to be off-topic, participants often reminded one another of their commitment to do the research work with the group.

The ongoing process of informed consent was valuable to me as a researcher because it helped distinguish my work as a researcher with the students’ regular interactions with teachers and administrators who had power of coercion and discipline that I did not have nor want.

However, my position as an adult in a school did present important considerations for me as I worked with the students, and these are discussed below.

Researcher Relationship

As an adult in an elementary school, my stature and age automatically remove the possibility of blending in with the community of children with whom I was researching. In addition, the principals of the schools and the students’ teachers demonstrated obvious respect for me in front of the students when they introduced me to the classes with whom I was researching. These two factors, when present in a social community where many adults hold disciplinary power over children, had the potential to alter the researcher-student relationship in negative ways that would affect my access to the lived experiences and figured worlds of students. In addition, I had worked occasionally as a supply teacher in some classes in North

School several months prior to beginning the research group with fifth-grade students, and so

96

LEARNING TO SETTLE there was a greater imperative to distinguish my role as a researcher from that of a teacher. These factors are representative of what other researchers have encountered when concerned with power and discourse while researching with children (O’Kane, 2008).

In light of these challenges there were several ways I sought to build meaningful research relationships with the students in this research project. In my dress and demeanor, I chose to present myself as someone without the traditional authority of a teacher, and I spoke with the students as though they were my peers, instead of using my well-practiced “teacher voice”.

Students were introduced to me with my first name, and even the participants at North School who may have seen me previously in the building as “Mr. Sinke”, were encouraged to call me by my first name if they wanted to. Indeed, during research group meetings, if a student in this group called me “Mr. Sinke”, another would remind the speaker that they can call me Mark.

There were also regular occasions when students and participants would ask me to grant permission for them to do something as a teacher would (visiting the washroom, etc.) and my response would either be to ask their teacher if we were in class, or that they could do as they pleased during our research groups.

One final dynamic that is indicative of the researcher relationship challenge that I faced during this work surrounded the regulation of behaviour that I observed in the classroom or research groups that teachers may not approve of. One student in the class at South School consistently looked at me as he was playing a game on an iPad that was hidden in his desk away from the teacher’s gaze. Initially the student may have been checking to see how I would react, and when I made eye contact but gave no reaction when observing his breaking of classroom rules, his trust of my role as a researcher grew. This was demonstrated by others in the class as I spent more time in the classroom, and students made fewer efforts to hide their “forbidden”

97

LEARNING TO SETTLE actions such as playing with toys, writing notes, telling secrets, sharing jokes, reading books, or drawing pictures. In some cases, students would invite me to participate in jokes or playing with a Rubik’s cube during class time, indicating their awareness that I was not acting in the role of a teacher. During class time I would excuse myself from participating by making myself busy writing my field note observations, but before and after each class period during which I was observing, I spent time socializing with the students in informal ways that also demonstrated that

I was an adult with a role distinct from the roles of the other adults in the school.

Incorporating Student Research Perspectives

The dynamics that were at play during our research group meetings at the two schools provided another instance where my approach to researching with children had a direct impact on how I related to the student-participants. Rather than focus on the students as the ‘objects’ of my research, I was interested in working with them to uncover the aspects of their figured worlds that are at play in the classroom as they learn about social studies. I have stated above how I am committed in my work to make my research helpful and meaningful to the students who shared their time and space with me, and one of the ways I sought to do this was by providing room for the research group conversations and projects to fulfill the desires and goals of the student participants while also fulfilling my goals for the research. Farmer and Cepin refer to this methodological approach as “enabling methods”, which refer to “research and tools that young participants could confidently ‘make their own,’ that is, methodological approaches that would enable young participants to engage with research in ways they would find meaningful” (Farmer

& Cepin, 2015, p. 3). By committing myself to the ethical choice of valuing the work of the student-participants, and not simply the answers to my pre-determined questions, I opened the

98

LEARNING TO SETTLE research groups to the input and interests of the students as they participated in making these groups meaningful for me as a researcher and for them as co-constructors of the knowledge that the groups produced. Thus, I was and am committed to “understanding a shared world from different social locations and building shared knowledge on particular issues affecting [these] young people’s lives” (Farmer & Cepin, 2015, p. 3).

For the research groups that I organized in South School and North School, I began by discussing the context of academic research that this study came from and introduced them to the idea of a research study that produces knowledge which is shared through presentations, papers, and a thesis. From here I introduced my own background that made me interested in the topic of social studies education and Indigenous histories and asked them to share their backgrounds and interests with me. Once this first meeting was concluded, the subsequent research groups were open conversations where I asked the students to talk to me about their thoughts on social studies generally and their classroom experiences specifically. As these conversations built on one another, I asked the students if there were any questions or work that they wanted to engage with during the research groups that we could work on together, and for both groups at South School, the students conceived of a project that they could present to their families at the school Open

House. These projects became a central point of our time together in research groups and were created and led by the student participants.

My commitment to ‘enabling methods’ required me to refrain from guiding or structuring the work in a way that would suit my needs and pre-planned research goals, and as a result the two projects from the groups at South School had varying degrees of relevance for my overall research question. Group 1 chose to focus on incorporating the lessons they learned from a visiting speaker to their class into a poster board presentation on treaties and their message for

99

LEARNING TO SETTLE children today. Group 2 chose to develop a video presentation of their ideas of “The Greatest

Social Studies Unit Ever!” that could incorporate pedagogical and curricular considerations that the students deemed valuable and interesting. The research group at North School met a fewer number of times overall due to the fact that I was able to gather informed consent from the students and parents near the end of the school year and decided to work on a long tapestry-like picture that they created using their own perspectives on the ways they experienced inquiry- based learning in social studies classrooms. In all cases our research group meetings were fruitful times of mutually enriching cooperation between me as an adult researcher, and the students as investigators of issues that were relevant to them.

Sites of Research

The data for this research study were collected at two elementary schools in the

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board around the city of Hamilton, Ontario. After receiving approval from the school board to conduct my research study, I sent information letters to several principals of schools that were referred to me as possible sites of research by the research department of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, as well as to principals of schools that were known for incorporating inquiry-based learning and were recommended to me by teachers and principals that I knew in the school board. Through this open-ended method,

I received responses from several principals who said they were interested in the work but declined due to a busy school life at the moment, and I also received two positive responses from interested principals. After meeting with the principals of these two schools (which I call South

School and North School) and discussing these options with my thesis supervisor, I went forward with my research at these two schools.

100

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The two schools that were selected as sites for this research are from geographically and socially distinct regions of the city of Hamilton and have student populations that are remarkably dissimilar. South School is from the ‘Upper City’, on the upper portion of the Niagara

Escarpment (discussed in Chapter 1), and North School is from the ‘Lower City” between the

Niagara Escarpment and Lake Ontario. This geographic difference results in a much higher density of households in the catchment area of South School than North School, and also a host of demographic differences between the communities surrounding the schools2.

The community surrounding South School is documented to have: a higher than average number of families with two parents; higher levels of education; higher income levels per family; a higher rate of employment; and more and larger parks and natural space than the rest of the city of Hamilton. In addition, the migrant community in the community surrounding South School is largely Western European, and there is a smaller percentage of visible minorities in the community than the rest of the city. In contrast, the community surrounding North School is documented to have more unemployment, more lone-parent families, a larger population of visible minorities, higher rates of mobility, lower levels of income, and lower levels of education than the rest of the city2.

These two communities represent some of the distinctions in the city and urban region of

Hamilton that make it a dynamic place for conducting research on the differences in how students take up settler colonial narratives of exalted settler identities, marginalized Indigenous

Natives, and exploited exogenous others when learning about Indigenous and Canadian histories.

The physical and cultural locations of the schools where I conducted my research provided

2 All data were gathered from Hamilton City Hall Ward Profiles, available at https://www.hamilton.ca/city- initiatives/strategies-actions/ward-profiles. Specific numbers and references have been withheld to protect confidentiality. 101

LEARNING TO SETTLE different contexts within which children may construct and negotiate their relations to the land, history, and people differently. I was interested in examining how the factors of migration, ethnic diversity, and poverty affected the ways students engaged with social studies learning in their classrooms, and so moved forward with research at these two sites.

Methods of Data Collection

The data for this research study were collected in three different ways: classroom observations, small research groups, and interviews with students. The majority of the data for this project were collected from South School, where I built relationships with the students and staff of the school as a visiting researcher and where I held and maintained no position of authority throughout the process of data collection. Because of this dynamic, I was able to observe a Grades 4/5 split class as the students went through a unit of study in the Social Studies curriculum that was focused on inquiry-based learning as a tool for investigation. The unit that I observed was focused on Early Civilizations for the Grade 4 students, and Early Settlers and

First Nations in New France for the Grade 5 students.

At North School I had held a position of authority as a teacher at different times over the previous two years, and the students had a pre-existing understanding of me as an occasional teacher in their school. I did not pursue a similar course of data collection through classroom observations because in my opinion the pre-existing relationship with both the students and the

Grade 5 classroom teachers would alter the dynamics of ethnographic observations in important and meaningful ways. I was familiar with the social studies inquiry-based unit on Early Settlers and First Nations in New France that the students had undertaken in the fifth-grade class at North

School. Throughout the unit I had been invited by both the teacher and their students to visit the

102

LEARNING TO SETTLE classroom and hear about the work they had been doing. The teacher also invited me to take photographs of the bulletin boards in the classroom that showed the different inquiry questions that the students had sought answers to during the unit of study. These photographs provided me with in-depth background knowledge of the classroom experiences of the students who participated in the focus groups but were not used as data for this study. Several students in this class at North School expressed interest in taking part in a research group, and six students obtained formal written parental consent to join the group. This group of students met together during nutrition breaks over a three-week period for four sessions and the audio-recorded conversations produced rich data relevant to my research questions. This group did not develop a specific research project for themselves to undertake because we were approaching the end of the school year. Instead their discussions focused specifically on the inquiry process of learning in social studies, and the dynamics that occur when this pedagogical method is used in the context of learning difficult histories.

The data that were collected for this study are the following: from South School I collected: 1) observation notes from 25 class periods, 2) audio recordings from eight sessions of

Research Group 1 and seven sessions of Research Group 2, 3) individual interviews with four students about their projects. To add to the data that was collected at South School, from North

School I collected audio recordings from four sessions of Research Group 3 that were supplemented by background information gained from photographs of classroom bulletin boards showing the students’ inquiry projects.

Observations of Classroom Figured Worlds

103

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Though the contested natures of observation and representation were mentioned earlier in this chapter, classroom observation has the potential to provide valuable insights into the ways students enact identities-in-practice at school. Deborah Britzman argues in her work on post- structural ethnography that for researchers using this approach, "being there does not guarantee access to the truth" (Britzman, 1995, p. 232). What participant observation does open, however, is access to a realm of representation that allows a researcher to write down (through field notes) what they observe and hear participants doing and saying. The representation that these notes

(and the researcher's memory) produce does not aim to be a true account of what occurs but is instead an insight into how an observer may see what is going on. Through observation in post- structural ethnographic examination of figured worlds, I am not able to observe the reasons why someone might choose some inquiry questions over others, but I do observe the discourses that are at work in the classroom and the ways that people are enacting their identities-in-practice.

The teacher's motivation for encouraging a student to pursue one path or another ultimately remains effectually a mystery for me as an observer, but the practices that are part of their interactions with their students are legitimate embodied expressions of that motivation even if they contradict what the teacher intended. Through observation, I can see and hear what is going on in the classroom and use my recorded representations of those events and conversations as insights into how a character in that figured world might enact their role within the narrative that is at play.

Rubin’s (2007) work on the figured worlds of student achievement bore resemblance to my work in that the author was interested in the lived experiences of students in the context of broader discourses. Classroom observation was therefore focused on the daily lived experiences

104

LEARNING TO SETTLE of students because it shed light on the impact of the institutional context on the lives of people for whom the context was intended to serve. Rubin writes:

Although the focus [of the work] is on daily classroom life, broader school and societal patterns of racial and socioeconomic inequality framed the discourses, practices, categories and interactions of this setting. This analysis foregrounds the former, while acknowledging the significance of the latter. As such, most of the data selected for this analysis are from classroom observations and student and teacher reflections on daily classroom life, rather than data regarding the larger structures surrounding these daily interactions (e.g. federal policies, state mandated testing, urban poverty). (Rubin, 2007, p. 225)

Rejecting the notion that my presence in a classroom can be as an objective observer allowed me to freely (and carefully) engage with the students while they are going about their work. As an observer-researcher in the classroom I remained to the side and rear of the classroom as teacher-led instruction was occurring, making notes about what I was able to observe and notice even when it was something that the teacher may not have seen themselves.

When it was appropriate, and after discussing this with the teachers and students, I would circulate through the room as students engaged in their inquiry process. Through years of experience working and volunteering in many different classrooms, I was confident in my ability to engage with students who instigate conversations while not diverting them from their task at hand for any significant period of time. My presence of course did not go unnoticed but did remain peripheral to the work of the students and teacher. I was a participant in the figured world of their classroom, and my presence had an effect on the rest of the people in that world with me, but this reality benefited the research work as the students were more willing to explain what they were doing when they knew a researcher was interested in their ideas and the specifics of their work. Researchers who have done classroom observations such as this in the past have been able to produce wonderfully rich accounts of what they observed while also being a visible and

105

LEARNING TO SETTLE meaningful presence who engaged with the students during the research (see for example,

Cairns, 2011).

Research Groups with Young Students

In addition to what I was able to observe and record from my time spent in the classroom,

I also invited students to be part of a small research group to help provide additional information and dialogue about what goes on in the inquiry-based social studies contexts. The rationale for this approach relies on the narrowness of what I saw and recorded as a researcher in a narrative representation of what I observed. The resulting field notes are enriched, changed, challenged or explained through meaningful conversations with students outside of the instructional time. To that end I spent up to 15 minutes of each small group meeting asking students to talk about their time in the class and if they had any thoughts about what happened in class, about their own inquiry projects, or about the social studies topics in general.

Small research groups may be a figured world that is unfamiliar to most of the students, but I introduced and structured the groups as a conversation about what we did together in social studies to provide the opportunity for them to share their thoughts about a familiar and shared experience. Students in a group were able to respond to one another and engage in discursive practices that are different than those achieved in a one-to-one interview due to the collective nature of the group. The focus group setting also provided an opportunity for the students to share things with me that would not have been observable in the classroom setting because of the presence of the teacher, the time constraints and expectations to produce meaningful work, the number of people in the class, or any number of other factors that constrain what goes on in class. By discussing with students what they think, feel, see, hear, and understand about the

106

LEARNING TO SETTLE classroom figured world, I was able to gain more insight into how they negotiate and construct their identities-in-practice beyond what I could see them do and hear them say.

Each focused research group was made up of six children from the same class who had responded to my request for participants, have been given permission by their parents, and who I thought would be able to work well with the other members of the group. In South School there were twelve students who expressed interest, so I asked each potential member if there were other students they really wanted to be in a group with, or any students they would not work well with, and then divided the students into two groups of 6 where each participant had a trusted friend with them in the group. The groups were held during the nutrition breaks in the middle of the school day when the students could eat their lunch and not miss any class time. Each group therefore lasted for forty minutes, and the students could come and go as they pleased within the rules of the broader school.

During each research group meeting, I audio recorded the conversations and later transcribed the recordings for analysis. In addition to using these transcripts for analysis, I made occasional field notes that recorded information about what the students were doing that might not be picked up by the audio recorder. These notes included relevant body language, facial expressions and activity that were not part of the audio recording but did make up important aspects of how the students expressed themselves in the group (playing with toys, writing on the board, drawing etc.). While this function could have been somewhat served if I had used video recordings rather than audio recordings, video is a more intrusive method of collecting data, and

I anticipated that the number of students involved would increase the likelihood that parents or students would object to video recordings and as a result deny the opportunity for a child to be part of a group.

107

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The groups at South School met with me over a period of four weeks, for a total of eight times for the first group and seven times for the second group. During the first 20 minutes, as the students ate their lunches, I asked the participants to discuss the learning and study they were doing in the social studies unit that I was observing, and to provide their thoughts, ideas, and perspectives on both the content of the units of study and the process of study that they were going through. After this discussion was finished, we spent the last half of each group meeting discussing the process of educational research and coming up with a small focused topic for the group to think about and develop meaningful and relevant questions that they could try to answer together. This process was especially informative for me as a researcher about the ways the participants chose to engage with the topics that came up during social studies class or focused on particular aspects of social studies education and not on others. Because the goal of the groups was to work with the students and understand the topics from their perspectives and in dialogue with them, and due to the work they did asking and answering questions about topics that were of interest to them and relevant to their classroom work, I labeled these small focused group sessions “research groups”. I did this to accurately reflect the work that we as groups were doing together, and to bring the ethics of “enabling methods” (Farmer & Cepin, 2015) into the small groups with the students. As a result, each research group at South School developed a mutually agreed upon question to investigate and a product that represented their discussions during the last half of our research group meetings. The students decided to share these products with visitors to their classroom during the school open house that occurred after the conclusion of our research groups. Research group 1 chose to build on what they had learned from a guest speaker in their classroom and made a large poster that focused on treaty teachings from the

Taiohate Kaswenta Two-Row Wampum Belt about friendship, respect, and trust between

108

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous Canadians. Research group 2 developed an iMovie video focused on their ideas about developing the best ways to learn about social studies and engage students with fun and interesting pedagogical approaches. These products, and the discussions the students had when preparing them, are both valuable data that highlight the students’ perspectives of the topics discussed.

The research group that I organized at North School had all six interested members of the fifth-grade classroom that had worked through inquiry projects on the social studies unit that covered Early Settlers and First Nations in New France. Because I did not conduct classroom observation in their classroom, I asked the students to share their perspectives and reflections on the completed unit and their own inquiry projects. In addition, the students chose to have group discussions about the topics they had covered in their unit regarding conflict and community and held very interesting conversations about newcomers to Canada, living well together, and learning about difficult histories. During the group time, the students chose to use a large roll of paper and markers that I had brought with me to draw and write out some of their ideas, but there was no organized open house or similar event at North School, for which a project could be developed like there was with Research Groups 1 and 2 at South School.

Interviews with Young Students

Research groups and observations provided me with rich data for analysis about the figured worlds of inquiry-based learning in social studies classrooms, but the collective nature of both of these phenomena had the potential to limit how some students may have acted or expressed themselves. To address this possibility, and to gather additional data around student experiences, I asked each student in the research groups if they would like to conduct an

109

LEARNING TO SETTLE individual interview with me to talk about social studies, and about their personal inquiry project that they completed in class. Four students asked to have an individual interview with me, and the opportunity allowed each of these students to speak with me as a researcher independently from their peers and teacher. These individual interviews gave me the opportunity to ask students specifically about their own experiences in the classroom and go into more depth with them about how they made decisions about their inquiry project.

Over the course of the social studies unit, students had developed an inquiry question relevant to the topic of study and created a poster presentation with the information they had gathered about their inquiry questions. After the students completed their independent inquiry projects during class time, I interviewed four of the students in Grade 5 about their projects. The interviews were short (under 15 minutes each) and provided me with specific and focused details about how and why the students developed the inquiry questions that they chose, and how they went through the process of putting together information for their poster presentation. This focused interview allowed me to understand some of the ways the figured world of the classroom is specifically experienced by one person who plays a particular role and negotiates the storyline that I had previously observed and discussed in the focus groups. These interviews were also audio recorded and transcribed.

Analysis

Following the completion of data collection, I transcribed the audio recordings from the research groups and individual interviews and converted my field notes from my hand-written notebook into text documents on the computer. This wealth of data included my personal reflections and descriptions of classroom figured worlds, student reflections and conversations in

110

LEARNING TO SETTLE research groups and interviews, and conversations about co-developed research inquiries that the students in the research groups completed with me.

Employing a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; A. L. Strauss, 1987; A.

L. Strauss & Corbin, 1990), I read through the written transcripts of the data, and began to develop categories and codes about the figured worlds of the classrooms and research groups that were evident in data based on the research questions of the broader project. Initial coding was descriptive in nature, and after becoming more familiar with all the data at hand, I began organizing the descriptive codes into theoretical categories about discourse, norms, narratives, storylines, characters, and interactions. Understanding that multiple figured worlds exist in various places and times, I looked at each research group as a distinct figured world with similar yet separate characters and discourses, and the classroom observations as descriptive of a unique figured world focused around social studies learning in the context of broader educational norms, practices and discourses. The resulting themes and categories provided insightful glimpses of the figured worlds of the classroom as children learn about social studies, and how they are positioned and act out identities-in-practice around Indigenous and Canadian history.

The initial coding of the data emphasised how students were generally learning to adopt narratives of Indigenous and Canadian histories that were based in settler colonial tropes, and more in-depth coding on this theme identified several ways that students were using these tropes and normative discourses. It became clear that the main source of the students’ settler understandings of the time period they studied were the discourses they learned at school and through their personal research conducted as part of their inquiry studies in class. However, I saw in the data some of the ways students also discussed counter-narratives that they learned from their parents or outside of the school context. When analyzing how the students adopted

111

LEARNING TO SETTLE ideas and took up seemingly inconsistent perspectives, I recognized themes in the data about the students’ identities-in-practice and noticed that students were not tied to identity categories that directed how they thought and spoke about the topics at hand, such as ally, settler, and newcomer. Instead, students took up different positions in the figured worlds of the classroom and research groups that allowed them to learn information about Indigenous and Canadian histories that they adopted into their framework of understanding, and from which they would readily engage in discussions about the effects of settler colonialism and possible pathways to reconciliation in interesting and dynamic ways.

Throughout the next three chapters, I will describe and discuss these findings that were revealed during analysis of the large amount of data that the methodology discussed in this chapter yielded. Throughout the following three chapters there are numerous excerpts from the recorded transcripts of interviews and research groups as well as my ethnographic observation notes. The data recorded in my observation notes include descriptions of movements, facial expressions, and body language that I could record while observing the students and teacher in their classroom. These narrative elements are included in the excerpts from my observation notes when they were originally included in my notes during data collection. The excerpts written in the next three chapters that were from research groups and interviews were written from audio recordings that most often were not accompanied by descriptive notes, and so are most often written in a didactic style that represents the words spoken on the audio recording without descriptive elements. Each of the excerpts included below are discussed and analyzed to indicate how they help answer the research questions of this thesis, and point to the ways student figure the worlds of social studies learning in settler colonial school contexts.

112

LEARNING TO SETTLE

In the final chapter of this thesis, I will also discuss some of the limitations of the methodology and the blind spots in the research process that I was not able to access due to methodological choices. The implications of these limitations are important to consider when examining the possibilities for extending the findings beyond the research context, and yet it becomes clear throughout the remainder of this thesis that the figured worlds of the classrooms and research grounds in this study revealed rich and dynamic understandings about how students learn to be in relationship with history, land, and people around them.

113

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 5: Taking Up and Responding to Settler Colonial Tropes and Indigenous Histories

When scholars, politicians, and educators talk and write about settler colonialism and

Indigeneity they employ a complex and ever-changing vocabulary. Often people use broad social categories to differentiate between identities that are framed by specific markers that are relevant and salient to the person discussing the topic. As a result, dichotomies are employed to describe people as, for example: either Indigenous or settler, an ally or someone who is not, a migrant or a colonizer, etc. These characterizations are also often framed around historical, political, racial, and social distinctions that have been used by powerful state actors to eliminate and subjugate non-dominant groups and people (Lawrence & Dua, 2005), and the complexity of labels such as

“settler”, “allies”, “accomplices”, “migrants”, “visitors”, “newcomers” and “guests” have been discussed and critiqued at length by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and activists

(Carroll, 2019; El-Sherif & Sinke, 2018; Koleszar-Green, 2018; Lawrence & Dua, 2005; Miller,

2018; Sefa Dei, 2014; Simpson, 2005).

For the majority of the students in this study, however, these categories were not produced nor taken up by the children themselves as they learned about Canadian and

Indigenous histories, nor did they employ these categories as salient or relevant to their lives when they encountered these discourses in their studies. The figured worlds of the classroom as students studied Canadian and Indigenous histories were not framed around identity categories.

The students discussed the stories of Indigenous presence and European settlement using broadly descriptive concepts that were based in limited understandings of traditional settler colonial narratives. They also did not link these historical narratives to specific identity categories or framing social constructions that are pertinent in adult cultural discourses. How students describe

114

LEARNING TO SETTLE and delineate their understandings of settlerhood and Indigeneity, and their conceptions of the relationships between these two things are the themes of this chapter.

In this chapter I describe the figured worlds of the classroom and research groups as students discuss Indigeneity and settlerhood, highlighting how the participants engage with and understand the discourses of settler colonialism that they encounter in various parts of their lives.

These figured worlds are constituted with features that are importantly distinct from the way adults in Canadian mainstream settler society discuss settler colonialism and. Detailing the characters, norms, and discourses in these figured worlds provides the background for analyzing how students are building identities-in-practice that they carry with them inside and outside of the classroom.

The figured worlds of school classrooms are populated by discourses of Indigeneity and settler Canada that are framed by the student’s limited knowledge and understandings of the topic. The data and findings discussed below shed light on these figured worlds by answering three questions: What do students understand about Canadian and Indigenous histories, where do students say they have gained these understandings, and what are their understandings of the importance of settler and Indigenous relations? Using these questions to guide my discussion, I analyze how these figured worlds tell us about the limits and opportunities of schooling for educating children towards reconciliation and meaningful relationality with others on Turtle

Island.

In response to the first question about how students figured Indigenous and Canadian histories and relationships, I find that student experiences were populated with discourses of settler colonialism which were used to understand Indigenous peoples historically and in the present day. There were four major ways this was clear in the data. Firstly, when they discussed

115

LEARNING TO SETTLE the historical relationships and interactions between Indigenous peoples and European settlers, students talked about mostly peaceful experiences of trade and cultural exchange. Secondly, they employed the idea of a North American wilderness inhabited by relatively “primitive”

Indigenous peoples, which was “civilized” by settlers who built the country that Canada is today.

Thirdly, when the students discussed their understandings of Indigenous peoples since the time of early colonization, they generally spoke with another settler colonial frame which relegates

Indigenous peoples to the past, or as frozen in time and living as people did centuries ago.

Finally, students discussed Indigenous groups with a limited awareness of the diversity of

Indigenous nations and cultures, and often students collapsed all Indigenous peoples into a single monolithic group. In each of these four ways, the students in this study generally employed settler colonial discourses to understand and discuss Indigenous peoples, histories, and nations.

When analyzing these predominant narratives and discourses within the figured worlds of the research groups and classrooms, I argue that students generally hold understandings of

Indigenous peoples and histories that are settler colonial in nature and effect. They figure

Indigenous peoples to be a monolithic, simplistic, and primitive group of people before European settlers came, and they view the period of early colonization as a time of cooperation and trade marred by some unfortunate negative events. Because of these beliefs, the students view present- day Indigenous peoples as being a mostly homogenous group of people who are a relic of the past and who serve to remind non-Indigenous Canadians of how life used to be.

In the second section of this chapter, I respond to the question that asks where are students learning and taking up the conceptions of Indigeneity and settler-Canada that they employ in their figured worlds? It becomes clear in the data that most students talked about learning about Indigenous and Canadian history as part of their school curriculum and

116

LEARNING TO SETTLE experiences. The figured worlds of school classrooms are where students have either their only or their most significant pedagogical experiences involving Indigenous peoples and Canadian colonization. Students learn about this topic explicitly in Grade 3 and Grade 5, but even after completing those units of study, the students’ knowledge is still generally characterized by the discourses that have served for over a century as part of Canadian educational curricula to eliminate Indigeneity and propagate false narratives about settler society. These narratives were introduced and perpetuated both during the Grade 5 unit of study that was the context of my research, but also explicitly during a social studies unit in Grade 3 which often included a field trip to a re-creation of an “Iroquoian Village” at a local Conservation Area. The formal study of the topic at school was described by many students as either the only or the most significant learning experiences they had about Indigeneity and settler-Canada. A limited number of students also spoke about their experiences learning from adults outside of the school environment, either in their home or at summer camp. These students talked about learning about the exploitation of Indigenous peoples and lands by settler governments, or the strength and value of Indigenous cultures and communities. These ideas contradicted settler colonial norms and gave the students new ways of talking about Indigenous-settler relations. This finding provides an entry point into the third section of this chapter, which examines how students connect to and challenge the settler-dominant themes of their figured worlds.

In answering the third question of this chapter, regarding the commitment and relationship students have to the normative discourses of their figured worlds, it became clear that the participants were not uniformly taking up settler colonial frames of reference in their work. While the dominance and pervasiveness of settler colonialism in pubic education is not a new discovery, the students in this study also pointed to a few of the openings in their

117

LEARNING TO SETTLE experiences through which counter-narratives began to influence their understandings. They were not singularly tied to settler colonial frames of reference and at times they took opportunities to challenge these frames and stretch their own understanding beyond normative settler colonial understandings. This occurred when they learned from their parents, through other pedagogical experiences outside of schooling, or in some limited ways at their schools.

During the social studies inquiry unit, students found opportunities to study topics or ideas that were interesting to them and either subtly or overtly undermined settler colonial hegemonic discourses. This occurred when students had meaningful pedagogical experiences either at school or outside of school, such as: learning from an Indigenous guest speaker in their classroom or at a summer camp, or when a trusted adult shone light on the effects of Canadian governmental policies on Indigenous communities. Students in this project’s research groups were also given opportunities to talk about treaty relationships and the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission, and this experience worked to shape their growing understanding of the topics.

As their knowledge and understanding were expanded, several students took advantage of the opportunities they saw to challenge normative settler ideas, and they began to describe

Indigenous-settler relations in more complex and nuanced ways. Participants also learned to challenge the ideas of settler colonialism when their parents explicitly shared perspectives that were contrary to what they had learned in school. I argue that these experiences were meaningful for students in this study because the students were positioning themselves as learners and were open to gaining a more complex and nuanced understanding of Canadian and Indigenous histories. When they were given the opportunity to expand their schema of understanding in the presence of a trusted adult educator, the pedagogical experiences were meaningful for the

118

LEARNING TO SETTLE students and they were willing to discuss counter-narratives to the norms they had previously thought to be true.

As the data in this chapter are presented and discussed, I draw links between the findings that I have analyzed from the data and discuss their implications for educators and policy makers who are interested in the area of elementary schooling and reconciliation. The significance of the findings is summarized again at the end of the chapter, and I point to the complexities of the student’s conceptions of Indigeneity and education as they define barriers and challenges for educators moving forwards and also highlight opportunities for growth and change.

Student Conceptions of Indigeneity and Settler Canada

In this section of the study findings, I begin with a discussion about how students figured their understandings of Indigeneity and settler Canada. As all the students who participated in interviews and research groups for this study self identified as non-Indigenous, these findings produce a picture of the ways some non-Indigenous students in Hamilton public elementary schools articulate their understandings of who Indigenous people and groups are, and how they understand the historical and contemporary relationships between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous peoples on the region of Turtle Island the students live in and learn about. As will become clear throughout this section, very few students in this study think about Indigeneity in any contemporary sense, and fewer yet have a conception of the ongoing fraught relationships between the Canadian settler state (or Canadians generally) and Indigenous people. For example, when I asked the students in Research Group 3 about connecting their social studies learning to the present day and local region where they live, they had trouble doing so, as evidenced here:

I asked the students to share their thoughts on the importance of local history, “What about in this area around us? Are there any connections with our local area?”

119

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Libyan Warrior responded, “I know that there are people that speak a lot of French,

‘cause [sic] I guess their native area is France or something like that, but I don’t know anything else about it.”

I focused my question, “What about First Nations?”

There was silence in the circle and a long pause as the students thought to themselves.

Libyan Warrior spoke first once again, “I know they live around the Great Lakes.”

“Maybe close to the Great Lakes”, Thing 1 added.

Libyan Warrior continued, “I don't have much to say about them.”

(Research Group 3 Session 3)

The next session with that same research group revealed a similar inability on the part of the students to identify specifics about local Indigenous groups or nations:

I asked the students to share any specific knowledge that they had, “Do you know what the local First Nations group is called?”

“No,” answered Saudi Cipher, and Libyan Warrior echoed that sentiment, “I have no idea.”

I specifically asked, “Have you head about the Six Nations?”

Saudi Cipher spoke up “Yeah, I've heard of them1” and I continued, “the Haudenosaunee?”

Libyan Warrior thought for a moment and shrugged, “Well, I know of the Six Nations.”

(Research Group 3 Session 4)

Without an understanding of the ongoing presence of Indigenous Nations on their lands and throughout the regions where Canadian students are learning, it is impossible for these students to make meaningful connections between their study of history and ongoing settler colonial realities. The students are unable to relate the stories of history to ongoing realities around them or draw links between the places and groups studied in social studies classes and the landscapes

120

LEARNING TO SETTLE and peoples they have firsthand experiences with outside of the classroom. Practically, the stories have little relevance and meaning for the students, and the participants limited understandings echo Susan Dion’s notions of the “perfect stranger” (Dion, 2007) discussed in

Chapter 2. Though Dion’s work focused on teachers, the notion is the same as with the students in this study: that non-Indigenous Canadians are able to keep Indigenous peoples at a distance due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, and so there is no need for either responsibility or relationship. For the students in this study, as for the teachers described in Dion’s work,

Indigenous peoples and perspectives are treated as topics of study with little relevance to the lives of non-Indigenous settlers.

When students in this study did express some knowledge of the effects of settler colonialism) they shared with me that this knowledge came from one of two places. In the first case, students reflected on a specific book that their classroom teacher chose to read that highlighted the difficulties experienced by Indigenous peoples during early settler expansion, and in the second case, the participants discussed how their parents had explicitly underscored the parallels between the struggles of Indigenous peoples in Canada under colonialism and the struggles of subaltern populations globally that the individual families were part of or felt strong connection with. The following sections emphasize how students expressed their understanding about Indigeneity in the past and the present in the world around them, and how the students described their prior learning about Indigeneity and the effects of settler colonialism.

Learning About Pioneer Tropes

When the students described what they knew about Indigenous nations and peoples it became clear that most of their knowledge was based on problematic classic pioneer tropes of

121

LEARNING TO SETTLE explorers and friendly natives drawn from colonial narratives of peaceful settlement and cooperation (Donald, 2011; Freeman, 2010; Hiebert, 2014). As the literature suggests, these narratives were prevalent in the textbook that the students were using titled, “Canada Revisited:

Aboriginal Peoples and European Explorers” (Arnold & Gibbs, 1999), and it was a dominant theme in the figured world of the social studies classroom; as when given the choice of inquiry topics, students chose to study the great accomplishments of several European explorers. The students described how they chose their topics for inquiry based on the books and resources that were available at hand for them to use at the school, as Jack, Fireball, and Swag all noted in their one-on-one interviews. This finding is consistent with the theoretical framework that gave context and direction to this study, as the textbooks and resources that are available in public schools have been found to clearly describe the imagination of a nation and official narratives of the nation-state (Silova, Mead, Yaqub, & Palandjian, 2014).

An example of the pioneer tropes that were prevalent in the figured worlds of the research groups comes from a discussion that the students had in Research Group 3. After discussing with the students their own national and cultural backgrounds, I asked the group if they remember learning about the local Indigenous nations and people at school. Their responses indicated the typical narratives of pioneer tropes, with some hints towards a more critical understanding (which I discuss in detail in Chapter 6):

After pouring over the world map, and adding stickers to the map in places that are important to each of the students, I shifted the topic of conversation to social studies, “Even though we're from all these places, from Fiji to Saudi Arabia, do you guys in school, have you learned anything about the people who are Indigenous to this place?”

Various students gave short responses, “Uh huh”, “Yeah”, and I prodded for some more information, asking, “What kind of stuff did you learn?”

Vienna spoke first and said, “Um, we learned about um, coureurs des bois, and how they came over to Canada and they tried to make friends with the nations, just to take like the beaver fur and that stuff.”

122

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Opasinger then picked up the thread and continued the conversation, “Yeah, they married some of the ladies, um, to get beaver fur, because back then beaver fur was the big thing, so they would sell it and everything else, so they wanted that.”

Vienna continued, “I remember that the French came to um, I forget what they're called, those people, they came to the First Nations and they learned stuff from them. They learned, like, how to build canoes and…” Saudi Cipher jumped in as Vienna’s voice trailed off, “...Igloos to defend themselves from the weather because they were not very normal to that, they weren't used to it.”

(Research Group 3 Session 1)

The narratives that these students shared about their understanding of local Indigenous peoples were framed by historical understandings of Indigeneity. The students described the period of early colonization with basic pioneer narratives of collaboration and cooperation between European settlers and Indigenous peoples and conflated their knowledge of the coureurs des bois and fur trade with Indigeneity. These topics are connected historically and in the national imagination, but the students’ understandings of Indigeneity in their region of the country is limited in this discussion to pioneer tropes of the fur trade and historical Indigenous presence really only existing in their conceptions prior to the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into the advancing settler societies.

One theme of the classic pioneer tropes that was observed in the data from this study is the idea that continual and ongoing Indigenous presence was unsophisticated in its organization and insignificant in its effect on the landscape of Turtle Island. The following excerpt is from a discussion with participants about choosing inquiry topics that are relevant to them:

After hearing from the students how much they were interested in learning about the places where they had cultural roots, I asked the students to describe their preferred topics of study in class, “So, if you could make an inquiry question about the places you're from, you'd rather do that...” Several loud voices exclaimed, “YES!” before I continued my comparison, “Rather than First Nations or early societies?”

Jack spoke up and gave an atypical opinion and said, “I'd rather do First Nations, it’s kind of more interesting than where you're from because it’s like you already know where

123

LEARNING TO SETTLE

you're from - like your family - and you want to know where other people are from, so you can compare like South Africa to the First Nations, how they used to work, so…”

I decided to look for clarification on the reasons for the students’ interest, and asked, “Is it interesting that the First Nations were here on this land, like where the school is, and your houses are now?”

This is when Cuber spoke up and said, “Well actually, if the Europeans weren't here then most of Canada wouldn’t be like this because the First Nations didn't know how to use metal or anything. When the Europeans came, they started like, actually building stuff, and if like no one knew that North America was actually North America, nothing would have changed, it would still be a forest and everything.”

(Research Group 1 Session 2)

In this passage, the student reveals an interest in understanding the history of the country where they are a citizen, but also demonstrates a classic settler trope of terra nullius, or empty land

(Battiste & Henderson, 2000; Canada, 1997; Lawrence, 2002) which is based upon the assumption that the Indigenous peoples who cared for and lived on the land of Turtle Island were simply primitive in their social organization and cultural complexity. In this conception, they were therefore unable to have any significant impact on the landscape and the newly

“discovered” territory that Europeans settled was mostly wilderness waiting to be colonized.

During another session, the students in Research Group 3 were explaining to me what they do in their class for inquiry-based projects and began a very interesting discussion about the way they understood the time-period of early explorers and First Nations in New France:

Libyan Warrior explained the importance of ‘So-What’ cards that they completed during their unit of study, and said, “The ‘So What?’ cards are kind of connected to our inquiry, we take ideas from our inquiry and we connect them to our social studies, and we connect them to our math, and any ideas that we have, we put them on the inquiry board and we talk about it, and we compare stuff from like the time that we had today and then we would go through time periods and what the differences were”.

In an effort to get the group to reveal some of their thinking, I chose a random example and asked, “So, if I like bicycles, what does that have to do with learning about Canadian history and Indigenous peoples?”

124

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Unicorn responded first with enthusiasm, “Transportation!”, and Buck looked over at her and added, “I was going to say that.”

Libyan Warrior continued his explanation and said, “And then you would start to talk about the different types of transportation from here and now and how people survived with the different forms of transportation…”. Saudi Cipher nodded along and voiced his agreement, chiming in mid-sentence, “and how they survived”, while Libyan Warrior continued, “…Was it better back then with their types of transportation than it is now?”

Then the conversation turned as Buck gave his opinion on the matter and said, “It’s better now, I think.”

Libyan Warrior was continuing his initial thought, “…And then we'd compare,” when he decided to respond to Buck, “and well actually, Buck, you could say both ways, because back then they had less pollution, because they used camels and horses.”

Buck shrugged and said, “Well I don't care about pollution, I'm just glad I get places faster.”

Libyan Warrior answered, “It still got them to their places quite fast, and I mean pollution, that's pretty much the end of our earth, and Buck responded, “I don't want pollution, but I need to get places quickly, ok?”

“Yeah, well, if you use a horse,” Libyan Warrior said, and was joined by Saudi Cipher who added, “Why not just walk?”. Opasinger continued the thread and suggested, “You can take a different way,”, and Saudi Cipher again added, “…or use a bike.”

Libyan Warrior continued, “And some places you can still do that, when I go to Egypt, I can ride horses.”

“I've actually done that before”, interjected Unicorn.

“Were there horses and camels in the time period you were learning about?” I asked, seeking clarification and trying to focus attention back to the topic of social studies learning.

Different voices in the group answered together, “No”, and, “I'm not sure”.

Opasinger spoke up and said, “There was horses, and carriages, well not the First Nations; didn't have horses and carriages, they had wild animals and just were surrounded by nature, but just by canoeing or walking, and the French, like…”

“Yeah!”, Libyan Warrior interjected, “they used a lot of canoeing through the water because they were beside the Great Lakes, so they used that stuff”.

“Yeah, to trade”, added Unicorn.

125

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Opasinger spoke again, “So basically, the French, um… the French people had like carriages, horses, farmland and everything else, and they um, used, had, um, transport things”.

(Research Group 3 Session 2)

There are very interesting interpersonal dynamics at play in this passage of the research group transcript, and the students’ dialogues reveal the roles and positions that are available to them within the figured world of the research group as they take up contradictory ideas about environmental preservation or convenience. For this chapter of analysis and discussion, I would like to focus on the way students described the transportation of First Nations and how they interacted with their local environments in the past. As the participants described the connection between bicycles and Canadian/Indigenous histories, they talked about horses, and carriages, which they then linked to the European settlers. The Indigenous people were characterized as having “wild animals and just were surrounded by nature”. This characterization is prevalent in settler colonial discourses because it serves as a useful tool to relegate Indigenous peoples as merely “primitive” and therefore in need of the advanced social, cultural, and religious enhancements of European peoples and states (King, 2012; Wolfe, 2006). It is clear in the above passage that the students are not using their understanding as a settler colonial tool for oppression, however they are verbalizing tropes of uncivilized savages that are perpetuated in settler colonialism and used for oppression, genocide, and elimination (Canada, 1997; Kilpatrick,

1999; Wolfe, 2006).

The positive intent behind the students’ discussions of pioneer tropes was evident during a brainstorming session in Research Group 1. The students were thinking about ideas to help students learn about Indigenous peoples in meaningful ways to combat the negative effects of settler colonial ideology, and they spoke about possible ways of including Indigenous representation in school activities:

126

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Jack: I have an idea, we can have like a room, and then have one area where it’s like a theme, like the Mohawk theme, and we can have a fire or something, like a museum…

Fireball: And we can learn their songs and stuff!

Cannonball: Kay [sic] and we can have a campfire, and have sticks, and do red, yellow, and orange paper for flames.

Fireball: And we can make a mini field trips, and we have like someone who is a tour guide, and we can go outside.

Jack: Yeah! like what Fireball said, we can go outside, and he is the tour guide.

Cannonball: Yeah! [imitating the tour guide] "Oh, over here we have the Mohawk!"

Fireball: And we have sticks all around and people can like make the houses, that would be so cool.

(Research Group 1 Session 6)

As the participants in this research group were discussing positive representation of Indigeneity in schools, they suggest that campfires and houses made from sticks were the best ways to represent the culture and history of the Mohawk. This reveals the limited understanding that the students were drawing from in their conceptions of Indigenous histories, and the strength of pioneer tropes in their influence.

The theme continued in another session of the research groups and revealed the prevalence of this understanding in the figured worlds of the classroom. This passage comes from a discussion about how to incorporate Indigenous perspectives into social studies learning:

Fireball: Maybe a cooking game? Like how they would cook back then, like how different it would have been, like they cooked on fires.

Jack: We could do arts and crafts,

Cannonball: …Like dreamcatchers! There could be a hunting video game picture that is on the iPad... [Cuber: …like a spear] or a picture of a bear in the wild.

(Research Group 1 Session 7)

127

LEARNING TO SETTLE

In this passage, as in the previous passage, the students revealed a knowledge of Indigenous history that paints them as primitive with a simplistic relationship to the natural world based on spear hunting.

During an interview with Jack, I asked him about his inquiry project on David

Thompson, and what he thought was interesting about his subject:

Jack: Yes, because he, David Thompson, I didn't write it down because it was going to be too much, um, yeah. But, he wanted to find… so he wanted to find a new route to other places, and because he wanted to give it to other people so he could, like become… he wasn’t kind of, like nobody knew him but he wanted people to know him so he made some maps to give to people… and because he was in Canada, he was born in England and he went to Canada and he wanted to make his map to find his way, so he doesn't need any Chipewyans, the Aboriginal group.

Mark: And what did you learn about how he worked with the Chipewyans?

Jack: Um, that, once he first came here, because he didn't know where he was going, he came there, and he had two Chipewyans to guide him through Canada, because he didn't know a lot, the Chipewyans were from Canada, so he wanted help to find stuff, and yeah.

Mark: What do you think about that? About the fact that they helped him, and he didn't know any of it?

Jack: It was kind of helpful for him, and kind of nice because the Chipewyans help him and they didn't really know him, and then once he started finding his ways and didn't need the Chipewyans, that's when he started making the maps and he went to other Aboriginal groups and then he learned from them. Like at Hudson Bay, he learned how to make a map, yeah, Hudson Bay, he went there first and then went off. (Jack interview)

Jack was leaning on the trope of cooperation that is prevalent in settler colonial discourses and serves to minimize the domination exerted by European settlers on local Indigenous peoples.

Broadly the conceptions of Indigeneity and settler Canada that the participants in this study shared with me and expressed throughout the duration of this study were based on limited experiences of traditional settler tropes and resulted in general perceptions of Indigenous peoples as historical and monolithic. It was very common in this study for me to hear small and passing references to Indigenous peoples that betrayed a student’s understanding of Indigeneity being

128

LEARNING TO SETTLE relevant only to the past rather than the present in any meaningful way. For example, during

Observation Session 3, the classroom teacher asked the students to turn to a page in their textbooks and think about the importance of family. Fireball quickly raised his hand and asked,

“Are we thinking like First Nations, or like now?”. This understanding was prevalent throughout the study in both schools, revealing the bias of settler narratives about Indigenous peoples belonging to the past that students learned in childhood. Other researchers have emphasized how children learned about Indigenous people and nations primarily in history class, so their language around the topic is framed around historical understandings (Kilpatrick, 1999; King, 2012).

The following exchange from Research Group 1 reveals the dynamic movement that students were making between foundational understandings of historical Indigeneity and realities of ongoing Indigenous presence in the present day.

Mark: My research problem is partly about what non-Indigenous people know about Indigenous people. So, when kids learn about this in school, is it important or interesting to you?

Jack: It’s really important. So, kids know how they used to live, and how we live in the present, and the past, like how the Mohawk used to live, and if their family is from Mohawk or the Six Nations, they could know about like how they used to hunt.

Mark: Any reason why it would be important for non-Indigenous people?

Cannonball: It could like help people in their normal everyday problems. Like say they had a problem, but they didn't know how to fix something, and the Indigenous do, they could use some of their techniques, and do hunting or fishing or building stuff to help them in their everyday stuff.

Cuber: And also the Fist Nations used to live in the wilderness, um, so they were living and let's say if someone is camping they can use some of the techniques, or as he said the hunting ways, or how to make houses, because they didn't really have any cranes to pick up everything and do it for them, they had to do it by hand so that was hard.

Mark: “Is this stuff fun and interesting?

Cuber: Yes.

129

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Jack: It’s interesting because some kids don't even know what that, like what the groups are and what they used to know, it’s interesting nowadays to see the past days and they can compare it and stuff, how they did stuff.

(Research Group 1 Session 2)

As you can see in this passage of a transcript, the students jumped between identifying the importance of Indigenous peoples learning about Indigenous histories in school to framing

Indigenous life in the context of the aspects of traditional and historical practices that the participants in this study had learned about. In addition, for these students the contributions that

Indigenous ways of knowing can make to non-Indigenous peoples is to help settlers learn how to live well on the land in traditional hunter-gatherer style. Within the context of their schooling and social studies learning, the frame of reference that students use to understand Indigeneity broadly is a historical one, based on narratives of Indigenous life they have learned about through historical study.

Conceptions and Narratives of Indigenous Diversity

As students went through their Social Studies unit of study and in their discussions in the research groups, the language they used demonstrated a broader societal hegemonic norm of collapsing the diversity between Indigenous nations and allowing stereotypical understandings to be applied for different nations and people across geography and time. I was able to observe the participants in the study collapsing the diversity of Indigenous people and nations in two distinct ways.

The first was the collapse of all Indigenous groups under the umbrella term “First

Nations”, which does not refer to the Métis or Inuit, two Indigenous groups that are not First

130

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Nations3. This can be understood within the context of the Social Studies curriculum that focuses on the historical encounters between European explorers and the First Nations communities along the Atlantic coast, St. Lawrence River Valley, and the Great Lakes, but in subsequent discussions about Indigeneity, the term “First Nations” was used by students as a stand-in for a term such as “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal”. During Cuber’s interview, when I asked the student about anything that he learned about the Haudenosaunee and Wendat during his work on his inquiry project that is relevant to today, and he said that he knows about Métis people, which are,

“What it is called when there's a European married to a First Nation”. He followed up by saying,

“Yeah, now there's more Métis because they're married” (Cuber Interview). In one other interaction, the Inuit as a people came up for discussion, when Cannonball and Cuber asked Jean

(Mohawk) questions during her visit to the class:

Cannonball put up his hand and asked Jean, “Why would you guys make a statue out of stone? What were they called?”

Cuber offered, “Inukshuk?”

“Yeah”, Cannonball said.

Jean replied, “Oh, that was the Inuit way up north”, seeming to want to move on in her presentation.

Cuber explained that he remembered learning about Inukshuks from a video the teacher showed in the class, but it was clear that both Cannonball and Cuber did not recognize the distinction between the Inuit and the Mohawk.

(Observation Notes, March 30)

This discussion reveals a lack of understanding on the part of the students regarding the distinctions between Inuit and First Nations, and it can be seen in this and the previous note from

3 In the Canadian constitution, Indigenous peoples are understood as belonging to three distinct groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (Canada, n.d.). All people who are members of any of these communities are “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous| peoples, but each group is distinct in its language, culture, and history. Referring to all Indigenous peoples as First Nations erases the distinct identities of Inuit and Métis peoples. 131

LEARNING TO SETTLE the data, that students were collapsing the diversity between different Indigenous groups into a single conception of all Indigenous peoples as “First Nations”.

The second way that participants collapsed the diversity of Indigenous nations and people was by ascribing aspects of one specific First Nation or group to all First Nations or Indigenous peoples, with no reference to the diversity and differences between and among groups. This revealed that the students may not have had enough information to make distinctions in their language despite knowing that there were differences. This was the case when some students in this study were occasionally willing to spend time engaging with the names of various

Indigenous groups, and in a limited number of instances during the time of data collection they took time to clarify their own knowledge and specific understanding about some different

Indigenous groups. For example, when students in Research Group 1 were discussing possibilities for including Indigenous representation in social studies programs, Jack and Cuber suggested including information about many different nations:

Jack: We could do a ‘Then and Now’ about different groups: Mohawk, Haudenosaunee, Micmac, Wendat, Innu…

Cuber: And Siksika!

(Research Group 1 Session 5)

Throughout the data collection, however, it was clear that these distinctions were not part of most students’ working knowledge as the words “First Nations”, “Indigenous”, “Mohawk”,

“Anishinaabe”, “Haudenosaunee” and “Aboriginal” were used interchangeably by students in the classroom and in research groups to generally refer to Indigenous peoples generally and individually.

When students were explicitly asked to research and articulate some aspects of everyday life that were different for distinct First Nation groups (e.g. the housing structures of the

132

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Haudenosaunee, or the foods of the Wendat), they were able to glean some information from the classroom textbooks or non-fiction texts in the school library. Early in the unit, the fifth-grade students at South School were asked by their teacher to do some investigations into specific aspects of the cultural life of different First Nations groups during the period of early colonization. In their groups, the students read in their textbooks, summarized what they learned on chart paper, and then then presented their learning to the class. The following excerpt is taken from my observation notes:

A group that was focusing on types of food had similar distinctions between what different groups produced and ate. They were working in the computer pod next to the classroom and practicing the different pronunciations they have to know. Jack said, “First, we have to do Haudenosaunee, then Anishinabek, then what’s the last one?”

My note: [They get all their information from the text; they are brilliant at summarizing and regurgitating the text]

Mark: What are you doing here?

Sparkly: We are presenting what we are learning from this section on food.

My note: [They aren’t answering an inquiry question. There is a lot of rote copying or even just summarizing but not really engaging in the material]

Ms. T came over to ask what they’re doing, and reminded them of the inquiry question about environment, before asking them, “So do you know what you’re doing?” Fireball responded, “Yes, ok!”

Ms. T chuckled to herself, and then started asking questions about how the Haudenosaunee would get squash, beans, etc. She used guiding questions, and after she asked several questions, Fireball gave a good answer about needing a lot of farmland along with trees, and also water for fishing.

When the students finished their research, they presented to the class and I made the following notes about one of the presentations:

Cuber, Swag, Beaver and another student were working on the topic of ‘Shelter’. Cuber helps his groupmates with words that they struggle to pronounce. The presentation consists of a summarization of parts of the textbook and a word-for-word reading from other sections of the textbook. Ms. T interrupted them and said, “I don’t want you to just read what you wrote down”. Cuber then looked up from the paper and summarized the general understanding very well, describing the differences between longhouses and wigwams. 133

LEARNING TO SETTLE

(Observation notes, Day 2)

In this excerpt, the students were summarizing information from the classroom textbook to answer a specific question given to them by the teacher. This activity allowed the students to delineate some of the differences between various First Nations in the specific focus area that they were responsible for researching. To understand if the students were able to take away long term understanding about the diversity of Indigenous groups, I rely on the fact that this activity was completed early in the social studies unit, and I am therefore able to examine whether the learning from this activity persisted in the students’ understanding of the diversity of Indigenous peoples. However, during the research groups (where the explicit information was not readily at hand in textbooks) the participants were not able to make relevant distinctions between different

First Nations groups and nations, nor did they in any case make a point of mentioning that there are differences that are worth taking into consideration in our discussions. Overall, in this study it appeared that students were unable to articulate the diversity of Indigenous nations and peoples for themselves or in conversation with others unless it was explicitly available to them as a topic of study. This can be seen in the first research group session with the students from South

School, which occurred two weeks after the activity described above. This excerpt begins as I am the asking if students find social studies interesting:

Mark: What about grade 4?

Angel and Lollipop together: Boring.

Cannonball, Cuber, Jack, and Fireball all say: It was interesting.

Angel: It’s no fun, you can't play, you can't talk, you can’t sing, it’s boring.

Cuber: First Nations is actually more boring because you are only learning about one nation, but in the ancient civilizations you are learning about more than one and you can compare.

(Research Group 1 Session 1)

134

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Cuber, who is one of the students in the class who demonstrated more interest and background knowledge than most of his peers, describes grade 5 social studies as more boring than grade 4, because in fifth grade you learn about one nation. While this statement would seem at first glance to be non-sensible because Cuber is clearly aware of more than one Indigenous nation, it reveals an understanding on the part of the students in this group that studying Indigenous history requires a boring study of one group of people that is robbed of the comparative interest that is available in the study of early civilizations (such as Egypt and Greece, which elsewhere in the data Cuber describes as being his favourite part of fourth grade social studies). In the figured worlds of social studies classrooms that these students provide insights into, studying Indigenous nations in history is a different kind of study compared with those that are less “boring” in the minds of the students, and cannot compete with the study of more interesting societies that have the complexity and diversity necessary for comparative analysis and study.

It is clear from the above discussion and data that the students are lacking an understanding of the diversity of Indigenous peoples. Examining this phenomenon through the lens of settler colonialism highlights the discrepancy that is evident in the ways students are unable to differentiate between Indigenous groups in Canada where they live, while being able to understand (by fourth grade) the distinctions between the ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek civilizations with enough clarity to tell them apart in their school work. It is evident then, that students are not confused about Indigenous diversity because they are unable to comprehend the distinction, but rather they are educated to subsume all Indigenous peoples under a single category heading (“First Nations”) while being taught to differentiate ancient peoples. Both of the situations that were revealed in the data and discussed in this section 1) not knowing there is diversity and 2) being aware of a diversity but being unable to articulate a difference – reflect a

135

LEARNING TO SETTLE common theme in broader Canadian society where non-Indigenous Canadians lack basic understanding of Indigenous concepts and realities that could serve as a foundation for fruitful discussions and meaningful conversations for reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada, 2015). The perpetuation of Indigenous erasure that is evident in how students figure the importance of distinction and attention is a clear indication that recognition of

Indigenous presence is not a priority in the figured worlds of social studies classrooms.

Learning from Prior Study in Schools

It is helpful at this point to examine from where the students developed their conceptions of Indigeneity, especially beyond the specific unit of study dealt with in this research project. In this study, the participants in the interviews and research groups all self-identified as non-

Indigenous, and they described their experiences learning about Indigeneity as being from either prior study in school, or specific pedagogical moments with family or group experiences outside of school. Describing where in their previous school experiences the participants learned about

Indigenous peoples and nations, students talked about explicit curricular instruction in earlier grades or with field trips experiences. In the following excerpt from the observation notes, the students describe where they learned about the Three Sisters that are an essential part of the

Haudenosaunee food system:

During a small group project where students would describe the foods that First Nations groups would eat during the period of early settlement: Cannonball became very excited to write the “Three Sisters: beans, corn and squash”, and told me that they learned about them in third grade during a field trip for a Social Studies unit. “Corn goes up, beans wrap around, and the squash leaves shade so weeds don’t grow”, he said.

The teacher heard Cannonball giving this description and asked, “Do all First Nations in the area use the Three Sisters? I don’t know.”

Different voices in the group called out, “No”.

136

LEARNING TO SETTLE

I asked the group why they said “No”, and the students shrugged while one of them said, “I’m guessing, I don’t know, I think they all would do the same thing”.

(Observation Notes, Day 3)

In this passage, the students shared with me their prior learning about the three sisters during a field trip to a local Conservation Area that had a replica “Iroquoian” Village with interpretive guides describing the culture, lifestyle, and history of the local Indigenous people. This trip was part of a school excursion that the students took with their class as part of the third-grade social studies unit on Communities in Canada during the 18th and 19th centuries. This trip is a common one for students studying early Canadian and Indigenous histories in the Hamilton area, despite the village at the Conservation Area being a reconstruction of a 15th century community

(Conservation Halton, 2019), 300 years older than the time period studied in the third-grade social studies unit.

During third grade social studies class was also when some students in this study said they first learned about “pioneers” (which includes the concepts discussed above regarding pioneer tropes of cooperation and terra nullius). This was shared by a student in Research Group

2 during the second session when we were discussing Inquiry-based learning:

Mark: So, when the teacher says you are going to do inquiry, what do you think she means by that? What is she trying to get you to do?

Sparkly: Like doing a project or something…

Nikki: I was just going to say that.

Adele: Almost like a project but like, almost like a paragraph, for example when I'm doing it about a person or something important about a person, or something like that.

Mark: And how do you feel about it?

Sparkly: If it’s something I know, like pioneers or something because I did that in grade 3, it would probably be easy because I have learned from it, and I already know, and if there's something I have never learned ever, I’d feel pretty nervous because its something I’ve never done before. 137

LEARNING TO SETTLE

(Research Group 2 Session 2)

In this passage, Sparkly describes how she remembers the details of her previous study on pioneers with enough clarity that it would be relatively easy to do an inquiry project on that topic two years later. This reference to prior learning in schools reveals the lasting impact that the grade three unit on 18th and 19th century communities in Canada had on this student. Throughout this research project, however, the only time that participants said they learned about Indigenous communities and histories at school was during third grade social studies. No students referred to prior learning at school about Indigenous communities in their local region, land acknowledgements, or learning about Indigenous peoples in any other subject area besides history.

Learning Outside the School

School was not the only place from which students received some information about settler colonialism and/or Indigeneity, though very few of the students in the research groups spoke about interacting with or learning from Indigenous people directly. For example, I asked the participants in Research Group 3 at North School if they had learned anything at school relevant to Indigenous peoples in the present day, or if it was limited to historical study. In response, Libyan Warrior revealed some of the other ways he has learned about First Nations and

Canada.

I ask the students if they know anything about the French community in Canada now or the First Nations communities in Canada now. “Did anything like that come up in your unit at all?”

“Not really”, Saudi Cipher replied.

Libyan Warrior added, “A little bit, but not much. I hear a lot of things about it on the news, like I hear about all the situations that they are having, people are like against them

138

LEARNING TO SETTLE

and I know there’s been kidnaps of people from First Nations groups, and they’re trying to find people to help them, but I don't ever see them”

“Anyone else have something to add?” I asked.

Saudi Cipher again spoke for the group, “Nothing.”

(Research Group 3 Session 3)

Here, Libyan Warrior describes learning on the news about the negative situations that many

Indigenous communities face, including some of the explicit acts of violence that are perpetrated against Indigenous people and the lack of help they are receiving in response. Beyond this reporting that Libyan Warrior consumes from the news, the rest of the group had nothing to add regarding their knowledge about present-day Indigenous communities and people.

During a later research group session with the same students, the group began discussing the upcoming Canada Day celebrations highlighting the 150th anniversary of the country’s founding and how one student was going to receive an award at a ceremony the upcoming weekend. I brought up the fact that the celebration was controversial for many people because of the settler colonial histories and present realities, and the students shared some of their knowledge about these issues.

Mark: So, there's some people who say that instead of celebrating 150 years of Canada, we should think about the things that have happened and remember that the First Nations have been here for a lot longer than 150 years. So, have you guys, first of all, heard any of that at all?

Unicorn: My dad...

Libyan Warrior: You know how we talked about last time how they talked about one side of the story, or sorry, how maybe we should talk about other histories, and I was speaking to my parents about it and they said, well, makes sense, because how long has Canada been here, 150, right? Or look at any other place in Africa, I'm going to say Libya, thousands of years it’s been there.

Mark: And what did your dad say about Canada?

Unicorn: That it, like, first of all wasn’t called Canada…

139

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Opasinger: French?

Saudi Cipher: No, New France.

Opasinger: Yes, New France.

Unicorn: Because they named it Canada.

Libyan Warrior: It was like Kanata or something.

Unicorn: Yeah, like, a First Nation name.

Opasinger: Canadian.

Saudi Cipher: So, it might have been the same word but spelled a different way.

(Research Group 3 Session 4)

Unicorn and Libyan Warrior both shared that their parents have discussed with them a broader view of the history of Canada beyond the celebratory stories of the 150th anniversary. Learning from one’s parents was also a topic of another session with that group of students when we were discussing the specific unit studied in Grade 5 Social Studies:

Unicorn: Mr. Sinke, actually, when we were on the Early settlers, that unit, I remember I was talking to my dad about it, and then he told me stuff about that unit that we didn't really learn about in class, and he said I don't know why they aren't teaching you this stuff and all that.

Mark: What kind of stuff?

Unicorn: I don't really, I'm not really, I don't really know that much, but they said stuff like how they were treated.

[Other kids speak over each other, expressing their agreement and interest]

Unicorn: Yeah like how they were like prisoners and all that stuff.

Mark: And you didn't learn that in your unit?

Saudi Cipher: No, no, no.

Libyan Warrior: They found, what I found, and I was speaking to my parents about it, we learned how there was Hitler, and there was, well I was speaking to my parents, it’s not like Jews did nothing bad in their life, there's been a lot of wars where Jews destroyed my country. Palestine used to be there; Israel took it over. 140

LEARNING TO SETTLE

(Research Group 3 Session 3)

The discussion that Libyan Warrior began with his link to Hitler, Jewish people, and Palestine will be discussed later in the section on learning complexities, but here we can see once again that the students were learning about Indigenous and Canadian history from their parents. What is most interesting here is that at home they were discussing not only additional information to that which was part of the fifth-grade curriculum, but the students’ parents were also directly calling out the dominant settler colonial narratives and pioneer tropes that the students were learning about during the unit of study. Unicorn’s father pointed out the treatment of Indigenous peoples during the expansion of European settlement, and Libyan Warrior’s parents discussed the complexity of settlement and dominance in reference to the state of Israel in Palestine. What was very interesting was that only the students at North School described learning from their parents about Indigeneity and settler colonialism, while this was never brought up in either of the research groups at South School. Some reasons for why this may be the case are described in chapter 6 in the section on understanding, which analyzes the identities-in-practice that were available to and taken up by different participants in the figured worlds of social studies classrooms.

One other place where the participants in this study learned about Indigeneity was at summer camp, which Angel described in the following excerpt from the transcript of Research

Group 1 at South School, when the group was describing their own backgrounds and how much importance they placed on where they were from while looking at a world map.

Angel: I'm just from Canada but I know I’m Jewish, but I don't know if its my background or my religion.

Mark Is it something you're interested in?

Angel: Well my brother tells me it’s a bad thing to be Jewish, because back in history they were slaves.

141

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Cuber: I put it under Kuwait, I used to live there but no one is from there. Then my dad used to be in Saudi Arabia, but my ancestors were from Turkey.

Mark: Do you know, Angel, if any of your family is First Nations, Inuit or Metis?

Angel: The only thing I know is that I'm bear clan, because I learned it in camp, its Camp Kanata. It’s across the street from my house. It’s like a survey camp, and we had people from the Six Nations come and teach us how to dance, and it was cool.

Mark: Do you know if your family is from any Indigenous nation?

Angel: No, I don't think so.

Mark: Is that something that’s interesting to you?

Angel: No, not really.

(Research Group 1 Session 1)

In this group discussion, Angel revealed how she had learned from Six Nations community members who visited the summer camp that she attended near her house. Angel also described how she understood herself to be a member of Bear Clan during the classroom visits of Jean and

Thomas, which are discussed in depth in the Chapter 7 section on clans and belonging. Relevant here is the fact that students may also learn about Indigeneity from summer camps. I was unable to find any information about the specific camp that Angel mentioned when I later looked it up and did not take the opportunity to ask her for more details during the period of data collection for this study, but the inclusion of local Indigenous community members in the activities at the camp indicates that the camp was differentiating itself from most summer camps across the province and country. These camps have very mixed histories when it comes to appropriating

Indigenous knowledges and cultural symbolism for non-Indigenous campers and without links to local Indigenous communities (Hamilton, 2003; Wall, 2005; T. Wilkes, 2011). Within the limits of this study, only Angel of all the participants made a link between what she had learned in summer camp and the subject area under discussion in social studies at school.

142

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Beyond the classroom and school environment, the most common way that students said they learned about Indigenous and Canadian histories was from their parents, while in one other case it was through a summer camp, and one student remembered learning from the news. The dearth of other contexts within which the non-Indigenous students in this study remember learning about Indigenous peoples reveals that the most impactful learning that students had was either through school or from personal conversations and discussions with their parents or camp leaders. Other opportunities to learn may have been present throughout the participants’ lives, but they had a small enough impact that they were not discussed by the participants during this research project.

The implications of this finding have been discussed in literature that analyzed the surveyed responses of Canadians regarding their knowledge and understanding of Indigenous peoples, histories, and cultures. The Coalition for the Advancement of Aboriginal Studies and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation surveyed Canadians and found that a large majority lacked basic understandings of important topics about Indigenous histories and cultures, and many students felt they did not have adequate time nor opportunity to study these areas in schools (Restoule, 2008; The Coalition for the Advancement of Aboriginal Studies, 2002).

Schools were not providing the necessary foundation of knowledge and perspective for adult

Canadians to competently engage in discussions about Indigeneity and Canada’s relationships with Indigenous peoples. More recently, a group of researchers surveyed undergraduate students across Canadian universities, and while the findings showed a growth in general understanding and perceptions of Indigenous peoples and communities, the lack of understanding that students gain from K-12 education remains distinctly apparent:

First-year university students who graduated from Ontario high schools are substantially unaware of Indigenous presence and vitality. The majority of students do not understand

143

LEARNING TO SETTLE

the fundamental laws structuring conditions of life for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people or the contributions Indigenous peoples make to all aspects of Canadian society. Although they know slightly more about what is happening with regard to Indigenous peoples today, students have little sense of the historical circumstances and forces that shape current events. Arguably, students are this ignorant because the Ontario K–12 curriculum, which remains deeply inadequate, is the primary source of information for most students. (Schaefli et al., 2018, p. 689)

The figured worlds of social studies classrooms in this study, and more broadly across Canada, have consistently remained devoid of Indigenous narratives, knowledges, perspectives, and peoples when children learn about Canada generally and Canadian history specifically. As a result of this lack, students develop understandings of Canada, Indigenous peoples, and history that are continually shaped by Euro-centric and settler colonial discourses despite the inclusion of nominally relevant content such as the unit of study in fifth-grade social studies that provided the context for this research project.

Students Understanding Settler Colonial Tropes and Indigenous History

Moving from a discussion of what the students were taught, what they learned and what they understood, I want to bring the focus on to the ways students took up and adopted these ideas into their own schema of understanding and look at how students made the knowledge they gained relevant for themselves. If we examine the classroom as a figured world, the students who inhabited the role of a learner in this figured world understood that their role required them to be confronted with and then adopt previously unknown information that is provided to them by the adults in the classroom who fulfill the roles of knowers and distributors of knowledge. Within this context, the students expect to be challenged in their understandings of historical and contemporary Indigeneity, and so they adopted the discourses that were offered to them with little apparent resistance. As they learned from teachers and authoritative texts such as their textbook (Arnold & Gibbs, 1999), the students adopted the new learning quickly and began to 144

LEARNING TO SETTLE move into the role of someone who knows new important information. In relationship to their teacher, they positioned themselves as learners, and in relationships with their peers, they began to test out how their growing schema of understanding compared with other students within their figured worlds.

In peer discussions that I was able to observe between students in the classroom away from the teacher’s gaze, or in the research groups where I stepped away from the role of a knowing adult, it became clear that the children did also engage in a cultural world that includes competing with one another for the role of being a knower, and they corrected one another who they perceived had made a mistake or shared inaccurate information. For example, after four students from Research Group 1 spent time learning about the medicine wheel with Jean, they relayed their experiences to the rest of the group and made sure to correct one another when a mistake was made:

As the students sat around the table in our meeting room, I asked Jack what he had brought from his time working with Jean earlier in the week.

“It’s a pouch, it was yesterday that I made it,” Jack replied.

Pointing to another object he brought, I asked, “And that's a medicine wheel that you made?”

Jack explained, “The medicine wheel is like white people, black people, red people…” when Cuber and Cannonball loudly interrupted to correct their classmate, “NO!” they called out.

Jack defended himself, “That's what she said!”

Cuber replied, “No, she said that she doesn't believe in that because everyone is equal”

Cannonball then stepped up to correct the information, “It’s for 4 equal sections, and there's 13 beads in each direction, it was sort of like, a compass for different things with four equal parts, and since there's four of us we did four equal parts”

Cuber added his own information, “And also the, we also like, the red and yellow and white and black, she said it mentions like different parts of the world

Fireball spoke up, “East, West…” Cuber interrupted again, “Huh?” 145

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Fireball explained, “The East people, the West people, the North people, and the South people.”

(Research Group 1, Session 10)

The position of “knower” was important to the students in this discussion, and they competed here and elsewhere in the class and research groups to occupy the role of the student who has the facts correct. This position was important to the students as they sought to correct one another on their misconceptions of the information they had learned previously, and so were willing to raise their voices and talk over top of one another to make sure the knowledge they had gained from an adult educator (Jean in this case) was accurately relayed. The value that was placed on knowing and sharing the correct information reveals the importance of learning in the figured worlds of these students’ classrooms and also shows that the students were not confined to practices that ignore or belittle Indigenous knowledges as less important than others. While settler colonialism requires the denigration of Indigenous knowledges for the elevation of settler ideologies, the students here chose to engage with Indigenous knowledges as interested learners who valued learning from Indigenous experts. This value was also evident elsewhere, when students in the classroom of South School were very interested in learning the correct pronunciations of Indigenous names and nations.

As the teacher led the fifth-grade students through the first introductory page of the section on First Nations in Early Canada from the textbook, several times the students and teacher stumbled over how to pronounce some of the words they were coming across. Cannonball noticed that the page had a small suggestion to look at the pronunciation guide at the back of the book and suggested to the teacher that it would be good to use. Cuber looked at it and suggested that the teacher could photocopy the phonetic pronunciation guide for the students to paste into their notebooks. Not all students were engaged, as B sat at the back, absently paging through the book. While the teacher was looking for a specific sentence to read together on the page, Fireball and Cannonball tried to test out the pronunciations listed in the guide at the back of the book. “Hau-den-o-sau-nee” they said, excitedly, when the teacher came across that word in the book. They were very excited to be able to use the guide to help them in their reading. “Ok”, said the teacher, trying to move along, “Let’s look at the timeline…”

146

LEARNING TO SETTLE

(Observation Notes, Day 1)

On the next day, the fifth-grade students were working independently in their desks while the teacher did some explicit instruction to the fourth-grade students on the carpet. Cannonball was sitting beside S and whispering with him about the different pronunciations of the Indigenous names. I asked Cannonball and Jack if they know any of the names, and Cannonball said, “No, but now [as of yesterday] I know Haudenosaunee” Fireball was sitting next to the pair of them and joined into the discussion. He and Cannonball went through the list trying to recognize names and pronounce ones they didn’t know. “Wendat, that’s another group I think”, Fireball said, “Oneida, Wenro, Cayuga…” they continued.

Cannonball looked up at me and said, “Now I know what to do with my free time, practice some of these” with a big smile on his face. I asked them when the photocopied pronunciation guide was put in their notebooks, and Fireball said the teacher gave it to them earlier that morning to glue in their books. I looked up to see the fourth-grade students still at the carpet talking about climate and geography and walked over to listen in on their conversations. As I walked away, I could hear Fireball and Cannonball continue. “A-nish-shee-nah-bek”, Fireball sounded out.

Cannonball leaned in close and asked, “Which one are you trying to say?”

“This one next” said Fireball, and I could hear continue, “Ni-pi-sing”

(Observation Notes, Day 2)

In this passage the students had a persistent interest in learning about Indigeneity and the diversity of Nations that were written about in their textbooks. The students initially took interest in pronouncing the names of the Nations they learned about together as a group, and then they asked the teacher to give them a personal copy of the pronunciation guide to have with them in their workbooks throughout the remainder of the unit. The following day, two students spent time practicing the pronunciations together, and Cannonball even remarked that he would be interested in doing this during his free time. When this passage is placed into the broader context of learning that is marked with pioneer tropes and collapsing diversity, it provides a contrast between the adopting of settler colonial narratives in the figured worlds of social studies classrooms and the interest in Indigenous knowledges and histories. Both things appear to be true

147

LEARNING TO SETTLE for this figured world, that students adopt dominant settler colonial narratives while also engaging with Indigenous knowledges when given the opportunity.

I argue that settler colonial discourses are more easily adopted by most students as their framing understanding of Indigenous peoples and nations in relation to Canada, because these discourses are more accessible and normatively dominant throughout their engagement with the topic. However, I was able to observe that young students in school do not link themselves closely with these narratives of historical Indigeneity, collapsed diversity, and pioneer tropes because they expect to consistently grow in their understanding and to incorporate more information as it is shared with them by adults. The students’ identities-in-practice were not linked to a position with the discourses of settler colonialism that forced a dichotomous relationship of being on one side or the other of a greater societal rift between Settler-Canadians and Indigenous peoples. Rather, the students were open to learning and engaging with

Indigenous histories that counter the stereotypes and hegemonic understandings of settler colonialism throughout the unit of study. This reveals that the narratives at play in the figured world of the social studies classroom are not employed in an either/or dichotomy by the students, but instead the students were able to move between them and freely associate with whichever was presented to them by the authoritative adults, textbooks, or materials they used for research.

However, this understanding did not seem to carry with it the stigma that settler narratives often attach to a historical Indigeneity; namely that Indigenous people were a relic from the past and now should assimilate into mainstream settler Canadian culture and society.

Rather, when students at South School had personal interactions with Indigenous people in the classroom and elsewhere, they appeared to have no difficulties in the distinctions between people from the past and present, as discussed below in Chapter 7. Though some questions in the

148

LEARNING TO SETTLE classroom revealed student assumptions that Indigenous people today still live in longhouses and predominantly hunt for their food, when the class talked with the two visitors in their class, they asked questions such as, “Which of your names is on your passport”, and openly engaged with the concept of longhouses as a place for religious ceremony but not as an everyday home for people today (Observation Notes, Day 5).

There appeared to be an openness in the stance students took regarding their understandings of historical and contemporary Indigeneity. The figured world they were inhabiting in the classroom was populated with the dominant narrative and characters that they received from traditional discourses of settler colonialism communicated to students through textbooks and a Eurocentric study of history, yet students were not shackled to this understanding, and were ready to broaden their conceptions of what being Indigenous may mean in present day. Within the context of the classroom, they approached the topic as learners who held their limited knowledge loosely and were ready to have it broadened or replaced by new understandings as they encountered them.

While the conversations students had, particularly in Research Group 1, revealed that the language that was most closely at hand for them reflected a potential bias to relegate Indigenous peoples to the past, but they often articulated an understanding of Indigenous people that was not limited to this view. This possibility, coupled with the reality that students were learning about a particular historical time period as a subject focus in school, may explain some of the bias towards historicizing Indigeneity which was easily overcome by students when explicitly engaging in conversations and experiences around contemporary Indigeneity.

Conclusion

149

LEARNING TO SETTLE

These findings are critically important and relevant for educators, curriculum writers, and policy makers who have the goal of teaching children about Indigenous-Canadian histories and relationships. In this chapter we see how schools need to uncover hegemonic settler norms in their curricula and pedagogy and make substantial changes to their practices of teaching

Indigenous and Canadian history specifically. The first two findings in this chapter together demonstrate the importance and relevance of formal schooling for how young children in Canada build a foundational understanding of Indigeneity and Canadian history that is based in settler colonial norms. Despite recent changes to curriculum guides and broad societal pushes for including Indigenous content and perspectives, students generally thought that early European settlers built civilized societies in Canada alongside and in good relationships with Indigenous peoples. Students in this study also learned in schools to conceptualize Indigenous peoples as monolithic and indistinct from one another in any consequential way. Many writers have highlighted the imperative to include Indigenous perspectives, content, culture, and history throughout the curriculum and not in segregated units of study that are covered every couple of years. This study backs those who call for this work to be done and shows how studying

Indigenous and Canadian histories solely as a topic in Social Studies leads children to adopt dangerous and erroneous understandings. These findings challenge educators, curriculum writers, and policy makers to continually evaluate the normative ways they portray Canadian and

Indigenous histories to young students. This is not a new challenge, but the findings in this chapter demonstrate the prevalence and relevance of settler colonial discourses in the educational experiences of young students still today.

In related research and work, other writers have emphasized the inertia that these settler colonial discourses have in the belief systems of adults who are confronted with counter-

150

LEARNING TO SETTLE discourses of Indigeneity and settler-society. Whereas adult white settler Canadians often reject alternative portrayals of Indigenous peoples and Canadian society which would challenge settler colonial perspectives, the students in this study demonstrated an openness to learning and an eagerness to continually expand their understandings beyond simplistic settler narratives. This study points to the opportunities that are available in the educational experiences of young students for them to develop a more critical and complex understanding of Indigeneity and

Indigenous-Canadian relationships. When students in this study were given opportunities to do so, they responded with an openness and enthusiasm that is markedly different from the responses of many adult settler-Canadians. The findings in this chapter provide insight into ways that students are learning to challenge hegemonic discourses of settler colonialism that populate the figured world the classroom. This happens when parents teach their children about settler exploitation and elimination of Indigenous peoples, and when children are given opportunities to learn from Indigenous teachers and about Indigenous perspectives through meaningful pedagogical experiences. When students have these experiences, they are often willing to broaden their understandings and openly challenge settler colonial myths. These challenges can be understood as improvisations in the figured world of the classroom, where students take up positions and discourses that are not part of the normative narratives in the figured world dominated by settler colonialism.

These findings highlight the opportunities available for children in settler-Canada to grow into new understandings of Indigenous peoples and settler-Indigenous relations. I argue that students in early elementary school are willing and able to learn from meaningful pedagogical experiences about Indigenous peoples, cultures, and histories, and as a result they are positioned to grow with an understanding of reconciliation and relationship that is not framed by settler

151

LEARNING TO SETTLE colonialism. These understandings can be built upon shared experiences of learning which challenge destructive and erroneous settler colonial discourses, and which promote Indigenous perspectives, cultures, and histories.

152

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 6: Student Conceptions of Education for Reconciliation

In this chapter I describe the differing ways that students in the three research groups of this study thought that education could address issues of settler colonialism and reconciliation.

Each of the groups had some beginning knowledge about systems of oppression in Canada against Indigenous peoples, and when I asked them to consider how education could address these issues, they gave responses that provide valuable insights into the figured worlds of classrooms and how students consider education in the context of settler colonialism.

The first two sections of this chapter highlight the work done by the students at South

School in Research Group 1 and Research Group 2, as they built projects to share with parents and teachers at the school’s spring Open House event. Both projects were conceived and created by the students in the groups as a response to what they were learning about Indigenous and

Canadian history, and specifically the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission Final Report.

The students in group 1 reflected on what they had learned about treaty relationships and the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Report and developed a project to show how they think education could work towards reconciliation and healthy treaty relationships. The project focused on developing ideas for positive and meaningful Indigenous representation in school curriculum and developed several ideas for engaging pedagogical experiences that would be interesting and informative. When looking at the work done in Group 1, I discuss how this group developed their project as a result of their own personal positive experiences with learning about

Indigenous content and because of their own perspectives on representation in education. Several of the students drew from their own experiences as under-represented minority students to emphasize the importance of Indigenous representation in the classroom, and developed ideas for

153

LEARNING TO SETTLE inclusion of Indigenous perspectives, cultures, and histories into social studies curriculum. They also recalled engaging pedagogical experiences they had on field trips, in classrooms, and in the research group itself, and argued for similar pedagogical approaches to be used when teaching for reconciliation and treaty relationships.

The figured world of Research Group 1 was filled with positive stories of engaging pedagogical experiences about Indigenous cultures and history, but it was also populated with narratives of students feeling left out themselves from mainstream classroom content and curricula. As students took up these narratives and experiences, they took the role of advocates for representation of Indigenous peoples and perspectives in social studies learning. This reveals that students notice the presence and absence of diverse representation in the classroom, and they think that it matters. However, they are not exclusively tied to in-group identities (e.g. Muslim, immigrant, person of colour) but can relate their own experiences to the experiences of others when encouraged to do so. Broadly, the students in this group expressed a desire to address injustice suffered by all people, and they were leaning on a sense of right and wrong to hope for change that would benefit Indigenous peoples in Canada and in schools. To achieve this goal, the students made clear that representative content and perspectives cannot be conveyed as a topic of study, but rather they called for teachers to give all students meaningful experiences and relational encounters with content that valued diversity. Within the figured worlds of the classrooms, these engaging pedagogical experiences would allow all students to gain new perspectives on Indigeneity in Canada and move beyond past harms.

The students in Group 2 had a similar understanding of settler oppression and Indigenous perspectives as the students in Group 1, but the discourses that populated their figured world were distinct from those of their classmates in the other research group. In Group 2, all of the

154

LEARNING TO SETTLE students identified as European-descent, and the topic of representation did not come up in their discussions about the role of education in reconciliation and Indigenous inclusion. Within the figured world of the research group, the students in Group 2 called for an assimilative model that echoed attitudes towards diversity held by many segments of broader adult society and valued the role of education in helping all individual students feel welcomed, included, and cared for no matter what their background or individual needs may be. The students understood the role of schools in addressing historical injustices to be supporting each student with their needs in a way that appeared to reflect the themes of a colour-blind multicultural perspective focused on individual well-being devoid of broader social context.

As I examined the discourses and practice of their figured world, I noticed that the students in Group 2 had no intrinsic motivation or personal buy-in to work through the difficulties of settler colonial education, so they seemed to be trying to answer my questions with what they thought I wanted to hear. In this case, they thought I wanted them to think of how things could be made better in education for all students, and the only frame of reference they had to draw from in answering my questions was the idea of classroom inclusion. They were missing personal schema of understanding about oppression and societal marginalization and had little background knowledge to draw upon in a way that would help them understand systematic settler oppression of Indigenous peoples. As a result, their ideas about how to teach and learn social studies were focused on individual well-being, but not on addressing structural needs or gaps in the system itself.

The third section of this chapter focuses on the figured world of Research Group 3 at

North School, where the students did not prepare a project for Open House. Instead, the students rather had interesting and insightful discussions about the inquiry projects they had completed in

155

LEARNING TO SETTLE their social studies class, and about how education could move forward in its discussions about historical oppression and injustice in elementary school curricula. Many of the students in this group were from marginalized backgrounds and had come to Canada as migrants from the global south. When the students discussed Indigenous and Canadian histories, they drew from their own experiences and understanding of oppression to make connections with the topic. In the figured world of the research group, racial and institutional oppression were open topics for discussion and the students regularly revealed the complexity of their perspectives on Canadian society.

Using this prior understanding of oppression in society, the students in Group 3 framed the teaching of Indigenous content and anti-colonial perspectives as necessary and indisputable.

Their experiences of and understanding of oppression allowed the students to express common or shared understanding across communities and gave the students perspectives on how oppression works in Canadian-Indigenous relations. It was clear in the research group that the students did not feel they could openly discuss many of these things (e.g. racism, language discrimination, religious discrimination, geopolitics) in the classroom, but they did still hold these ideas and framed how they understood the world. This enabled the students to see parallels in the experiences of Indigenous peoples, and as a result the students argued that educators must open up about oppression and discuss it in their classrooms. Within the figured world of the research group, the students took up narratives of oppression and used these to frame how they talked about Indigeneity and settler colonialism. Employing these narratives and identities-in- practice allowed them to understand the importance of nuance and complexity in issues, and to value differing perspectives around important issues.

Within the three research groups, students expressed a wide variety of ideas about the role of education in addressing Canada’s mistreatment and oppression of Indigenous peoples. By

156

LEARNING TO SETTLE examining these responses in depth, it becomes clear how students understand the possibilities and responsibilities of schooling in this area. The figured worlds of these research groups also point to ways that educators can connect with students and use prior experiences to confront settler colonial understandings of Canadian history in ways that are meaningful and engaging for students.

Group 1 - Explorers Who Time Travel Back to the Past: Education for Reconciliation

Through Representation

The first group I met with included both fourth and fifth grade students from the class where I did observational data collection. The students in this group were: Cannonball, Fireball,

Cuber, and Jack, who were all fifth-grade students and were friends who often worked together, along with Angel and Lollipop: fourth grade students who were very excited to be part of the research group and who got along well with the four older students. The group was very engaged in the work of the research group and often called each other’s attention back to the topic the group was discussing during each meeting session. When the time came for the students in this group to develop a project for display at the school’s open house, they worked diligently on completing a project together that they built collaboratively, and even spent extra time on their own to enhance the project with some last-minute ideas and additions. The group decided to call themselves a title that was a mash-up of several different individual ideas (the Explorers, the

Time Travelers, Back to the Past), and the resulting group name represents the collaborative nature of the students in this group: The Explorers who Time Travel Back to the Past.

The students in Group 1 had varying experiences and understandings of Indigenous histories, as described in Chapter 5, but they often brought their own backgrounds and

157

LEARNING TO SETTLE experiences into the group discussions, resulting in engaging discussions with their peers about the topics at hand. With limited background understanding of Indigenous and Canadian histories, in general there was little to no understanding in this about the realities of settler colonialism, institutional racism, or cultural genocide. Therefore, when the students were asked about the possibilities for addressing settler colonial injustice through education, there was no specific framework they could draw from to ground their discussion in lived realities of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada

The following excerpt from the transcript of Research Group 1 provides very interesting insights into how students framed their limited knowledge about Indigeneity in general, and specifically the relationships between Indigenous peoples and nations with European Settlers and the country of Canada. In this passage, the students reflected on their experiences learning from two guest speakers from the local Kanienkehaka (Mohawk) and Anishinaabe First Nations and responded to my introduction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s findings about systematic and institutional work to eliminate Indigeneity throughout Canada. This passage provides insights into how the students frame possibilities for changing education through experiential and cross-cultural learning.

Mark: Do you remember when Jean and Thomas came?

Lollipop: Oh, the wampum belt? I can remember the wampum belt.

Mark: They said that when the early explorers came over, the Haudenosaunee and the Mohawk made an agreement with them, remember this one?

[various voices]: It was blue and white, or purple.

Cuber: Yeah! About the streams, and then like, I would go in this stream and the Europeans would go in this stream, and we wouldn't… [Fireball: Bug each other…] cause problems.”

Jack: …Wouldn't go on each other's land.

158

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Lollipop: There's such a thing as a wampum belt, I remember that.

Mark: What else do you remember about this? [showing a picture of Taiohate Kaswenta – Two Row Wampum Belt]

Lollipop: They would all sail on the same river in different boats and they wouldn’t interfere with each others’ religion, but they would work together for like trading.

Mark: Do you know what the white things represent?

Cuber: Peace!

Cannonball: The water?

Lollipop: Respect!

Jack: Friendship.

Fireball: Like, trust.

Mark: Do you think that ever since that time, they’ve treated the Indigenous people with peace friendship respect and trust?

[Various indiscernible voices]: No! No.

Angel: Because Donald Trump was there.

Cuber: Well Donald Trump wasn't there in the 1700’s.

Fireball: Yeah, but his ancestors were there.

Mark: Well my ancestors weren't here then, and your grandparents and great grandparents like mine were in different countries, but there were Europeans, all those explorers.

(Research Group 1, Session 3)

The students had a working knowledge about the meaning and significance of the wampum belt that they had learned about in their classroom, and when I asked if there had been an ongoing relationship of respect, peace, and friendship the students had a direct negative response.

Students may have initially tended to respond with whichever answer they thought I was expecting, as often happened in the classroom when their teacher asked them a question.

However, given the freedom of discussion that had already happened by the third session of this

159

LEARNING TO SETTLE research group, and the examples in my observation notes where students challenged or questioned the immediate responses of a peer or their teacher, I recognized that the students were taking opportunities to engage with discourses of fraught colonial relationships between

European settlers and Indigenous peoples despite normative stories of native-settler cooperation that populate settler colonialism. What is striking, however, is the immediate response from

Angel that Donald Trump’s presence would indicate poor relationships. While Cuber rightly pointed out that the 45th president of the United States was not alive in the 18th century, Angel’s comment and Fireball’s follow up response that Donald Trump’s ancestors were there, could indicate their understanding that settler leaders, which Donald Trump was in the lineage of, did not value positive and respectful relationships with others, specifically with Indigenous peoples.

The conversation continued, and I immediately piggy-backed on the students’ comments about broken relationships to introduce the Truth and Reconciliation Report to the students and gather their responses to it:

[Continuing from the exchange above]

Mark: Think about peace, friendship, trust, and respect, and take a look at this book, it’s published by the government [I showed the group a written copy of the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission].They had a big commission or meeting with many judges and others, and they asked, what is life like here for Indigenous people?

Lollipop: I don't know.

Cuber: It was good?

Mark: We were supposed to treat each other with peace, respect, friendship, and trust. Let me read this first sentence. ‘For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada.’ [Surprised expressions on students’ faces as I read the excerpt] So this book says there are things we should do to make things better. We need to speak the truth and reconcile, and one of the things we need to do is answer a call to action about education, and how all students need to learn about Indigenous history. Us adults? We're not very good at this, we have not

160

LEARNING TO SETTLE

honoured the treaty, and we haven't treated people well, so this whole book says that the future can be better, and I think the future can be better if you guys help us out.

[Various indiscernible voices excitedly say]: YES!

Cuber: Yeah!

Jack: How many pages is it? [Fireball looks through the TRC report]

Fireball: It’s 527.

Mark: So that's why I wrote that question on the board: ‘if we were in charge of the schools’ (maybe grade 4 and 5, or maybe just social studies) ‘we would...’ and you can come up with whatever ideas you want.

Angel: Flying cars would make the world better.

Cuber: No racism.

Mark: You can come up with whatever ideas you have.

Jack: I was going to say; every school should learn about every different culture back in the past maybe.

Cuber: Well, um, maybe if everyone was a little bit better, because everyone says Aboriginal people are dumb.

Mark: Where have you heard that?

Angel: Like on the Wiggles [children’s television show]?

Cuber: Um, and also people like in the school, like older kids say that Aboriginal don't have any life skills and stuff like that, which isn't really kind.

Mark: So how can we make things better if you were in charge?

Lollipop: I'd give everyone ice cream!

Jack: Every grade, even JK, make everyone learn how we live today and in the past.

Cuber: How would they know?

Jack: They could learn, with books.

Cuber: Books? They couldn't even read them.

Jack: Or teachers, or videos.

161

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Cuber: Let's make a viral video so they get attracted to it, and then they're like... [Angel: It’s a party with the social studies!] …no, like, "Kids, don't treat Aboriginals bad" and then like [Angel: Have an Aboriginal party] …or make a superhero Aboriginal person, like, people like dolls and Barbie, and then like, everyone, they would come in person in a costume and then maybe even superman for the boys and Barbie for the girls, and then superman and Barbie would start talking about Aboriginal people.

Angel: I don't know if the kids would like that, I’m pretty sure they would like the original Barbie who does fashion stuff.

Lollipop: I would have a party every, single, day.

Cuber: Why? If every day was a party, then what would they learn? They have to learn.

Lollipop: I would teach them when we have a party.

Jack: We could have like the ceremonies of the First Nation people as a party!

Cannonball: And assemblies, and like teacher meetings could be talking circles.

Jack: And we need something to hold on, like a rock or a feather.

Mark: Where did you learn about that?

Jack: In a textbook.

Mark: How would you like to learn that? How could you learn that really well?

Cannonball: Turn it into a video game!

Cuber: How would you turn it into a video game?

Cannonball: You could choose a character, like a boy or a girl, and then you could do the lifestyle, like them growing up, like an Aboriginal simulator.

Cuber: What if you could hit in the game, and every time they saw a European people would just hit it.

Jack: They should have one school day, the whole school turns, like has a Halloween, like all in the past, like with Aboriginals, and everybody dresses up and you couldn’t use technology, and you could go around the school and see how they live.

Mark: Why would that be interesting to you?

Cannonball: Because then we would like sort of be hunting a bear while learning.

Cuber: That would actually be fun, I've always wanted to hunt.

Angel: I don’t.

162

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Lollipop [sarcastically]: Hey, let’s kill an animal now.

Cannonball: Talking circles!

[I write the ideas on the board as they speak]

Lollipop: And dressing up!

Fireball: We could do cooking!

Jack: Maybe all the world celebrates two days of Aboriginal people.

Cuber: Woah, that's not fair, that's not fair!

Jack: What?

Cannonball: We don't celebrate our religion.

Cuber: Well I’m not Aboriginal. I want two days for the whole world to celebrate my religion, but no one will. No one will actually do that because people don’t even know what a First Nation is, I didn't even know what Canada was when I was in Kuwait.

Angel: I know! We could take them on an Aboriginal trip to the Aboriginal [laughs] people!

Mark: What does that mean?

Jack: Our school should have a walk, and like a walk or a field trip to an Aboriginal place that tells us stuff about First Nation peoples and how they lived. And then, um, like, we should have, like a simulator where you go in and you see how the world was, and people can put VR on it.

Mark: Why do you guys think this will help make things different than it was in the past?

Cuber: Because we would actually care about one another if there was like a day, maybe even FR day, for First Nations, or FN day, I don't know, and then…

Fireball: And everyone has to maybe drop their technology, they can't use the technology, but if they use technology it would be something like what Jack said, like a simulator with VR, they can like be like in the First Nation how they were working, shooting guns and stuff.

Cuber: Or if you're a First Nation, you can maybe hunt a deer, maybe, just for that day. Do you know what Eid is? When I celebrate it, you'd have to kill a goat, yeah, you have to slaughter a goat.

Jack: There should be like this one day, it’s a big land and you build your own tent and you have to sleep there overnight and try to survive there on your own, so like you have to learn how to help each other how to survive, so it’s like teamwork, like the raft game

163

LEARNING TO SETTLE

that people do. So, you have to find natural resources to build a tent and shelter, and there's vegetable farms [Cuber: Like Amazing Race] …and you have to find food and stuff.

(Research Group 1, Session 3)

There are many comments in the above section of transcription that could produce important conversations about appropriation, fetishization, and stereotyping within a group such as this. As examples, the students suggest creating an “Aboriginal simulator”, having “ceremonies of the

First Nation people as a party”, and having a Halloween-like day of celebration where

“everybody dresses up”. With each of these comments, the students show their limited understanding of and experiences with Indigenous peoples and the lack of understanding they have about the diversity of Indigenous communities, experiences, and cultures (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). As the students in the research group shared these comments that could be considered problematic in their nature, I faced the dilemma of whether and how to address them.

I was mindful at this point in the discussion of Lovern’s (2012) work where she describes the appropriation and misuse of (often sacred) Indigenous objects and symbols for the purpose of multicultural education in a manner that reifies the dominance of white settler identities and further marginalizes Indigenous children. As a researcher, however, my responses throughout the research process varied in different contexts according to my own understanding of the intent of the speaker, the context of the utterance, and the opportunity for productive conversations – aspects of the figured world of the research group that I was participating in. All of this was balanced with my desire to hear how the students discuss these topics within their own understandings and frameworks, with limited filtering due to worry of reproach or admonishment by an adult. For these reasons, I decided while the students were brainstorming and discussing their ideas, I would listen and ask clarifying questions to help me understand the students’ motivations or intentions in making these comments. During subsequent sessions of

164

LEARNING TO SETTLE this research group, I worked closely with these students as they developed a project for display at the school open house (described below) and I took opportunities then to interject or guide the students as they developed specific ideas into practical suggestions for inclusion in education.

For example, when the students wanted to include Indigenous ceremonies into social studies, I asked if they thought it would be respectful to make ceremonies into games for a classroom. In response, the students came up with the idea to invite an Indigenous elder to come and teach a class about ceremonies and their importance. In these ways, I took opportunities to guide students in the specifics of their projects, but after hearing their ideas firsthand and unfiltered.

The discourses at play in the figured worlds of this research group are incredibly rich and revealing about the ways students create and embody narratives of Indigeneity and schooling.

Within the above passage we learn how students respond to learning about the effects of settler colonialism by framing their understanding in terms of justice or respect that have currency in their everyday figured worlds of childhood and friendship (i.e. Donald Trump, or not having national celebrations for their religious holidays). Initially the students’ responses seemed to have little connection to the context of reconciliation, despite specifically being prompted to think about Indigenous-settler relationships moving forward in Canada. Students were struggling to make links between their prior knowledge and the questions asked about addressing historical and contemporary injustices perpetrated against Indigenous peoples by the nation-state and its citizens. In the ensuing discussion, however, the students in this research group did use the discourses available in the figured world of the classroom to connect the suffering of Indigenous peoples to an apparent lack of knowledge non-Indigenous peoples in Canada have about

Indigeneity. As discussed below, the students conceptualize that broken treaty relationships can

165

LEARNING TO SETTLE be addressed by learning about and including Indigenous content into every Canadian students’ social studies learning.

When looking specifically at the way the students responded to my question about teaching social studies in new ways, it becomes clear that the students highlight the importance of increased representation of Indigeneity, and pedagogical approaches that encouraged student engagement with the topic. To enhance student engagement, the participants wanted to develop hands-on activities that were experiential and interesting for other students, to keep interest high and stimulate positive experiences in learning about Indigenous topics. To understand how the participants made sense of the importance of representation, I want to highlight the next section of the discussion transcript, where the students discuss the possible impacts of teaching social studies in the manner they conceived:

Mark: If a school does all of these things, what do you think the school would be like?

Cannonball: Peace. I think there would be much more peace, because if like people like it, they would like, they aren’t going to be fighting as much.

Jack: There would be much more friendship, than in the past, and a lot of people would be happy.

Fireball: I think there would be more respect, I think there would be more respect if we were respecting them, we are learning the we aren't saying ‘No you can't come here because you're First Nations’, so we're respecting them.

(Research Group 1 Session 3)

In this passage, the students clarify the purpose behind the suggestions they made earlier in the transcript, and they describe how learning in the ways they envision could allow people to live in more peaceful, respectful, and trusting relationships with one another. In effect, Cannonball,

Fireball, and Jack foresee engaged learning about Indigenous peoples, cultures, stories, and perspectives as a vehicle for strong relationships between people. In their understanding this work will result in less fighting, more happiness, more respect, and more friendship. These

166

LEARNING TO SETTLE positive effects are not limited to Indigenous peoples only but are shared by the non-Indigenous students the group members planned their social studies learning for. For this group of students, strong and respectful relationships can be built through learning across differences and through positive engagement with Indigenous content and perspectives. Through the use of trading cards, superheroes, virtual reality, field trips, and other engaging methods, the participants suggested that students could learn about Indigenous histories and cultures and retain positive associations with their learning in contrast to how Canadian settlers have thought about and interacted with

Indigeneity throughout history. By increasing representation and teaching Indigenous content in interesting ways, the students in Research Group 1 envision a new way of learning Canadian and

Indigenous history to overcome differences and division.

The earlier transcript passages in this section relate how the students in this group brainstormed interesting ideas in response to learning about the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission. After this initial discussion, the students went on to hone their ideas down into a list of suggestions for teaching social studies in ways that can bring about respectful and peaceful relationships between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous Canadians. Though the initial ideas contained possibilities for encoding settler colonial tropes into the suggested curricular and pedagogical changes, the students worked through their ideas in conversation with one another and with me, and relied on expertise of others including Jean, the visiting guest who they met in their class. The resulting project represented the culmination of weeks of brainstorming, collaborating, and hands-on work by the students in this research group and is described below.

The project that the students built for their display at the school open house was based on the Taiohate Kaswenta Two-Row Wampum Belt that they learned about from Jean and Thomas in class and included a large poster board display explaining several different ideas for including

167

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous perspectives, histories, and cultural aspects into social studies education (see Image 1 below). The poster board incorporated several different ideas that the students had to address the issues in Canadian society and education which resulted in the marginalization of and racism against Indigenous peoples as shown in the Truth and Reconciliation Report. The project was called ‘Learning about the Past with Peace Man and Friendship Woman” and incorporates the idea of creating Indigenous superheroes who bring reconciliation and connection to communities, and who can be used as teaching tools for all students in elementary school to understand the idea of treaty and living well together. Alongside the drawings of Peace Man and

Friendship Woman that were created by Angel in the group are several small descriptions of activities which could be used to supplement teaching about Indigenous communities.

Underneath the drawings of the two Indigenous superheroes is a paper describing them in the words of the students, and it says:

Peace Man is a superhero that brings peace to everyone he sees. He has a wand that zaps people who are fighting and makes them live in peace. He has pink and blue on his outfit to represent both boys and girls.

Friendship Woman has sparkles that come from her hand and they make friends who are fighting become friends again. She has the hands of friendship on her shirt, and her outfit is designed from the two-row wampum belt.

We made these superheroes to bring peace and friendship to the world. When we learn about the past, we learn that there wasn’t always peace and friendship and respect, especially with the early explorers and First Nations.

After I describe the remaining sections of the students’ project, I will discuss their implications and applications.

The coloured paper on the left of the poster is a menu that could be created for a fictional café called “Explorers Express and First Nations Food” where delicacies the students learned about in their social studies units in third and fifth grades were put together into foods that the students found interesting and instructive. The list included items such as: “Deer Soup”,

168

LEARNING TO SETTLE

“Bannock”, “Three Sisters (Beans, Corn, and Squash)”, “Wild Turkey with Wild Rice and Wild

Mushroom Soup”, “Salmon”, “Moose Special” and, “Maple Syrup Popsicles”. The students suggested making foods in class that were either reminiscent of those eaten by the early

European explorers or were developed and valued by Indigenous groups locally.

Beside the menu for social studies-related foods is a description of how Talking Circles could be used with students and suggests that talking circles could be a helpful and non- judgemental way to share ideas for inquiry projects and help each other with ideas. On the opposite side of the descriptions of Peace Man and Friendship Woman is a paper describing how teaching about ceremonies could be meaningfully incorporated into social studies learning for all students. The students suggest that ceremonies would be an interesting and important topic of study to learn about how respect is shown when someone dies and to have opportunities to learn from guest speakers from local Indigenous communities.

In the bottom right-hand corner of the poster board is a paper describing how arts and artifacts could be used to help students understand the meanings of teachings and their importance for Indigenous groups. This paper also describes the medicine wheel that

Cannonball, Cuber, Fireball, and Jack made with Jean after they went to talk with her following her visit to the classroom. Cannonball, Cuber, Fireball, and Jack asked Jean if there was something they could learn from her about Haudenosaunee arts and artifacts, and they wrote here that they learned how the medicine wheel teaches “about treating everyone the same because everyone is equal”.

Above the description of Arts and Artifacts is a paper and picture that suggest Virtual

Reality could be a valuable teaching tool for students to learn about and experience some aspects of life in the past as they study history in social studies class. In their description of virtual reality

169

LEARNING TO SETTLE use in social studies, the students mentioned explicitly that virtual reality could help people who have a lot of possessions and “rich people” to understand their relative wealth when compared with life experienced by people in the past.

The final paper in the middle right of the poster board refers to an idea the students came up with just one day before the open house and discusses the concept of making a trading card game to help students feel excited about historical study and specifically the time period of

Indigenous interactions with early European explorers. The students made dozens of hand drawn playing cards including raw materials, weapons, methods of transportation, and individual heroes such as John Cabot and the Peacemaker. These cards were put into small stapled packages and handed out to all visitors to the classroom during Open House.

170

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Image 1: Open House project created by students from Research Group 1 at First School

171

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Examining the final product that the students in this research group chose to put together and share with their classmates, parents, teachers, and principals gives a good picture of how the students envisioned some possible steps for moving forwards in social studies education. The final poster-board project included a diverse representation of Indigenous topics, as understood by these fourth and fifth grade students, which could be incorporated into regular classroom learning. The work is a fulfillment of the ideas that the students came up with in the brainstorming session transcribed above and includes various ideas for Indigenous representation through engaging pedagogical approaches. The students in this research group put forward increased level of knowledge about Indigenous topics as the necessary condition for reconciliation and decided that teaching this material through age-appropriate and interesting ways will help children consolidate knowledge into their ideas about Canada and Indigeneity.

In proposing representation as an answer to settler colonial domination of Indigenous peoples, it appears the students were figuring the cause of this domination to be ignorance resulting from incomplete educational experiences at school. As argued in Chapter 2, education about the Other has often been employed as a tactic for continued oppression of marginalized peoples by the holders of hegemonic knowledge, but the students here are not calling for a simple learning about Indigeneity. Instead, the participants are calling for engaging pedagogical experiences that allow all students to grow in their understanding of and relationships with

Indigenous peoples and cultures. Looking at the different activity examples that the students put together for their presentation, we can understand that they value embodied learning that interacts with multiple senses and is not limited to simply hearing about the topic. There are no indications in the data that students deliberately chose these activities for the topic of Indigenous and settler education because they are especially appropriate for this setting. However, based on

172

LEARNING TO SETTLE their experiences as children and elementary school students, they expressed a strong desire to learn in engaging ways that go beyond simple book learning or lecture. This is how they figure education can be a vehicle for reconciliation and the restoration of relationships.

In this section I have shown how the students in Research Group 1 – The Explorers Who

Time Traveled Back to the Past - responded to learning about the fractured relationships between

Indigenous peoples and settlers in Canada that have persisted since the time of early exploration and settlement. The students brainstormed educational approaches that could address this injustice in the future that were framed around increasing representation of Indigenous content for all students. The students in this group argue that increasing all Canadian students’ understanding and knowledge of Indigeneity through engaging pedagogical experiences will result in peaceful, trusting, and respectful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the future. In the following section, I will describe how students from the same class but in a different research group developed different approaches and answers to the same questions, and at the end of the chapter I will discuss important implications of the findings from each of these figured worlds.

Group 2 - Mark’s Brainiacs: Inclusion and Equity for Individual Well-Being

From the same classroom at South School where the students of Research Group 1 volunteered, six other students chose to be part of a second research group. Research Group 2 consisted of six students in fifth grade who were generally friends with one another and often chose to work with each other when given the opportunity by the teacher in the classroom. The six students were Beaver, Swag, Adele, Sparkly, John and Nikki. Swag and Sparkly were twin siblings, and shared cultural and social connections with John outside of school life. Nikki was

173

LEARNING TO SETTLE close friends with Sparkly, and the other two members of the group, Beaver and Adele, were quieter members of the group who were often called by the teacher to work with her on remediated assignments during class time.

During our discussions in this research group the participants often ended up discussing topics that were tangentially related to the questions I was asking them, and the students had a fun time in the group telling jokes and discussing many aspects of classroom social dynamics. In my research design I planned to avoid controlling the discussions in the group and instead I made observational notes about what the students were doing to accompany the recorded audio when the group was active and spending time playing together and drawing on the board. While this dynamic was very engaging and an overall positive experience for myself and the participants, the data gathered from this research group had fewer explicit connections to the research questions I had prepared. However, analysis of the data gathered from the group’s discussions reveals valuable and important insights into the figured worlds of the research group as they worked on my research questions while prioritizing social interaction and friendship.

The students in this group demonstrated a very high commitment to being in the research group and helping me with my research project despite their propensity for distraction and entertainment. This was very clear in the dynamics at play when the students decided they wanted to develop an avenue to present our research group work to their parents and teachers during school open house. Several times in our sessions together the students would call one another back to the topic of discussion and chastise their friends if they were being led too far off topic. The resulting project that the students decided to work on was an interview style short documentary of our research group filmed and edited by Swag using a school iPad. This project was framed around presenting the group members’ ideas for the “Greatest Social Studies Unit

174

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Ever” and reveals many of the ways the students think about history, social studies, and learning in general. Despite my several invitations to focus the work on the topics of Indigenous histories and early explorers, the students did not make specific connections or examples in their iMovie project to the curriculum they were studying in fifth grade, nor to the topics I asked about in the research group. Rather, the group members generally focused their ideas for social studies learning around issues of personal equity, accessibility, and well-being. This was the theme of the group which called themselves “Mark’s Brainiacs” when they worked on discussing and presenting ideas for the best way to teach and learn social studies in light of the students’ growing understanding of Indigenous and settler inequity. When I explicitly asked the students to try and take some lessons from their learning about history to apply to the present, they continually struggled to answer this question, and the figured world of the research group did not seem to hold discourses that allowed history to speak to the present in a meaningful or impactful way. This is consistent with the findings of curriculum studies literature around history learning

(Bransford & Donovan, 2005; Nokes, 2012; O’ Sullivan, 2014; Vukelich & Thornton, 1991), but the comparisons between the work of Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (discussed below) reveals that students are able, in some cases, to engage in meaningful discussions about lessons from the past that can influence thinking about the present.

To discuss the work done in Research Group 2, I will highlight the ways students employed discourses of general well-being and equity in their responses to my questions about improving life for Indigenous peoples and Canadians moving forwards in the light of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report and Calls to Action. The work of Research Group 2’s project began in the same way as Group 1, during our third session together when I asked the students about their thoughts on the relevance of the teachings of Taiohate Kaswenta, the Two-

175

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Row Wampum belt. After approximately twenty minutes of discussion based around the work the students are doing in their social studies class, I showed them a large picture of the Taiohate

Kaswenta:

Mark: Do you remember this?

Adele: It looks familiar.

John: It’s a wampum belt. When Thomas and Jean came, uh, she had a big flag but, it wasn't like that [a beaded belt], it was just a flag.

Mark: What did Jean tell us this wampum belt represented?

Sparkly: The three I know is trust, friendship, and respect, there was an order...I think it was respect on top…

Mark: What did these have to do with the wampum belt?

Sparkly: Because both of those, what were they called again? The nations? Or groups?

John: The tribes, or the clans

Sparkly: Yeah, the tribes didn't really like, I guess they weren't really like... [inaudible] and I guess it’s for bringing people together and being friends...I can't really say it.

Mark: Do you remember what the purple bands mean?

Nikki: I think it meant something like the....

Swag: The boats!

Adele: Yeah, the boats. like one was going like this way, and the other going this way, like natives and the other...

John: Nope...I think she said the top one was the natives, and the bottom one was the... the Europeans, and it showed I think, friendship between them, and then, uh, what it means, I think Jean said, is that, like, um, they are side by side.

Mark: Yeah, this was a treaty between European settlers and the First Nations, right? and they said they needed to have respect and friendship and trust between them. Ever since the time that you are all investigating there was this treaty, and from the times that you are studying in class until now, do you think that people treated the First Nations and other people with respect, friendship, and trust?

[Indiscernible voices] No.

176

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Beaver: So, um, these peoples, they came in boats, like if they are trading or not, and they like keep it from way, and the king knows, so whenever they trade, they have these boats that watch them trade, and then they trade, and the boats make sure that nobody gets hurt or that they start a fight, or else the king will just come.

Adele: I think so, a little bit...

Nikki: Maybe not all the time, but depending on maybe who they are, what their religion was, like the English didn't get along with the French but maybe the English got along with the Dutch.

(Research Group 2 Session 3)

The responses of the students in this section of transcript provide a stark contrast to the responses of Research Group 1. These students use subdued language to communicate that they are not sure about the relationships between Indigenous peoples and settlers in Canada, and their responses indicate that they have limited prior understanding about colonialism and discrimination against Indigenous peoples in Canada. The students in Research Group 1, however, immediately responded to the same question with unqualified agreement that the treaty relationships have not been upheld.

After gathering these initial comments from the students in Research Group 2, I followed up with the same approach that I used in Research Group 1. I showed the students a physical copy of the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and briefly introduced it to them. I read the first sentence of the introduction to the report and wanted to elicit how the students thought things could be done differently moving forward with education. Nikki was the first to respond when I finished reading the introductory sentence:

Nikki: That's cruel!!! So cruel.

Mark: One of the things they say in this report is that we need to make schools better for Indigenous people and the rest of Canada in the future. So, since you guys are the future of the country, maybe the kids in grade 5 know what we can do. If you were in charge of schools, what would you do to make things different in the future? Especially with respect, trust, and friendship.

177

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Beaver: I have a question actually about them being themselves [Indigenous peoples], how does the government know that they are being themselves, when they’re in their brains?

Mark: When it says they can’t be themselves it means they can’t speak their language, live with their community, have their culture, or be who they really are.

Beaver: Oh, ok.

John: Uh, can we just have a vote on this, uh, I read this book, and it has a group and it calls the group the Silver 6, so that could be one of our group names.

Swag: Yeah, I read that book too, I checked it out from the library in grade 3 and grade 4 and grade 5.

Mark: We can consider that for our group name. I wonder if you can try and give me some of your ideas about how we can make some changes to schools to make things better in the future for everyone, including Indigenous people?

John: Um, I’m not sure.

Mark: Sparkly, what do you think, what would you do if you were in charge?

Sparkly: Maybe we could make it a better place by... this is hard.

John: I want to learn something that is kind of interesting and make it fun, so people aren't bored.

Sparkly: You know how they say that the future will have all this technology, but I think I would make it to have more books instead of technology.

Nikki: Yeah, like she said, because they use tech, but they aren't really learning much, I betcha [sic] that the less tech we use the more we would learn.

Mark: If you were in charge of setting up the Grade 5’s where you learn about early explorers and First Nations, how would you make it that we have more peace respect and friendship like with the treaty instead of the things that are were in the past and are talked about in this report?

John: I would try to make it something that was, like say I had students I would try and make it something that they could manage, like maybe for some things like inquiry it’s really hard and you might want to switch it up a little bit, like still challenge them but not make it so hard that they are stressing about it.

Swag: I’d probably get them to like, get them to probably look for books at bookstores about the early explorers to see what they, any information about them, or to look at tech to see if you can find at least one piece of information for their project.

178

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Nikki: I've got one - I would think maybe doing something like, instead of like, maybe something like, before we do something, we can warm up a bit and then we can do something to calm down and then if its too hard for somebody maybe we can back up a bit.

Mark: Do you think that will give us a better future?

Nikki: I think it would because if you give a student so much work that they’re stressed out and you give them no break its just not going to work, but maybe if a student is struggling get them some help…

Mark: What about to help in our study of First Nations’ histories?

Nikki: I would like to find some books and read about First Nations, and then we could do some research a bit and go back to it, and yeah, that's pretty much it!

Adele: I would let everyone be their selves [sic], let everyone have more books, work at your own pace, I wouldn't rush anyone, I would help them a lot but not give them any answers.

Nikki: Another way to have a better future is maybe to do something like respecting school properly, another way is to like trust people more and I would give them some time to work with a friend maybe, and maybe partner them up with new people and make friends, it helps to trust other people, make friendship, and respect other people.

Sparkly: Maybe um, [pauses]

John: What was the topic again?

Mark: If you were in charge, how would we get kids to learn about First Nations for a better future?

Beaver: Maybe we could make a different kind of craft but not maybe the same thing [gesturing to the wampum belt].

Swag: I think the kids could work with a partner, and then help each other to work on their projects, and maybe tell them each other's knowledge and what they know about the topic, share ideas, work ideas.

(Research Group 2 Session 3)

It is evident that the students in this group struggled initially with my question and were having a difficult time considering pedagogical or curricular approaches in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report. Initially John wanted to talk about our group name instead of my question, then both Sparkly and he struggled to come up with any meaningful

179

LEARNING TO SETTLE response. When the group members did eventually come up with some ideas, they came through a meandering discussion that I tried to direct several times by rewording or restating my questions. In the audio recording of this discussion, it is clear that the students wanted to try to have a good discussion but were struggling with the concept of education as a response to settler colonialism. In my research notes after this group session I wrote that this conversation felt at times like I was “pulling teeth” with my questioning. The difficulty the students were having in this discussion is not surprising when considering broad societal settler resistance to engage in discussions about settler responsibility (discussed in Chapter 2). As the discussion did proceed, it became clear to me that the students were struggling to find a frame of reference from which they could relate to the discussion. The students in Group 1 entered the discussion through the pathway of representation in schools and led by their own personal experiences of marginalized identities. However, that was not taken up by students in Group 2, and it was after repeated rephrasing of the questions that the students began to snowball their ideas off one another to help me understand how they saw effective education for change,

When the students did provide their ideas for making meaningful educational changes, they represented a general thread of seeking inclusion and well-being for all students. They suggest making learning “not boring”, “less stressful”, and helping kids “calm down” when things are challenging. With these supports in place, these students figure children will want to learn and would be engaged in the curriculum that their teachers are instructing them in. When I then asked the participants how this will help in the context of Indigenous and Canadian histories, their responses continued to suggest that individualized educational supports will address student needs and allow them to learn well. Adele says that it is important for each student to be able to be themselves, and Swag says that students should be allowed to work with

180

LEARNING TO SETTLE partners if it will help them learn. Nikki provides similar answers but frames her responses with the language of Taiohate Kaswenta of peace, friendship, respect, and trust. Nikki says that students should learn to respect school property and can learn respect and trust by working with a friend in the classroom to complete assignments.

In the third sessions of both Research Group 1 and Research Group 2 at South School, I asked the students to recall their learning about Taiohate Kaswenta and treaty relationships from the classroom, and then give me their responses to hearing parts of the report of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. Whereas the students in Group 1 described the importance of including Indigenous content into education, the students in Group 2 framed appropriate responses in the terms of equity and inclusive educational practices. Group 2 participants expressed a need for all children to feel supported in the classroom and highlighted how this can be achieved through attending to individual needs. When specifically asked how this will improve education about Indigenous histories in light of the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission Report, their responses continued to frame individual inclusion and well-being as the necessary approach for educators.

The academic literature and several professional development resources have pointed out the compromises inherent in focusing solely on individual struggles and experiences of discrimination while ignoring discussions with students about structural racism, oppression, and institutional bias (Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, 2012; British Columbia Teachers Federation, n.d.; Kempf, 2012; Ono, 2010; Priest et al., 2016; Zembylas, 2010). The literature points to some explanations about many of the discussions that were had by the students in Research Group 2 when I asked them about settler colonialism and Indigeneity in education, but I am reluctant to draw strong causal links between concepts of colour-blindness or the erasure of race and the

181

LEARNING TO SETTLE responses of the students in Research Group 2 because my questions were not specifically targeting the students’ understandings of racism. Instead, I was seeking to understand how the students responded to learning about the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions’ findings, and whether they had a prior understanding of broken treaty relationships after studying early

Indigenous-Canadian relationships in social studies class.

When analyzed through the lens of figured worlds, it becomes clear that the students in this group did not have narratives nor discourses available to them from which they could discuss addressing settler colonialism through education, but the reasons why the students did not have a place from which they could enter in to this discussion are not clear. It is clear, however, that the formal and informal curricula that they encountered in fifth grade social studies class did not prepare the students to think about treaty relationships or the ongoing process of colonialism in Canada. With this in mind, I analyzed the students’ figured worlds and recognize that this group of students had access to a schema of understanding that echoes similar sentiments to those of colour-blind ideologies or decontextualized understandings of the insignificance of race to individual well-being. This schema that was available to the students in this figured world was one of individual well-being in educational settings.

Examining the students’ approach to education for reconciliation does provide some important insights for educators and researchers. As the students in this group advocated for personal and individual well-being, they point to a pathway forward for educators to discuss the diversity of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples on Turtle Island, and the dangers of applying stereotypes to people based on preconceptions of culture or social identity. This leaves room to challenge settler colonial discourses and structures that have worked to mythologize

Indigenous peoples and relegate them to an abstract conception framed by settler narratives, and

182

LEARNING TO SETTLE it opens room for imagining Indigenous futurities beyond settler stereotypes. Additionally, the narratives of the students in Research Group 2 may serve as a foundation for discussing how institutional structures and societal oppression work to harm individuals simply based on their identity, physical characteristics, or cultural background. In this way, the students’ prioritization of individual well-being allows a discussion of how settler colonial discourses and practices work to harm Indigenous peoples and remove possibilities for fruitful relationships that promote the well-being of everyone on Turtle Island.

The students in Research Group 2 learned about and responded to settler-Indigenous relationships in ways that were different from the students in Research Group 1 and demonstrated some of the different narratives at play in their figured worlds. While Group 1 decided that students required educational experiences that are engaging and included diverse modalities of Indigenous representation, the students in Group 2 focused on the importance of individual and personal well-being to address the inequities in society and education caused by settler colonialism. Both of these responses came from explicit questioning by me in the research groups about how to make education more equitable and just. The students in the next research group, Group 3, had a different experience in their research group that I will now describe.

Group 3 - Shared Understanding and Complexity in the Study of Historical Oppression

The students in Research Group 3 were fifth-grade students from two classrooms at

North School in the lower city of Hamilton whose teachers incorporated inquiry-based learning into social studies. The group consisted of seven students from diverse backgrounds, several of whom were first- and second- generation immigrants. As will be seen in the following section, the students in Research Group 3 drew from their personal experiences as they discussed issues

183

LEARNING TO SETTLE in social studies education, and their figured worlds of schooling were populated with narratives of power and oppression in ways that were not evident at South School.

In the third session of Research Group 3, I asked the students to talk about the relevance

Canadian and Indigenous histories from the 18th century have for the present day, and whether they think they have learned meaningful things about the country in their social studies units.

Unicorn responded first to my question, and opened up an interesting discussion about what is often missing from history curricula:

Unicorn: Mr. Sinke, actually, when we were on the Early settlers, that unit, I remember I as talking to my dad about it, and then he told me stuff about that unit that we didn't really learn about in class, and he said I don't know why they aren't teaching you this stuff and all that.

Mark: What kind of stuff?

Unicorn: I don't really, I'm not really, I don't really know that much, but they said stuff like how they were treated.

[Three other students voiced their agreement]

Unicorn: Yeah like how they were like prisoners and all that stuff

Mark: And you didn't learn that in your unit?

Saudi Cipher: No, no, no.

Libyan Warrior: What I found, and I was speaking to my parents about it. we learned how there was Hitler, and there was, well I was speaking to my parents, it’s not like Jews did nothing bad in their life, there's been a lot of wars where Jews destroyed my country. Palestine used to be there; Israel took it over.

Buck: Oh yeah, Palestine.

Mark: Tell me if I'm wrong, are you saying that a lot of the stuff we talk about is maybe one sided and there's also other sides to every story?

Libyan Warrior: Yeah, they try to show you like the sad, sad, existence that they lived.

Saudi Cipher: What about the other side though.

Libyan Warrior: Yeah, they did something really bad to other people, its not like they didn't deserve that…

184

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Buck: No one looks at both of the perspectives, they just think Hitler is terrible, but they don't think, maybe the Jews, (pause) I'm not, I'm not, I'm not saying…

Libyan Warrior: Yeah, you're not suggesting that Hitler is smart or is a good guy.

Buck: Yeah, I'm not saying that Hitler should have done something, anything.

Libyan Warrior: But still, it’s understandable that you should be mad at them because they've done just as bad things.

Saudi Cipher: And they don’t really talk about both sides they usually stick to one side, and all the bad things that happened to that person, and all the bad things that didn't happen to the other person.

(Research Group 3, Session 3)

Unicorn took the opportunity of the research group to explain how her father had told her about negative aspects of settler histories in Canada that are often left out of educational curricula, including negative treatment of Indigenous peoples and discrimination. Libyan Warrior then built on Unicorn’s comments and argued that histories are often told from a single perspective and without important nuance. Libyan Warrior chooses the example of how the Jewish people are viewed in light of their experiences in World War 2 under the Nazi regime. Libyan Warrior is a young Muslim from Northern Africa and contrasted this historical understanding of Jewish suffering with the oppression of Palestinian people under the modern Jewish nation state of

Israel. Saudi Cipher and Buck then support Libyan Warrior’s comments about how histories may often represent one side of an issue or event while obfuscating or ignoring another side. As a researcher I was interested in the specific idea that histories are presented in biased perspectives but wanted to focus the discussion back onto Canadian and Indigenous histories, so I chose not to engage further with the discussion about Palestine and Hitler. Instead I asked the group to consider where else diverse historical perspectives may be missing.

Mark: Is there another example besides World War 2 that you think of?

185

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Saudi Cipher: Um...the First Nations and the French. you see, as many of you guys know, the French came over just for the beaver fur, and the First Nations were just like, when they [settlers] came, they were like, ‘I don't know what to do, I'm just new here’, and they just discovered this new land and the First Nations.

Mark: And what do you think is the other side to the story that we can learn?

Saudi Cipher: More of why the French came there, I think its more than just the beaver fur.

Mark: You have a suspicion that it’s more complex? but you didn't learn about that in social studies?

Saudi Cipher: No, no we didn't learn anything about that.

Mark: Maybe are you both saying we sometimes learn a one sided or an easy picture, but sometimes life is more complicated?

Saudi Cipher: Way more complicated.

Libyan Warrior: Yeah.

Saudi Cipher: And sometimes they focus really on one thing, but there's that same idea, on that type of thing, just in another way, but they won’t talk about anything about that, they will talk about something that is more related to them than to other people. Let’s say like, even some religious things, they'll talk a lot about one religion, but not any others. yeah, they won’t talk a lot about other people, they will just stick to one thing, and then move along from that.

Mark: And where do you think there's room for those other ideas?

Libyan Warrior: Well you could split the time, you could do like, let’s say you have 15 periods, you could do 5 periods on one thing, 5 periods on one thing, 5 periods on one thing.

Saudi Cipher: Then its double sided, triple sided perspectives.

(Research Group 3, Session 3)

In this passage, Libyan Warrior and Saudi Cipher demonstrated the importance that they place on understanding the complexities of historical stories, such as the motivations for French settlement on Turtle Island, rather than simplistic stories that convey a single perspective. It is interesting to note that Saudi Cipher did not suggest that he had learned only a simplistic view of

Indigenous experiences, as Unicorn did in the previous transcript excerpt, but instead he

186

LEARNING TO SETTLE suggested that the motivations for French settlement were simplified in the fifth-grade study of history during social studies class. In the data, however, Saudi Cipher did not provide more information about what he suspected these more complex motivations were. As the discussion continued, another example about one-sided histories that Saudi Cipher and Libyan Warrior bring up is the topic of religion. Saudi Cipher and Libyan Warrior both identify as Muslim, and in the next session together with Research Group 3 this topic was brought up again by the students, as an example of missing perspectives in the study of history. It is therefore clear that in this excerpt Saudi Cipher and Libyan Warrior argue for more inclusion of diverse topics in historical study beyond predominant narratives of the majority culture, and it is possible that their motivation for this argument is connected in some part to their personal experiences of attending school as a member of a minority religious group that is marginalized in Canadian settler discourses (El-Sherif & Sinke, 2018).

The following session with the students in Research Group 3, I asked the students to consider the different perspectives on the upcoming 150th anniversary celebrations of Canada’s confederation. This seemed to be a good entry point for this group because they had been discussing how one of them was selected to receive an award during a city-wide 150th anniversary celebration.

Mark: Next month will be Canada’s 150th birthday, and there are many celebrations, and I know that some people are not celebrating the birthday because of the negative things in the history of Canada that have been ignored, such as racism and discrimination. Some people I’ve heard say that we should instead look forward and try to make the next 150 years of Canada better. You guys are young, would you rather learn about the realities about negative histories as well as the stories you learn about the good things that have happened?

Libyan Warrior: Negative histories.

Vienna: Truth about your history because.

Opasinger: I'd say that...

187

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Libyan Warrior: True history...

Opasinger: Yeah.

Vienna: Because if a kid grows up without knowing their history, they are just going to grow up thinking about the same thing, and then when you teach them something then they're not going to believe it because they already have one thing set in their head.

Mark: So, when would you want to hear or learn about that? Like as little kids? Or grade 5?

Libyan Warrior: I'd say at least grade 4 or 5.

[indiscernible voice] Yeah, or 3.

Saudi Cipher: No more, no more than 5.

Vienna: 3!

Mark: You shouldn't wait for high school?

Libyan Warrior: When you’re in high school [Opasinger: You already have…] …your mind is made up [Opasinger: Yeah!] ...it's hard to even change it by then…

Vienna: And by that point I guess you're worried about more important things.

Libyan Warrior: You're thinking about lots of different things.

Mark: So, lets think of an example, something like slavery, would you rather wait until kids are older or learn it when they are younger?

Libyan Warrior: Learn it when they're younger.

Vienna: Well kids find out eventually, because I found out when I was in grade 2, or when I was in grade, like, kindergarten because the history of my family is that, so, it depends on what nation and what culture you come from, cuz [sic] if, like your history is about that, then, parents teach you about that, and if you're not, if your history isn't that, like some people would tell their kids about it, but some people would be like, I'll just leave the school to tell them, but then the school doesn't tell them.

The students in Group 3 here demonstrate their strong opinions on the importance of teaching histories of racism and discrimination to young students throughout their school careers. Most of the groups suggest learning about these topics in primary school, or by the time children are in fifth grade at the latest. If this is not done, these participants believe that people’s conceptions of

188

LEARNING TO SETTLE the world will solidify around one-sided perspectives in negative ways. Specifically, Vienna’s comment here shows the depth of her understanding of the impact a lack of knowledge can have on society. In the group, Vienna often spoke about being a young Black person and recognizing the white narratives in the dominant stories that she learned about in school. She comments here that diverse and complex histories are important to learn as a young child because if they are not taught to a person when they are young, then as an adult they would be less likely to accept different perspectives on histories they have grown up with. This insight by Vienna reflects her own understanding of social discourses and the practices of adults and is also evocative of the persistence of settler colonial narratives in mainstream Canadian society despite the growing number of voices telling the realities of historical and ongoing Indigenous elimination.

The last comment made in the above excerpt of transcript is Vienna’s thoughts about the ways schools are lacking in how they teach students about racism in history, so that if parents do not educate their children about these topics, then the children will grow up in ignorance. In this light, I asked the students to discuss teachers’ roles and responsibilities regarding teaching complex histories including negative experiences such as exploitation and oppression.

Mark: So, you're telling that the true history is really important to learn about, what if the teacher doesn't know about it?

Vienna: Then shame on her!!

Libyan Warrior: Maybe they should do research then.

Saudi Cipher: And, actually if they did it in the beginning, then she would know about it.

Vienna: So basically, it’s the schools and the parents’ fault, because they didn't teach the child about it.

Saudi Cipher: So, they filled their mind with this stuff.

(Research Group 3, Session 4)

189

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The students in this group were relentless in their condemnation of teachers and the system of education which does not include teaching about oppression and negative histories, blaming parents and schools if a teacher is able to enter the profession without adequate knowledge of slavery or oppression to teach their own students about these things. In the eyes of the students, there is no adequate excuse for not including oppression and negative histories in curricular experiences of children in school.

Later in the session, I asked the students to focus their attention specifically onto the teaching of social studies and reflect on their own learning in the unit of study they completed that academic year.

Mark: Right now, I'm researching about social studies..., what do you think is really important for people to learn about specifically in social studies?

Saudi Cipher: True history of Canada, not just focused on one thing.

Libyan Warrior: Yeah, agreed.

Vienna: Because then what they tell you is all lies, that Canada was always a perfect country and it was always just this nation.

Mark: What do you think are some of the lies that you might have learned?

Vienna: That, uh, like Canada was just like those like, those, light, skinned people [said nervously]

Mark: You can say white, that's ok.

Vienna: The white people, Canada was just the white people and it was always like this, and they created this, and this and this, but really, they stole everything from other countries and then brought them here.

Libyan Warrior: Almost everything is from a different country, even like the numbers that come, the letters, the person who made, I believe it was, Al-Gebra [sic], he was not Canadian…With First Nations, imagine the French never came, the First Nations just continue, and we wouldn't be speaking English right now, we would be speaking, whatever...

Saudi Cipher: We'd be speaking Six Nations.

190

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Vienna: And we wouldn’t even be here right now if it was all First Nations, we would just be back in Libya, or Saudia [sic], or Greece, or Tonga, it would be totally different if they didn't come and raid their land.

(Research Group 3, Session 4)

Here is another example of how the students in this group figure the world of social studies learning and relate to the dominant narratives of Canadian history and identity. Rather than adopt the narratives of settler colonialism, Saudi Cipher, Libyan Warrior, and Vienna have described how these narratives do not fit with their understanding of Canada. Canada is a place of contradiction where discourses of Canadian excellence are challenged by the contributions and experiences of non-white people that are marginalized in these discourses. Vienna talks about the colonial raiding of others’ lands, and the stealing of people and resources from other countries for the benefit of white Canada. Libyan Warrior adds his opinions on the non-Canadian creation of algebra as representative of the dominance of white narratives in social studies.

In the following passage from Group 3, Thing 1 and Opasinger add their opinions on the teachings of history in social studies classes, and have an interesting discussion about the complexities of stories that are left out of generalized educational discourses:

Thing 1: I feel like when we were learning about the First Nations and the Europeans, I feel like it was one perspective, not from both perspectives, and there were things kind of like, off camera, like kind not being filmed, because it isn't, you aren't like talking about the stuff that other people's opinions, and they are just sticking to one thing, and that isn't really going like out, and like, yeah.

Mark: Which did you hear a lot?

Thing 1: I heard that the Europeans were very bad people and they're like evil, and they did this and wanted the beaver fur, and all the First Nations are perfect, and they didn't do anything wrong, they're being so innocent, but then after, like, off camera, they are like evil and crazy and stuff.

Mark: Did your teacher teach you about that or did you learn it on your own?

Unicorn: The teacher, she read us the book ‘Encounter’.

191

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Thing 1: Yeah.

Mark: Do you remember any specifics about what you learned?

Thing 1: I might remember later on.

Opasinger: I'm going to try to disagree with you, but I don't want to be disagreeable. I think what happened is that the First Nations were all innocent and all this, but I think that the French were kind of like show offs, they looked like they had expensive things, they wanted basically everything, so like the beaver fur was like the most rare fur and they wanted all of that, and I find it that they are a little greedy and they are never thankful for what they had, so like they sent the coureurs des bois to marry different First Nations women so they can get into their tricks and steal the beaver fur and go back to their territory, and the reason I'm saying this is, I find it a little weird that you're going to go back when you just marry someone, but really, like, I can understand that you just married that person for just the beaver fur, but you're taking advantage of that, the people that have taught you how to catch beavers.

Thing 1: So I agree with Opasinger and I also agree with my thought, because both of them do things that they aren't supposed to, so for example Opasinger did something bad to me, and I do something bad to her, and they only talk about what Opasinger did and think I'm perfect, this is not what’s supposed to happen, and they don't know exactly what happened, and they just stay in their own box.

(Research Group 3, Session 4)

This excerpt is from the same session transcript as the previous two excerpts, during which Saudi

Cipher, Libyan Warrior, and Vienna discuss teaching racism and discrimination in the school context. The conversation continued, but Thing 1 and Opasinger weighed in with their opinions on the seemingly one-sided perspectives they were taught in their class. Thing 1 begins by highlighting how they talked in their class specifically about the negative treatment of

Indigenous peoples by French settlers, and that she perceived an “innocent” portrayal of the First

Nations. However, Thing 1 said that she knows that “off camera” the Indigenous people were,

“evil and crazy, and stuff”. She is unable to recall specific examples but is trying to make a point about the complexities of peoples that are left out of narratives that try to paint a historical portrait of a good side and a bad side. Her comments echo those of her group members during the previous session, Session 3, when Libyan Warrior discussed the complexity of the Jewish

192

LEARNING TO SETTLE people, who historically may be painted as victims while they are also understood by many to be perpetrators of colonialism.

In response to Thing 1’s comments, Opasinger takes a contrasting position and highlights the aspects of French settlement that she finds to be wrong, such as greed despite their wealth and trickery. Opasinger talks at length about the ways the French settlers and coureurs des bois took advantage of the First Nations people they contacted and lived with, all in an effort to demonstrate her position that the First Nations were relatively innocent in the contexts that they are talking about. After Opasinger finishes her comments, Thing 1 concedes that neither side was innocent during the period of early settlement and concludes that it would be wrong to only listen to the grievances of one party when both parties are at fault.

The dynamic and thoughtful comments that the students in Research Group 3 gave about the teaching of history show two keys ways that they approach Canadian and Indigenous histories: through complexity and understanding. In the following paragraphs I will discuss how the students in this group provided explanations for their understanding of Canadian and

Indigenous histories that differed from those of the students at South School because of the emphasis Research Group 3 had on understanding and complexity.

Firstly, several of the students in this group drew upon their personal experiences of marginalization - either racial or religious - and used these experiences as frames through which they understood the relationships between European settlers and Indigenous peoples on Turtle

Island. Because he had learned about the relationships between Palestinians and the state of

Israel, Libyan Warrior knew that nation-states can often wield oppressive power over their neighbours and communities within their borders. He spoke from this viewpoint when he argued for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the histories that citizens of a country learn in

193

LEARNING TO SETTLE elementary school. A spoke from his experiences as a young Muslim when he used religion as an example of gaps that exist in how dominant cultures speak about events from history. This perspective gave him a position from which he argued for the inclusion of minority voices in the teaching of history. Vienna repeatedly spoke from her position as a racialized youth to highlight how histories are presented with majority white narratives that prioritize positive framings of white settler presence on Indigenous lands. She perceived the settlement of Europeans onto

Turtle Island as consistent and in-kind with the raiding and stealing committed by European colonial powers elsewhere in the world. Her perspectives on Canadian and Indigenous history were influenced by her experiences such that she was confidently critical of normative discourses.

Considering the geographical location and socio-economic context of North School, the figured worlds of Research Group 3 at North School indicate that the students’ life experiences had a meaningful impact on the ways they approach and understand history. The contexts of their lives include experiences of migration, religious discrimination, racialization, and/or economic deprivation, and these experiences have shaped how they understand the world around them.

Many of these participants demonstrated an understanding of oppressive structures and discourses that privilege certain people while denigrating others. This larger understanding of power, oppression, and privilege was missing for the most part from the figured worlds of

Research Groups 1 and 2 at South School, but for the students in Research Group 3 these narratives were so important that they had relevance in educational contexts and not simply the contexts of their personal lives outside of the school. In this sense, the students in Research

Group 3 were able to access a sense of understanding regarding Indigenous peoples when learning about the oppression and discrimination that they faced due to settler colonialism.

194

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Understanding systems of oppression through lived experiences placed them in a different position than their peers at South School, and so they approached the topic of Indigenous and

Canadian histories with this perspective in mind.

Secondly, the students at North School revealed the high value they placed on understanding complexity in historical narratives. Rather than understanding early Canadian settlement and ongoing settler-Indigenous relationships as a dichotomy between good guys and bad guys, these students wanted to be given the opportunities to learn the nuances of events that reflect the complex nature of human interactions. Libyan Warrior and Thing 1 claimed that they thought a simplistic picture of Indigenous peoples as entirely innocent victims betrayed reality because of their understanding that groups of people are not entirely uniform in their innocence or guilt. Saudi Cipher and Libyan Warrior argued for all students in Canadian schools to learn narratives of history that reflect multiple perspectives and highlight diversity. Vienna described how the simplistic pictures of a “perfect” Canadian society that hides its complicity in colonialism need to be challenged. Within this group of students, there were multiple ways in which they shared the importance they placed on complexity in narratives of history, and how they wanted all Canadians to go beyond simplistic and un-nuanced stories of Canada’s beginnings and development. It is clear what these participants conclude is the effect of avoiding nuance and complexity in history, as they described the ways high schoolers and adults who are not taught the complicated nature of reality are often hardened in their opinions because they were not taught young to critically examine the stories they learn.

Conclusion

195

LEARNING TO SETTLE

In this chapter I have described how the students in each of the three research groups in this project understood and responded to some of the realities of settler colonialism. In groups 1 and 2 at South School, I asked the students to consider how they might recommend teaching

Canadian and Indigenous histories in light of their understanding of early treaty relationships and the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. At North School I documented complex conversations that the students had about what is important to consider when studying history. In each of the three groups, a complex and unique figured world with differing narratives and discourses provided the context for students to act and speak, differentiating each group from the others.

In Research Group 1, the students developed a project that demonstrated the importance they placed on Indigenous representation in elementary social studies learning. In their project, the participants produced examples of possible pedagogical and curricular responses to the exclusion and elimination of Indigenous peoples and cultures from mainstream Canadian settler society, including Indigenous superheroes to teach about treaties, trading card games, virtual reality simulators, and cooking projects. Each of the examples that the students put forward were meant to engage students in interesting experiences that promoted Indigenous cultures and histories and would give students a deeper understanding of Indigeneity in Canada to help people build and maintain positive relationships of respect and trust.

As students in Group 1 called for representation and engaging pedagogical experiences, they were highlighting how topics of such importance as Indigenous perspectives and histories – in light of settler colonialism and its effects – can not be taught as a subject matter to cover in class, but instead must be infused throughout the curriculum. By engaging students with interesting and relational pedagogical experiences, the participants in Group 1 believe that all

196

LEARNING TO SETTLE children will develop a stronger sense of what Indigeneity means and approach the ongoing process of reconciliation with the principles that guided the Taiohate Kaswenta agreement: peace, friendship, and respect.

The students in Research Group 2 responded to the realities of settler colonialism as laid out in the Truth and Reconciliation Report by planning approaches to teaching and learning that prioritize individual well-being and inclusion. The participants described the ways they thought students should learn to help them feel secure, comfortable, and supported in the classroom environment. Through this focus on individual well-being, students would be able to develop respectful and peaceful relationships with one another and bring these skills to their lives outside of the classroom. Within their figured worlds, the participants in Group 2 built on the narratives of inclusive education that they were familiar with to frame how education can respond to the injustice of settler colonialism. Reconciliation and education for healthy relationships can be achieved by allowing each child in schools to receive the support, encouragement, and care that they need to achieve their goals. This conception of the role of education does not confront nor deal with the structural influence of settler colonialism in education that was highlighted in

Chapter 5, but it does provide insights into how students who did not demonstrate understanding of oppression or structural injustice can still find ways to talk about addressing issues in terms that are meaningful to them and could have significant results for students.

At North School, in another part of the city of Hamilton, the students in Research Group

3 expressed shared understanding for the plights of victims of settler oppression based on their own understandings of power and dominance. Students reflected on the ways oppression can exclude minority opinions and perspectives from normative stories of the past and drew from varied experiences as racialized and/or religious minorities to make conclusions about how

197

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Canadian and Indigenous histories should be taught for all children in Canada. These participants concluded that history is complex, and that students benefit from learning that complexity from an early age so they can engage with a diversity of perspectives and experiences as they are growing and forming their understanding of the world. This understanding demonstrates how student experience can provide a frame through which they can view and approach topics that are initially unfamiliar to them. As such, educators can consider that students are often willing to engage in meaningful discussions about issues of injustice and oppression if these issues are approached in a way that values student experience. By populating the figured world of the classroom with discourses that openly engage the topics of power and privilege, educators can help the improvisations that students in this study are producing become sedimented into the cultural life of the classroom.

198

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 7: Belonging and Finding a Place

In Chapters 5 and 6 I discussed some of the ways the students in this study engaged with the figured world of the social studies classroom as they learned about Indigenous and Canadian histories in Grades 4 and 5. I emphasized the dominance of settler colonial narratives in the figured world of the classroom, and how the students took those up for themselves, demonstrating the influence these narratives have on the students’ understandings of Indigeneity.

I also showed how students enact identities-in-practice that are framed by multiple varying narratives, as evidenced by the students’ willingness and eagerness to learn and adopt new understandings that counter and challenge settler colonial narratives. Rather than passively adopting settler perspectives, the students in this study positioned themselves as learners who were open to adopting knowledge from trusted adults teaching them in class, at home, or in the research groups of this study.

What became clear from the data discussed in the previous two chapters is that the students did not have a direct connection to Indigenous stories and histories that was expressed in their identities-in-practice. In this chapter, I will discuss how they sought to frame their own understanding of history and their personal and social relationships to Indigeneity and Settler colonialism through the frames of belonging and place. When the students in fourth and fifth grade who participated in this study learned about Canadian settler and Indigenous histories, they consistently sought entry points into the narratives they were learning about, so they could see themselves in relation to the discourses at play. Students sought entry-points that would give them a position inside the historical and contemporary settings they were discussing, from which they can engage with the topics and with each other. In the classroom and in the research groups,

199

LEARNING TO SETTLE students sought a place of belonging within the figured worlds they inhabited, characterized by personal and social dynamics that exceeded the bounds of traditional categories framed by and in adult cultural worlds.

To understand the figured worlds of elementary school students’ social studies classrooms, I analyze how the participants in this study positioned themselves and other people in relation to one another within the discourses of Indigeneity, early Canada, and the classroom’s curricular content. To do this I examined several related facets of the discourses, social positioning, and identities-in-practice that were evident in the research data, namely: how the students described themselves and their own positionality, how they drew connections between themselves and the topics of settler and Indigenous histories, and their stated preferences and desires for historical study. Each of these themes were gathered from the data and analyzed to understand how the students sought for and found a sense of belonging and place from which they could enact their identities-in-practice in the figured worlds of social studies classrooms.

The prevalent theme across both schools in this study was that students placed a great deal of importance on situating themselves personally within the contexts of Canadian and

Indigenous narratives. I articulate this as a desire to find belonging and place in both the broader community and in the specific relationships of the classroom, peer groups, and research context.

This was evident in how students articulated their connections to the historical figured worlds they learned about and recreated in their student inquiry projects. In addition, this was clear in the ways students consistently placed value on bringing their selves to the study of history, be it through linguistic, racial, national, and cultural identities, or through characteristics of their personalities that they valued such as artistic creativity, filmmaking, and gaming. When students described the study of history in school, they consistently placed high value on the incorporation

200

LEARNING TO SETTLE of these multiple aspects of their sense of selves, and through the inquiry studies and research groups these connections were evident as students sought to find belonging within the narratives of history.

The first section of this chapter examines how, when given the opportunity and choice, students express a preference for studying topics in social studies classes that are personally meaningful for them. For the students in all three research groups in this study, this was clear in their preference to learn about the histories and cultures of places where their family members may have come from before moving to Canada. Through discussion in our groups, this became clear in how students continually deflected interest in studying local or even national histories if they would be able to learn about the cultures and places that have been meaningful in the lives of their family members.

In the second section of this chapter, I analyze how students in this study clearly articulated how they did not view the histories of Canada and the places where they live and go to school as interesting nor important to them. This was contrasted with their interest in learning about personally meaningful and connected histories that are discussed in the first section of this chapter. When examining the discourses and narratives of the figured worlds of social studies classrooms as students talk about local and national histories, it becomes clear that the students are disconnected from land and place in contrast to how they feel connected to the places where their families have deep roots. I argue that this disconnection demonstrates the persistence of settler colonial norms that dislocate Indigenous presence from their lands and replaces and

Indigenous relationship to land with a settler conception of multiculturalism based on a common idea that “we all come from somewhere else”. At the same time, the disconnection that the students express highlights an opportunity for educators to work with children on Turtle Island to

201

LEARNING TO SETTLE connect them to land and place in a manner that displaces settler colonialism, so they can begin to see the interconnectedness of the living beings with the lands they live on and the stories they learn in social studies classes.

In the third section of this chapter I examine the specific context of discussions that the students in South School had with the guest speakers who visited their classroom and described how clan relationships work within their respective nations. The students at South School clearly articulated their desires to find a place of belonging in communities as they learned about the clan structure of some Indigenous communities that are local to the region they live in. Students were fascinated by the conceptions of clan relationships and sought to understand how they might find similar communities of belonging in their lives. This led to multiple ongoing discussions about the relationships within and between clans and how a person might learn about their clan if they had never learned about it before. This fascination on the part of the students was more than an interest in the differences between some Indigenous communities and non-

Indigenous communities, instead I argue that students were seeking to understand their specific and personal connection to communities beyond their immediate family, and wanted to articulate how they were connected to broader social contexts within which they were growing up. This framework of belonging and place provides an analytic tool to examine students’ understandings of themselves in relation to Indigenous and Canadian histories, as well as in relationship with the land and places where they live on Turtle Island. Using this framework, we can begin to examine some of the ways that social studies education specifically and public schooling more broadly can break free from the constraints of settler colonial narratives that produce settler consciousnesses and identities to develop more engaging and meaningful relationship-based practices of learning together.

202

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Bringing Selves to the Study of History

For participants in this study, there were multiple opportunities to talk about their views on history and its importance, so I could understand the functions the study of history has in their figured worlds. Because I asked about inquiry-based learning, we could talk at length about the topics that would be most interesting for them to study in social studies classes were they given the chance to choose a topic for Inquiry. The students revealed several different interests that will be discussed further below, but a large number of the participants expressed a desire to learn about the histories of places that were relevant to their personal sense of identity rather than a collective or shared identity as students in the geographical place they lived. This became clear during the first two sessions with each research group, where I introduced myself as a researcher and my relation to the topic of social studies learning and Indigeneity in Canada, and then asked them to participate in a shared activity to learn about each participant. The students were encouraged to have an open discussion about their own familial histories, specifically what their relationships are to the land and places where they were living. Several students took advantage of an opportunity to interact with a large map of the world that I brought to the group and were keenly interested in telling me about their family histories of migration and cultural identity. In chapter 4 I detail the demographics of the participants in the study, and in this section, I am discussing the ways students talked about their personal and cultural identities in relationship with the study of history, and how it might reveal some of the ways the participants connected to

Indigenous and Canadian histories.

203

LEARNING TO SETTLE

To begin this discussion, I have included a section from the transcript of the first session with Research Group 1, where I introduced myself and the topic of my research and then brought out the world map for them to interact with.

Mark: Ok, we have 15 minutes left so I'd like to do an activity with you, if that's okay [pull out a large world map].

Various voices: It’s a map!

Cuber: Egypt is my country.

Lollipop: I want to find Serbia, because that's where my family lives.

Angel: My family lives somewhere over here.

Mark: That's actually why I brought it; I brought some sticky notes. We live in Canada, in Hamilton over here [point on the map].

Angel: I want to go to Japan because my favourite food is from there.

Cuber: I'm writing my family here on Egypt because my family is from here (Research Group 1, Session 1)

The enthusiasm of the students was clear in their voices on the audio recording of the research group, as they were looking for the places where their families are from even before I introduced the goal of the activity. Throughout the next 15 minutes, the students put small sticky notes all over the map, in locations they had traveled to, places they were interested in, and places from where they had family members. The students were very interested in making sure to include all the places where they had roots, even if the students only knew the name of the place but had no knowledge of which region of the world it might be in. This enthusiasm was carried over to the following session with Research Group 1 when two participants who had missed session 1 were given the opportunity to talk about their personal histories:

Mark: Last week we talked about where we were from and where our family is from, and I drew this map [on the whiteboard] because I forgot my paper map.

Cannonball: Turkey.

204

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Jack: South Africa and England and India. My dad is born in England, my mom is born in Canada, and my grandma is from South Africa, and my dad's side is from England and their dad is from India

Cannonball: So, basically your background is Indian.

Mark: Are you more interested in learning about where your family is from? [Many voices exclaim: YES!] ...or about Canada?

Cannonball, Fireball, Jack, Lollipop and Cuber [together]: Where my family is from.

Angel: I just don't want to have to do work.

Mark: So, if you could make and inquiry questions about the places you're from, you'd rather do that [Many voices: Yes!] rather than First Nations or early settlers?

Jack: I'd rather do First Nations, its kind of more interesting than where you're from because it’s like you already know where you're from, like your family, and you want to know where other people are from, so you can compare like South Africa to the First Nations, how they used to work, so...

(Research Group 1, Session 2)

During this session, the two students who were absent the previous session jumped at the opportunity to highlight their national and cultural background for the group, and Jack was clear to include each of the different places members of his family are from. When I sensed this enthusiasm, I asked the students if they would be more interested in studying the histories of these places rather than learning about Canadian and Indigenous histories as they were doing in social studies class at that moment. Five of the six students in the group immediately said they would rather study the places where their families are from, but when I repeated the question for clarity and changed the wording about studying “Canada” to the specific labels of “First Nations and early settlers”, Jack decided that he would rather study First Nations to allow him to make comparisons between that topic and what he already knew about South Africa where his grandmother is from.

In the other two research groups, the students expressed similar exuberance when given the opportunity to look at a world map and talk about their personal family and cultural histories. 205

LEARNING TO SETTLE

When I also asked them whether they would prefer to study the histories of these other places or the Indigenous and Canadian histories of the places where they live, they gave responses very similar to the participants in Research Group 1:

Mark: Would it be more interesting to learn about all the places our families are from? If you could do a unit on First Nations and early settlers, or you could do a unit on Saudi Arabia and Sudan, what would you like?

Thing 1: For me that [Saudi Arabia and Sudan] would be more fun.

Vienna: The second one!

Saudi Cipher: I don't know, because I already know most of the stuff in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and I want to know more stuff about the rest of the world.

Vienna: Yeah, because it’s different from where you come from, and what you already know about like your history and stuff, yeah so if he already knows about Sudan and stuff, he wouldn't be more interested in that because he knows all of it already.

Mark: Is it different for you, because he [Saudi Cipher] was born in Sudan and you [Vienna] weren't born in Fiji, so you didn't grow up going to school in Fiji, would you be more interested in learning about it?

Vienna: Yeah

(Research Group 3, Session 2)

The various responses in this exchange reveal that this finding from the research is not without its complexity. When given the option to study either history, the students were of two minds in this group. Thing 1 and Vienna thought that it would be more interesting to study the history that they have personal and cultural connections to, while Saudi Cipher said that he knew enough about the histories of his cultural and national background, and so he wants to know more about the rest of the world. It is interesting here that Saudi Cipher did not specifically rate learning about Canadian and Indigenous histories as the topic of interest, but rather described his desire to learn about the rest of the world in a broad sense. This highlights how for Saudi Cipher, the histories of the places where he now lives are not more interesting or relevant to him than the histories of other places he has no geographic connection to. When Vienna heard Saudi Cipher’s 206

LEARNING TO SETTLE response, she spoke using the candor and insight that she expressed throughout the research group meetings, and she mused about how knowing your own history is a pre-requisite for becoming more interested in the histories of other places and peoples. Vienna spoke up often in this group about the specific ways her family histories and relationships influenced her thoughts about oppression, racism, colonialism, and which topics are important to study in social studies class. Another student in the same research group, Libyan Warrior, shared a similar idea in the following group session, when he expressed his interest in studying African histories over studying Canadian and Indigenous histories:

Mark: What types of things would you want to know?

Libyan Warrior: Maybe places in Africa? Because I don't...I'm from Libya, so a lot of the things I've learned form my parents are about Africa, and I know there's a lot of history there. (Research Group 3, Session 3)

In these instances, Vienna and Libyan Warrior shared insight that demonstrates how and why most students in each of the research groups in this study were more attracted to study histories with personal meaning rather than the histories of Canada and Indigenous peoples that were connected to the places and land where the participants lived.

For the students in Research Group 2, the same interest in studying their own cultural and national histories was present during the first session of the group, and I wanted to ask the students if their thoughts may have changed over two weeks later after several sessions of the research group and more time was spent in the classroom study. I asked the students if they still were more interested in studying family histories than in the history that was part of their fifth- grade curriculum:

Mark: One thing we spoke about is that most of us would prefer to learn about our own family history than First Nations and early settlers. Is that the same or has that changed?

Adele: I now want to learn more about social studies because after what I've learned, I want to learn a little bit more.

207

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Sparkly: I’d rather learn about both.

Nikki: Well, I think I’d still rather learn about the other ones, but still I think I kind of, it’s hard to decide, because I like this First Nations, but I also like learning about my stuff too.

Beaver: I would kind of do family history, like someone that I actually know, rather than someone else I don’t know, and like the First Nations and early explorers, you’re basically learning about someone who doesn’t exist, but family history is someone that you know.

John: I’d do family histories; I think it’s more interesting.

Swag: I would do family history probably. (Research Group 2, Session 5)

The discussion in this section taken from the transcripts of session 5 is very interesting. Overall the students remained interested in studying their family histories rather than Indigenous and

Canadian histories, but Adele, Sparkly, and Nikki all expressed a hesitation because they found interest and value in the study of First Nations histories. Adele said that after learning about things that she had not previously known her interest was piqued and she would like to learn more about the topic. This finding echo those highlighted in Chapters 5 and 6: that the students in this study had very little background knowledge about Indigenous histories prior to formal study during this unit in fifth-grade social studies. In addition, it is clear that the students did not have a pre-existing nor a persistent dis-interest in Indigenous histories as one might expect from the preponderance of settler colonial narratives that were evident in the figured world of the social studies classroom that the students experienced.

Considering these findings within the framework of settler colonialism, it becomes clear that discourses of multiculturalism are powerful within the figured world of the classroom. As discussed in chapter 2, students in school are learning to value all aspects of diverse identities as equally important for understanding our relationships to one another and to the multicultural nation-state of Canada. This perspective displaces Indigenous identity from the land and equates

208

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous identity in the territory of Turtle Island with the displaced identities of non-

Indigenous migrants and settlers. Within the figured world of the classroom, then, the students are expressing their understanding of the normative multicultural discourse as they discount the unique relationships between Indigenous peoples and the land on which the students are living.

I argue that the students for the most part described their preference to study histories of their families and communities over histories of Indigenous peoples and Canada for two reasons:

1) they feel a deep personal connection to the stories of the places where they or their families are from and 2) they are disconnected from the land and stories of the land in the places where they live. The second reason is connected to findings that I discuss in the following two sections, and so are taken up more fully in the conclusion of this chapter. The first reason why students prefer learning histories of places where their families have roots demonstrates the importance of personal connectedness to the study of history. The Ontario social studies curriculum guide

(Ministry of Education, 2013a) argues that the study of history becomes meaningful for children once they can perceive the relevance of the events in history to their own lives and to the lives of the people they know. Because Indigenous and Canadian history is perceived with the students’ figured worlds to be have had less impact on their own lives than the histories of Saudi Arabia,

Iceland, Tonga, Libya, Sudan, England, etc. respectively, the students have interest to learn about places that are personally relevant to each student.

Students Struggling to Connect with the Stories of Canadian and Indigenous Pasts

From the previous section, it is clear the students in this study were more interested in learning about histories that they find personally meaningful based on familial and cultural connections beyond what is included in the fifth-grade social studies curriculum. In this section, I

209

LEARNING TO SETTLE move to discuss how the students found meaning and connection to Indigenous and Canadian histories when given the opportunity to do work in the area for the teacher and in my research groups. It has already been clear in previous chapters that the students had very little prior knowledge about Canadian and Indigenous histories, and the one student who may have had some personal connection to members of an Indigenous community, Angel, stated that she wasn’t really interested in learning more about that connection, or the histories associated with

Indigeneity in the region. When I asked the students in Research Group 2 about what topics are important to study in history during elementary school, they responded as discussed above, highlighting the desire to study personal and cultural histories from places that are important to them around the world. I followed up that response with a question about the importance of studying the histories of the places where we live, and the following excerpt from session 2 details their responses:

Mark: What about the fact that we live here in Canada? Do the histories of Canada and First Nations have nothing to do with your lives?

Adele: I don't think it has anything to do with what I learn, I don't think so, because I don't really learn much about England, and Iceland, I don't really think I learn much about that, so...

Nikki: I don't think it really matters now, but I think in the higher grades it matters though, because in the higher grades I think you need to learn that because that's how you get into college and university.

Mark: You don't really care?

Nikki: Not now I don't.

(Research Group 2, Session 2)

In the first response to my question, Nikki conflates the importance of studying local and national history with the study of international history, with both topics being equally unimportant to her personally – an ideology that echoes discourses of multiculturalism. Nikki

210

LEARNING TO SETTLE then follows up Adele’s comment by framing the histories of Canadian and Indigenous peoples as matters for academic study that are required for progression towards higher education. In both instances, the connection to personal and cultural histories that these participants expressed earlier in the research group session was not echoed in their discussion about national, local, or

Indigenous histories. There was no personal connection to place in the sense of the lands on which the participants lived, nor to a collective shared history of national identity with Canada.

Later in that same session with Research Group 2, I asked the students to explain why they felt it would be more interesting to study other cultures and histories than to study that of

Canada and Indigenous peoples.

Mark: And what is interesting about learning the history of other countries rather than learning about Canada?

Sparkly: because it’s not Canada, they speak a different language and like, their culture.

Nikki: Maybe they aren't as rich as us, maybe they don't have as much money as us and maybe they don't have cars and houses like we do…

John: If I was a teacher for social studies, I would want the class to be working on like something like inquiry questions and I want them to do like their family members like what country they’re from and about the country. It just seems really cool and fun. (Research Group 2, Session 2)

Here John and Sparkly join Nikki in describing the histories of other countries as more interesting, cool, and fun than learning about Canadian history. However, in Sparkly and Nikki’s responses they discuss history in terms that reflect a conflation of geography and culture with historical study, as they described the interesting parts of other places’ histories as being the language, culture, and differences in lifestyle or wealth from what is typical in the experiences of these participants. The students in this group are hinting towards an understanding of history as being different from and other than the present. For these participants, the lives of early

European settlers and Indigenous peoples in the 17th century are as distinct from the participants’

211

LEARNING TO SETTLE experiences as are the lives of people in foreign countries during the present day. This conversation reveals that the participants envision the past as being foreign and as having no relevant impact on their own lives. If this is the case, there is not direct connection available between the events of peoples’ lives of 400 years ago and the effects that may be felt today.

In the other two research groups, there was a similar sentiment and a conflation of historical study with cultural or geographical awareness. One distinction occurred in Group 1, when Cuber remarked at one point during our discussions, that he thought people who live in this country should generally learn about Canada. He recalled when I introduced the Truth and

Reconciliation Report and its Calls to Action, and said that we should learn about Canadian history broadly because it is where we live, “Remember when you showed us that big book and they made a treaty that you have to learn about First Nations, there's other stuff too that we have to learn about history from Canada because we live in Canada” (Research Group 1, Session 4).

Cuber did not articulate what other things should be learned about Canada, and the discussion in the group moved on from that comment without clarification, but his wording suggests that he thinks Canadian historical study should not be limited to First Nations histories.

I had the opportunity in Research Group 3 at North School to ask the students specifically to address the ideas that were brought up in the other two groups, about the irrelevance of historical study to the lives of the participants presently. The responses were very helpful to understand how the students specifically found connections to Indigenous and Canadian histories that they were learning about in social studies class.

Mark: How or what does the past connect to the present? The stuff from the past, does it connect to the present? To your lives?

Libyan Warrior: I guess farming. The way they did farming now and then, it’s still the same. I guess now we use machinery, but we still like, get our food the same way. They used to farm, like, they used to farm potatoes, carrots, like any type of vegetable…

212

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Saudi Cipher: And they still do today.

Libyan Warrior: And we still do that today, so…

Buck: I don’t care about social studies.

Mark: Why not, Buck?

Buck: I don’t know, it’s just really boring. That’s the past, why do we need to know about it? It’s not like it’s going to happen today.

Libyan Warrior: Well you never know, there’s some…

Buck: [interrupts and speaks sarcastically] Yeah Libyan Warrior, we’re all going to have to go hunting, we’re all going to have to build our houses.

Libyan Warrior: Oh my god, I didn’t say that, did I say that?

Opasinger: My dad would enjoy that [laughs]

Libyan Warrior: Actually, in some countries, there are stuff like that.

Saudi Cipher: Yeah, there is.

Buck: I’m talking about in Canada.

Opasinger: My dad built the whole church (pause) uh…

Libyan Warrior: Well you could always expand social studies and stuff like that all the way to other countries. I know we live in Canada and we’re learning about Canada, but there’s many different countries.

Mark: So even though social studies can be about other parts of the world, in Grade 5 you learn about early Canada and First Nations, right?

Libyan Warrior: Yes

Mark: So, what Buck’s saying is that’s the past, what does that have to do with the present?

Thing 1: I think it was a fun subject, because I got to learn more, and it does, like, connect to how it is, like, to the past and the present. So, it was a fun experience.

Opasinger: Yeah, well when you think about the past, you have to get used to the change, basically, but some of it, it hasn’t really changed.

Mark: What do you think hasn’t changed?

213

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Opasinger: In some other countries, houses haven’t really changed, because they still build them out of mud.

Mark: What about in Canada?

Opasinger: I think there’s a lot of change.

Saudi Cipher: Connected to what Opasinger said, one thing that's changed is transportation, like using horses and animals to transport.

Opasinger: Yeah, we can still do that today too, in England.

Libyan Warrior: I just want to say that I feel like in Canada, most of it is more evolution than staying the same. If you go across Canada there’s not a lot of like old, old cities and stuff like that, and even if there are, they have all been upgraded and there’s a lot of technology.

(Research Group 3, Session 3)

After Libyan Warrior’s comment at the end of the discussion, the students went on to talk about how someone saw a horse and carriage in the city the other day, and other students talked about how police officers sometimes can be seen on horses. Throughout the discussion, the students are discussing historical topics comparatively, in a similar vein to the above students in Research

Group 2. The topics of housing, transportation, and technology are relevant to the students’ understandings of the present because they allow the students to compare and contrast what they are learning with what they have seen and experienced in their lives. Within the figured world of this group, the topic of history is employed as a way of allowing the students to see differences and similarities between the past and the present, in a similar approach to that of the students in

Research Group 2 who saw the peoples of the past as foreign and other. These approaches show an understanding employed by the participants of the social studies concept that is included in the curriculum document as “continuity and change” (Ministry of Education, 2013a) that allows students to compare and contrast what has changed and what has stayed the same from historical times. However, there is a glaring gap in the students’ understanding of another important social

214

LEARNING TO SETTLE studies concept titled, “cause and consequence” (ibid.) with which students are able to draw connections between the events and lives of people in the past with their consequences that reverberate in our world today.

One further example where I highlight this theme of feeling dis-connected to the study of history is from the transcript of Cuber’s one-on-one interview where he described the work he did in class on an inquiry project into a 17th century Jesuit mission in the territory of what is now

Ontario called Sainte-Marie Among the Hurons:

Mark: Why did you choose this topic [Sainte Marie Among the Hurons]?

Cuber: I chose it because it was kind of fascinating when I learned that they burned down their own mission, like the Jesuits, they built it, and they burned it down, so, it was kind of fascinating…

Mark: What was the most interesting about this project?

Cuber: As I said, I liked how they burned down their mission, and also, one of their main reason was to make the First Nations convert to their own Catholic faith, also um, I just liked, uh, how they traded and how they came from France…

Mark: And, do you think you found answers to your inquiry question, or are there still some questions that you have that you didn't find answers for?

Cuber: Um, a question was, why did they have to burn the mission down and why didn't they just run away, so, but, for my main question, I did, I did answer it. But it was kind of a yes and no, because they built the mission, 66 French people lived there, and they also traded with the Wendat and convinced them to convert, but the thing that wasn’t successful was that they burned down their own mission, the Haudenosaunee killed and launched several attacks, and also that they came with infectious disease, like measles, the French, they came and they didn't know they had it so, because, in a long house there would be more than 1 family living, so if one had the disease, it would get passed on to each person.

Mark: If you could keep studying this a bit more, what were other questions that you would want to find more information about?

Cuber: How long did it take them to build the mission, and how and what made, what did they do to convince the Wendat to convert to the Roman Catholic faith.

Mark: Do you think this topic is important today? or just a historical project?

215

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Cuber: It’s more of a historical project because um, its also, they made like a replica of the Sainte Marie among the Hurons, but it’s kind of in the past. There are Jesuits, but there aren't a lot in Canada, there isn't, I remember in South America there is some,

Mark: What about the Haudenosaunee or the Wendat, do you know anything about that?

Cuber: Um the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat, there are still Haudenosaunee and Wendat, like now there's, what is it called when there's a European married to a First Nation?

Mark: Metis?

Cuber: Yeah, now there's more Metis because they're married.

(Interview with Cuber)

This passage from the interview transcript is abbreviated from a longer discussion I had with

Cuber, but I included so much of it to provide an example of how deep Cuber went in his study and the type of investigation he was interested in pursuing in his work for academic and personal reasons. When Cuber talked about his interest in the reasons why the Indigenous peoples converted to the Roman Catholic faith, it is in the context of prior discussions Cuber had with me about the lack of inclusion of and appreciation for his faith of Islam in the discussions around diversity and inclusion in Canada. Cuber was highly interested in the histories of religious life in

Canada and highlighted in this portion of his interview that he wanted to learn more about the reasons for converting to Catholicism. With this background in mind, it is interesting that when asked specifically to identify any importance this story of the mission of Sainte-Marie may have for today, he commented on the specific groups of people that are still found today (Jesuits,

Haudenosaunee, and Wendat), but did not discuss how any of these groups – or the nation of

Canada – were impacted by the events that he studied or the broader context of Jesuit missionary work and violence during that period. Despite Cuber’s demonstrated ability to think critically and his personal interest in culture and religion he did not connect the events of history to the present day in any meaningful way.

216

LEARNING TO SETTLE

When we analyze how the students conceive of the past of Turtle Island as a foreign country distinct from what they experience today, it is helpful to look at historical consciousness as a helpful explanatory framework. Historical consciousness describes how a person makes meaning from the study of history, and it is clear that the students in this study struggled to make meaning from what they were learning about Indigenous and Canadian histories in ways that made these events relevant to their personal lives and experiences. Dixon and Hales (2014) have described the limited understanding academic researchers have of how young students in schools understand historical thinking beyond facts and information, and it is evident here that the students equate the importance of facts they have learned about the land they live on with facts about far away places.

For the purposes of this study we can highlight the consistency between the participants’ lack of connections to Indigenous and Canadian pasts with what other researchers have found elsewhere with children (Dixon and Hales, 2014). However, we can ask questions about whether there are distinct influences in the figured worlds of the participants in this study, and in the contexts of settler colonial education on Indigenous territories, which could indicate why this is especially difficult for students in Ontario public schools. What would it mean for students in

Canada to see local history as being distinct from international history, and how would they see it as being relevant to their lives?

When we consider these questions in light of the findings described earlier in this chapter, we can see a pattern of relevance where students do not find value in learning about the stories of the places where they live, but they find intrinsic and obvious (to them) value in learning about the histories, geographies, and cultures of the places that are personally meaningful to them and to people they love. Linking this, it is clear that students feel tied to the

217

LEARNING TO SETTLE stories and countries of their non-Indigenous ancestors and are simultaneously disconnected from the land and non-human relations in the places where they live. This disconnection was evident when the students had difficulty linking historical stories of the Haudenosaunee, Wendat, and Anishinaabe to the locations and places the students are familiar with in the present day.

Indigenous teachers have shown us how land cannot be disconnected from identity and sense of belonging in relationship with others, but the students in this study did not generally show a sense of themselves that was tied in relationship to this land, nor connected to the stories of the land. I hypothesize that this is due to the prevalence of settler colonial discourses that work to disconnect Canadian identities from the ongoing Indigenous presences on the land where settler society functions. Researchers have demonstrated how settler Canada has worked to establish a settler erasure of Indigenous presence and history on land and then establish settler narratives as predominant and relevant to bind settler identities to the lands of Turtle Island (e.g.

Donald, 2011; Lawrence, 2002). I experienced this disconnection from Indigenous presence and claim as a young student, and I was educated into a Canadian settler identity - as my first- generation Canadian parents were - and taught at schools to grow roots on this settled and formerly Indigenous lands that have little connection to the centuries-old experiences and stories of Indigenous peoples. Similar to my experience, the students in this study were dis-connected from being in relationship with the land and places where they lived and were unable to make meaning and significance of the stories they were learning about in social studies classrooms.

However, while this was happening, there were also glimpses into the ways students were finding opportunities for connecting personally to their learning, and this will be discussed in detail in the following section.

218

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Clans and Belonging to a Community

The two previous sections of this chapter highlight that students were struggling to make connections between the histories learned in social studies classes about Indigenous and

Canadian pasts, but they were very explicitly interested in learning the histories of places to which they had a prior deeply felt personal connection. For the participants in this study there were no personal connections to be made with the stories of the lands they live on or the national community to which they belong, and the histories of First Nations and early explorers in the 16th and 17th centuries were viewed as foreign or other.

As I looked through and analyzed the data from this study, I noticed an example in the data from this study that revealed a possible association between these two narratives (of connection and disconnection to various histories) in the responses of these students. This happened during one session of the classroom observation and provided an opportunity to see how students in this classroom were expressing a desire to understand how they might connect to the present-day realities of Indigenous and Canadian relationships in the land where they lived.

What came out in this discussion was that the students were very interested in understanding the dynamics of relationality in the clan system of Indigenous nations, and how individuals might find a place of belonging within these clan relationships.

This conversation was taken from a discussion the students had with two guest speakers who visited their class and introduced the idea of the clan system from their respective nations

(Haudenosaunee-Kanienkehaka and Anishinaabe). The students were very engaged in this discussion and referred to it several times in the classroom and later during the research groups.

This attention and continuing focus provided valuable insights into how the students engaged with the discourses in the figured world of the classroom as they learned about Indigenous-settler

219

LEARNING TO SETTLE relations, by highlighting how students were seeking entry-points into the positionalities framed by settler-Indigenous discourses to find places where the students might find their own sense of belonging. The details of these discussions are below, and they reveal very interesting insights into the figured worlds of social studies classrooms as students engage with settler and

Indigenous histories.

As the speakers introduced themselves to the students at South School, they told the students about their clan relationships in their respective nations, and then they shared about various aspects of their lives and cultures with the students for the next hour and a half. During the first 40 minutes of the visit, Jean and Thomas introduced several topics that I guessed the students may have found interesting and engaging, such as Turtle Island, language diversity, distinctions of nations, relationships to land and the natural world, wampum belts, oral tradition,

Peacemaker, etc. However, in general the students were politely listening and occasionally engaged with Jean and Thomas during this portion of the discussion. In my observation notes, I recorded a small side note about the body language of several of the students during this first half of the visit, “several kids showing some boredom but listening perfectly, not talking, but resting their heads on their hands tiredly” (Observation Notes, March 30).

However, things changed after the students stood up for a body-stretch and the guests,

Jean and Thomas, opened a discussion about what the meaning was behind the clan relationships that they referred to as part of their introductions at the beginning of the class. During the ensuing discussion of clan relationships many more students asked questions or offered responses to Jean and Thomas than during the first half of the visit and several students in the class were very interested in learning more about clans and investigating the topic. Below is a

220

LEARNING TO SETTLE shortened transcription of the classroom conversation that was held about clans, drawn from my field notes.

After a short movement break, the students took their seats at their desks, and Jean, the guest speaker for the period, gathered their attention again and asked, “I said I’m turtle clan, what does that mean?”

A student quickly spoke up and suggested, “They like turtles?” At the same time, another student asked, “They are families?”

“Yes!” Jean said in response to the second student and began to describe what a clan is in the Haudenosaunee community. Jean then invited the other guest speaker, Thomas, to describe his clan, and how clans are similar and different in his Anishinaabe community. One student put up their hand and asked, “In your clan, does everyone have the same last name?”

“Nope”, said Jean, “But your clan members are like your family, so it is important that you do not marry within your clan”. Cuber, very interested in the discussion, put up his hand and asked Jean and Thomas, “What would happen if you marry in your clan?” and after Jean and Thomas shared some of their ideas, Cuber replied, “So I guess it would be disrespectful then”. “That’s right”, said Jean. She continued and said, “In my nation we get our clans from our mothers, that’s matrilineal. In Thomas’s nation, it’s different, your clan is from the father in your family.”

The teacher then spoke up, and asked, “Who moves where when people get married?” Jean replied and said, “In the Six Nations, traditionally we would move into the mother’s area, or longhouse when we get married”

After this discussion had been continuing for several minutes, a student wondered out- loud for everyone to hear, “I wonder what clan I am, or if I have a clan”. Jean responded and said, “There are communities all around the world that have different clans, they have clans, for example, in Scotland too! Do any of you have a clan that you know about?” Jean looked around the room, and no students lifted their hands, or volunteered a response.

The students looked around at each other for a moment, before one student raised their hand to ask a follow-up question, “Is Six Nations where you have all of the longhouses?” Jean talked briefly about the importance of longhouses traditionally, and the fact that people are not living full time in the longhouses anymore. A student spoke up at this point, and said, “I’ve been inside the turtle one and the wolf one.”

“At Crawford Lake?”, asked Jean [referring to the nearby Conservation Area with a reconstructed “Iroquoian village”]

“Yes!” said the student, excitedly. Others in the class responded as well, remembering previous class trips or summer excursions to Crawford Lake. Another student raised their hand and asked, “How do you know if you’re turtle clan or wolf clan?” Jean reminded 221

LEARNING TO SETTLE

the students that your clan comes from your mother in Haudenosaunee communities. This answer did not satisfy the curiosity of a different student, who asked, “If your mom was a turtle clan, could you be a different clan?” Jean described again how different First Nations communities have different ways of passing along clan affiliation.

At this point, after several minutes of discussions about clan relationships and how a person comes to know their clan, a normally reserved student raised their hand, and quietly asked, “What happens if your parents or grandparents didn’t tell you what clan you are? Because mine…” (their voice trailed off). At this point, Jean talked about how many people may not be familiar with their families or clans because of the break-up of Indigenous families through history, but there are ways that leaders in the community can help a person find their clan if they don’t know it themselves.

A student raised their hand and asked, “Is there anyone in charge of the clan?” and Jean was able to describe clan mothers, chiefs, and faith keepers in her community. She began to wrap up this portion of the discussion, which had been going on for nearly forty minutes, when a student spoke up and said, “I know what clan I am! I learned this summer at camp when I was in a clan”. Jean asked if there were any more comments or questions, and the students began to gather up their things on their desks to get ready for another movement break in the class.

As the class was transitioning, one student asked Jean, “Where is Wolf Island on the map?” he asked. Jean said that she wasn’t sure where Wolf island might be. The teacher walked over and asked the student, “Did you ask that because there is a turtle island, and a turtle clan, so if there is a wolf clan are you looking for wolf island?” “Yeah!” replied the student, and the teacher said, “I don’t think that’s how it works,” before gathering the students’ attention to give instructions for the transition to nutrition break.

(Observation Notes, March 30)

In this passage, we can see generally that there was a high level of student interest in the topic of clan relationships. The time that the students spent asking follow-up questions and seeking clarification was nearly half of the total time spent with the guest speakers in the class, and other topics that were introduced to the class received much less interest or engagement from the students. The class of students asked many different questions of Jean and Thomas and followed up seeking more detail and clarification on what a clan is and how it functions in peoples’ lives. Several of the questions throughout the discussion were posed in ways that allowed the students to examine the edges of relationality in the clan structure, such as how you become part of a clan, whether you share last names with other members of the clan, if you can

222

LEARNING TO SETTLE marry someone else in the same clan, and what happens if you do not know which clan you may belong to. Each of these questions were investigating concepts of relationality, and the persistent student interest was at first unremarkable to me from other topics students may have been interested in. However, during the discussion and afterwards when I re-examined my observation notes in the context of the rest of the data in the study, I noticed that the students were also interested specifically in learning how a person belongs to a community in the ways Jean and

Thomas were describing. Two students specifically asked questions or made comments that brought the discussion from the subject of Jean and Thomas’ clan relations to the students themselves and their relationality and sense of belonging. First, one student asked, “What happens if your parents or grandparents didn’t tell you what clan you are? Because mine…”, which clearly sets the student into the conversation about clans and belonging and assumes that all students – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – belong in clan with familial relations along the lines of what Jean and Thomas were talking about. Secondly, Angel spoke up about her own clan membership, based on what she had learned at camp (and discussed in Chapter 5). For both of these students, clan relationships were not something to learn about Jean and Thomas as objects of study or topics of interest, but they were specifically relevant to the students themselves and their own sense of belonging and identities.

The students’ interest in the idea of clan relationships persisted, and nearly two weeks after the visits by Jean and Thomas to the classroom, some of the students were talking about the visit and I asked them, “Would you ask Jean and Thomas anything if they came back again?”

Two students immediately spoke up and said:

Adele: “I would ask them if they would like to trade their clan for some reason.”

Swag: “I would ask them how they could get a clan” (Research Group 2, Session 2)

223

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The students had taken to heart the discussion about clans, and it was important enough for them to remark on it as the most significant portion of the guests’ visit, which was worth further inquiry and discussion by the students. The interest in the nature of clan relationships persisted for Adela and Swag, and in these two comments, Adela and Swag indicate that they were interested in the specific ways individuals might navigate the boundaries of clan relationship if they needed or wanted to.

The interest of the students in understanding clan relationships can be analyzed in the context of the literature about the historical fascination that European settlers have had with appropriating Indigenous iconography and symbolism (hooks, 1992), and the question can be asked if the children are interested in the ideas of clans and animal symbolism for similar reasons. This question especially makes sense when considered in the light of earlier findings of this study discussed in Chapter 5, about the prevalence and hegemony of pioneer tropes within the figured world of the social studies classroom.

In Chapter 5 I discussed briefly how Angel, from South School said that she had learned about her clan at summer camp, but that it was not something she was particularly interested in.

Sharon Wall (Wall, 2005) describes the phenomenon of white people in Canada “playing Indian”

(Deloria, 1998) at summer camp and the cultural appropriation of Indigenous practices and iconography as serving the needs of whites to identify themselves outside of the traditional terms of modernity. Also Tillery (1992) borrows from Lacan, Gramsci, and Stuart Hall’s concepts of identity, subjectivity, and belonging to describe how summer camps worked to “naturalize and consolidate relations between primarily white, middle-class voices” (385).

However, when examining the specific context of the students’ interest in clan relationship and the question they asked of Jean and Thomas as they discussed the ways clan

224

LEARNING TO SETTLE relationships function in their respective nations, it becomes evident that the students were not focused mainly on the symbolism of animal spirits or fetishization of Indigenous cultural items.

After an initial hour of discussion about topics including the diversity of nations and languages, treaties, wampum, Turtle Island, longhouses, and even an introduction to Jean and Thomas’ own clan relationships, the students were not interested in discussing these topics further or following up with questions. When the discussion moved to a deeper consideration of clan relationships, the students were very engaged, and asked questions that focused on the topics of belonging and inclusion rather than the symbolism of the animals themselves. There may be elements of the students’ interest that were framed by interest in being part of a “club” with what they thought was a cool name, but the data from their discussions point more distinctly towards a concern for understanding the relational components of belonging to a clan.

Belonging in Relationship

From the data presented in the above sections, it can be seen that the participants were not framing their identities or positioning around classic categories of settler-Indigenous-migrant etc.

(as discussed previously in Chapter 5). Nor did they use a sense of place or connection to land to frame a conception of which histories and stories are important for children to learn in school.

Connecting to a sense of place could be expected if the participants thought it was important to learn about the histories of the locations where they lived and attended school. Instead of connecting to larger group identities or local experienced places, the students were interested in finding ways to connect personally and individually to historical narratives that they found meaningful for reasons other than settler-Indigenous identity or place. In both research locations, and in all three research groups, students expressed a deeper connection to, and a stronger desire

225

LEARNING TO SETTLE for learning about, the histories of places where their families were originally from before migrating to Canada. These histories were important to the students for various reasons discussed above and were connected to a sense of belonging that the students felt to a particular place which they wanted to learn more about.

Students expressed a deep interest in the discussion about clan relationships and belonging to clan communities while the guest speakers were visiting their class, and they later recalled this topic as something they wanted to pursue further if given the opportunity. When analyzing this data, I considered how the participants throughout the study revealed their desire to learn about specific places and histories that were personally relevant to them as communities of belonging, rather than place-based communities such as neighbourhoods, landscapes, or local geographical areas. These place-based communities were less important to students as they discussed their interests generally and in their chosen topics for inquiry-based study in social studies classes. Rather than focusing on land and place as important, the participants were drawn to communities of belonging; academically and peer based in their schools and classrooms, or familial based communities of belonging that the students had a connection to through identification and relationship.

Academic researchers have discussed and examined the topic of children’s sense of belonging in a variety of ways and from the standpoints of several academic fields and disciplines. Social belonging within school contexts has been discussed in the sociology and psychology literatures in research that focus on the impacts that students experience as they describe where and how they feel a sense of belonging in social and educational environments.

In this framework, a positive sense of belonging to a social community at school has been found to correlate with positive health outcomes (Allen & Bowles, 2012; Morrow, 1998, 2001),

226

LEARNING TO SETTLE academic success (Shin, Daly, & Vera, 2007; Uwah, McMahon, & Furlow, 2018), and body image (Bornholt, 2000). Specifically in the psychology literature research often looks to quantify a sense of belonging of students to allow for analysis of factors that influence a child’s sense of belonging in school or a community (Beck & Malley, 2003; Flanagan, Cumsille, Gill, & Gallay,

2007; Hamm & Faircloth, 2005; X. Ma, 2003; Sargent, Williams, Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, &

Holye, 2002) and the resulting positive outcomes of an increased sense of belonging (Battistich,

Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995; Bulkeley & Fabian, 2006; Cemalcilar, 2010; Roffey,

2013).

The research from sociology and psychology shows that students generally express deep cravings for a sense of belonging within their academic environment and with a family-group or community outside of the school setting. In addition, students are interested in finding places where they can feel that they are accepted and welcomed as they are, and from which they can claim an identity that places them in relationship with others. Educational literature has also provided insights into the social belonging in schools of third culture kids (Fail, Thompson, &

Walker, 2004), immigrants (Colombo, Domaneschi, & Marchetti, 2011), refugees (Kia-Keating

& Ellis, 2007), bilingual students (Conteh & Brock, 2011), students living in poverty (Battistich,

Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997) and students with special needs (Prince & Hadwin, 2013).

Looking at this work we can see how students benefit not only from a community of practice that allows them to feel included and to which they can belong, but that students can develop a deeper sense of belonging in a community that they are a part of as they learn to use language to describe their experiences.

When examining the findings of this research project in light of the broader literature context, we can begin to see the importance that students placed on 1) learning about histories of

227

LEARNING TO SETTLE places that are personally relevant and 2) discussing the framework for belonging in clan relationships, as both being connected to the students’ exploration of how they can develop a sense of belonging in the context of schools and learning. When the figured worlds of social studies classrooms are populated with narratives of settler colonialism and marginalized

Indigenous identities, then the students are left with little opportunity to develop a sense of their own selves outside of settler subjectivity. This argument connects to the work of Karen

Osterman (2000) who examines how a student’s feelings that they are accepted at school contributes positively to this sense of belonging to the school community while at the same time structural and institutional aspects of the school may hinder this same feeling of belonging for many children. The structured and restricted normative discourses of settler colonialism in schools works to educate students into settler identities if students take those up and find a place of belonging in discourses that normalize white settler structures of dominance and colonialism.

However, the data in this chapter also show that students are not automatically drawn to settler-identities when they learn about Canadian histories. Instead, I argue that students are seeking to understand how they can navigate the contradictory discourses and narratives they are learning about that expose Canadian colonialism (broken treaties, residential schools, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, etc.) and are beginning to promote the strength and resilience of

Indigenous communities and cultures. Students are looking to find a place of belonging where they can orient themselves in relationship to their personal backgrounds, Canadian society, and continued Indigenous presence.

This is not an either/or choice for the students, who have been shown in earlier chapters

(5 and 6) to remain unbound by categories of identity that could position them as either settler, migrant, ally, or Indigenous. I argue that students are looking to decipher - in the discourses they

228

LEARNING TO SETTLE are learning about in schools and during social studies classes -language to describe relationships where they can belong and find a place for themselves from which they can engage with broader society. As Antonsich (2010) describes, this sense of belonging “should be analyzed both as a personal, intimate, feeling of being ‘at home’ in a place (place‐belongingness) and as a discursive resource that constructs, claims, justifies, or resists forms of socio‐spatial inclusion/exclusion (politics of belonging)” (644). Students expressed both aspects of belonging in the data described in this chapter, where they are looking to belong as individuals (and longing for all children to feel that way, see Chapter 6) and also find the discursive resources from which they can claim socio-spatial inclusion for themselves within the contexts they learned about in social studies education at school.

The ways that students are seeking to find communities of belonging while at school - despite studying in a figured world populated by settler colonial discourses of exclusion and elimination - indicate some of the fissures in the incomplete edifice of settler futurity which can possibly be exploited. The participants did not readily define themselves in the uncomplicated categories of multiculturalism and adopt the ideals of settler futurity. Settler colonialism seeks to position young white non-Indigenous settlers as eventual and future replacements for the

Indigenous natives on this land. This requires the ongoing marginalization of Indigeneity and would make respectful and reciprocal relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people impossible.

However, the participants in this study chose to take opportunities within the figured worlds of their classrooms to find ways of understanding what it might mean to belong in relationship with one another and with Indigenous peoples. These relationships, based on a shared understanding of belonging together and with one another, challenge the intentions of

229

LEARNING TO SETTLE settler futurity and break the triad of settler-native-slave relationships that settler colonialism depends upon. While the students at times perpetuate the settler norms of multiculturalism and

Indigenous erasure that are dominant in their classroom figured worlds, the students also take opportunities to enact improvisations within this context. These improvisations allow students to question how they can belong in relationship and community with Indigenous peoples and point to possibilities for new norms to sediment into cultural practices of reciprocal relationships and reconciliation enacted in the figured worlds of public-school classrooms.

Conclusion

In this chapter I have highlighted some of the complex relationships that are being formed when student subjectivities interact with curricular experiences at school during the study of histories and societies. Students in fourth and fifth grades are learning the dominant discourses and narratives about the places where they live and are looking for spaces and places where they can find themselves and feel a sense of belonging within those discourses. For students in this study, their identities-in-practice are shaped by experiences outside of school such as critical discussions with parents, camp experiences, international migration, and/or experiences of racism or marginalization. These experiences interact with curricular experiences and peer- relationships and elicit varying levels of connection to the stories they learn about the places where the people who have been here before them. With a deeper understanding of these dynamics within the figured worlds of young students’ classrooms as they learn Canadian and

Indigenous histories helps to describe motivations for student engagement in curricular experiences, and defines opportunities for building on student experience to connect with

230

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Indigenous presence (historical, ongoing, and futurities) as we share relationships together on

Turtle Island.

231

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Chapter 8: Implications for Unsettling Social Studies and Education

It is the tense vocation of language to contain and constrain meaning.

Padraig O’Tuama (2013)

The written descriptions of the figured worlds included in this thesis are limited in their ability to convey the rich fullness of the students’ experiences in the classrooms, research groups, and interviews that are described in the preceding chapters. As the poet Padraig O’Tuama reminds us, language is used to convey meaning which is often beyond the scope of language itself. With this awareness, I have worked in the previous chapters to share the depth and import of what the students in this study shared and experienced, and to analyze significant themes and findings that are relevant to researchers, educators, students, and administrators. These findings and themes reflect my understanding of how students learned settler and Indigenous histories in school, and they also point to possible further research inquiries that are beyond the scope of this research study. In this chapter, therefore, I will summarize the significance and meaning of the findings of this research study and point to possible implications of this research for educators, curriculum writers, and researchers. Following this, I will detail the limitations of this study which must be considered when taking the findings of this work beyond the specific contexts of research. Finally, I will conclude by clarifying possible further directions in research that could add to the depth and breadth of understanding children’s figured worlds as they learn about

Canadian and Indigenous histories in schools.

232

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Implications for Teaching Indigenous Knowledges and Perspectives in Social Studies

From the findings and analysis discussed in the earlier chapters of this thesis, educators can understand that student experiences of learning social studies in public schools reflect how children are recruited through school experiences and curriculum into traditional settler colonial narratives that relegate Indigenous peoples to the sidelines of Canadian history and emphasize the importance of European settlement at the expense of the natural world and Indigenous communities. While this is true, the data in this study reveal that students are willing and able to seek out and find opportunities to consider Canadian and Indigenous relations differently than how they are learning in social studies class. Within the figured worlds of the research groups, students were enacting identities-in-practice that make room for reconciliation and for challenges to the dominance of white settler ideologies of elimination and replacement. When I asked the students to share their ideas for changing social studies education, they provided critiques of current settler norms in their classrooms and suggested ideas for shifting the focus of social studies towards inclusive relationships and well-being. Students have diverse ideas for how to incorporate counter-narratives and personal connections into social studies learning, with the intention of developing an inclusive understanding of history that prioritizes healthy relationships and communities.

This study also shed light on the limited usefulness of treaty teaching as a starting point for many children who have no prior knowledge of treaty relationships. Taiohate Guswentha

Two Row Wampum Belt did not seem relatable for all students, particularly those who did not understand the need for or importance of the treaty or the understanding of the fraught relationships between Indigenous peoples and settler society on Turtle Island. However, wampum belts and treaty agreements could be a useful teaching tool for students as they have

233

LEARNING TO SETTLE learned about and understand that there is an ongoing fraught relationship that needs to be repaired and reconciled. Those who had experiences of Othering and oppression came to the discussion of treaty relationships with an understanding of the divisions between groups that lead to the need for peacemaking and relationships across differences and divides. In contrast, the students who have experienced individual struggles and difficulties in schooling and society described the value of including everyone without talking about overcoming group stigmatization and experiences of racism and exclusion. In teaching students with this variety of experiences, it is important to teach the basis of good relationship and healthy communities and through this lens incorporate the notion of treaties and broken relationships so they understand why treaties have a role to play in contemporary Canada, and then how students can find their own place in treaty relationships.

With regards to learning about Canadian and Indigenous histories in inquiry-based classrooms, traditional narratives still dominate student understandings, even after completing the unit of study with Inquiry-based approaches and multiple opportunities to challenge dominant narratives of pioneer tropes, erasure of diversity, and settler inevitability.

Inquiry-based learning therefore does not automatically allow students to challenge dominant or mainstream narratives, but it was seen in this study to have the potential to train students in making connections and building understandings between groups and varying experiences. This focus of inquiry could be leveraged to make historical study become more relevant to students as they make links and build connections between the events and people of the past and their own experiences and prior knowledge.

Looking outwards from the specific foci of this research project, several implications for curriculum writers, educators, and researchers can be discussed. In the realm of curriculum, this

234

LEARNING TO SETTLE study suggests that social studies and history curriculum need to frame settler and Indigenous histories as relational - fraught, fragile, and fruitful in many ways - with ongoing impacts and imperatives for people living on Turtle Island today. This cannot be done by focusing on

European settlement as the starting point of history for children to learn about where they live.

Rather, curriculum needs to intentionally place focus and emphasis on Indigenous histories that extend before colonization and which had major roles in shaping land and culture still today.

This is one of the ways that curriculum writers can plan for students to see themselves in relation to the lives and experiences of peoples in the past, rather than seeing history as a foreign place and time with no connection to the students themselves. Within this context, curriculum writers could place emphasis on the personal and recorded aspects of history and differentiate these from the mythology and symbolism that can make historical study seem fictional for students. One way this was seen in the study was through the use of the Taiohate Guswentha as a teaching tool by the guest speakers at South School, which resulted in the symbol of a wampum belt becoming a personal and recorded aspect of history that is relevant for the students’ lives today. With increased representation of historical and contemporary Indigenous peoples, cultures, and epistemologies, all students will develop a richer understanding of the importance, complexity, and longevity of Indigenous communities on this land.

Another possible avenue for curriculum and pedagogy to move is to teach students about relationality: to the land, to the people of the past, and to real people in the present with whom the students are in treaty relationships. Through relational understandings of history and its people, students may be able to find a place of belonging to see how they are part of a community with shared histories that require reconciliation and require the students’ participation and action.

235

LEARNING TO SETTLE

It is evident in the diversity of students who participated in this study, that many had little prior understanding of systemic oppression or institutional racism. These students discussed possible responses to broken treaty relationships that prioritized supporting individual wellbeing and demonstrated a general lack of understanding of group-level causes of discrimination or racism. For students such as these, it is important to teach the histories of Canada, settler colonialism, and Indigenous peoples as being linked structurally and not only individually. By emphasizing how group relations, race, oppression, and power all played a role in the colonization of Turtle Island, students will be equipped to understand how broken treaty relationships are societal issues that require collective responses. In addition to pursuing this approach to teaching history, it is important for educators to avoid glossing over the real motivations, attitudes, actions, and decisions that were behind the forced dislocation and elimination of Indigenous peoples by settlers and the settler nation-state. By confronting traditional pioneer tropes and friendly settlement narratives, educators can help prepare their students to think about how reconciliation and relationships can be built in light of what the students at North School called, “True history”.

In their inquiry unit and through social studies learning, the students in North School

(especially those who were in a class with an inquiry-focused teacher) were able to make connections between the experiences of oppression by Jewish people, Palestinians, racialized peoples, and marginalized religious communities, and the Indigenous peoples suffering under settler colonialism. The students directly made this link because they had practiced making those connections in their inquiry unit between different topics to discover underlying themes and similarities that allow discussion along shared understandings. This presents possibilities for inquiry to be used as a tool not for social studies learning, but for higher order thinking along the

236

LEARNING TO SETTLE lines of what the literacy curriculum calls for with “making connections” as a goal and outcome for students’ development of literacy skills.

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical approach of this thesis is built on the foundation of settler colonialism studies and framed through the lens of figured worlds. Each of these academic areas are based on the work and perspectives of researchers concerned with their respective area of focus and which have not often been brought into conversation with each other. Researchers in settler colonialism studies are concerned with the structures and workings of settler institutions and societies, to help understand how settler structures are maintained and ultimately to work towards their dismantling. Essential to both the maintenance and dismantling of settler societies is an understanding of the subjectivity of people within settler societies. In this thesis I have linked the approaches and theoretical understandings of settler colonialism with the concepts of figured worlds to focus attention onto the ways students are educated into settler subjectivities and identities-in-practice in schools. The understandings of student experiences and learning that are discussed in this thesis– how children are made settler colonial subjects through schooling and their participation in this process – is made meaningful through the application of the figured worlds approach that shines light on the cultural and constructed practices and discourses of the figured worlds students participate in and are recruited into.

What has become apparent throughout this research project is that figured worlds is a valuable approach for studying and understanding the interactions of subjects with their cultural and social environment. Because of this, a figured worlds framework is well suited for examining settler colonial structures and their impacts on the experiences, lives, and

237

LEARNING TO SETTLE subjectivities of people living in settler contexts. In this thesis, a figured worlds approach helped demonstrate how students’ experiences are influenced by the constructed world of school through the curricula, pedagogies, and routines that reinscribe settler norms and discourses. In addition, by using a figured worlds approach I was able to analyze and describe how peer relationships, personal identities-in-practice, experiences, and cultural contexts affect how students take up or reject settler narratives at school. The interplay between structure, institution, culture, and norms with individual subjectivity is brought into focus by using a figured worlds approach. These relationships and dynamics are of interest to researchers of settler colonialism, and so figured worlds is an approach that can be adopted more readily to examine settler contexts and subjectivity.

Limitations of the Study

When looking at the methodology and findings of this research project, it becomes clear that there are limitations that have affected the scope, breadth, and depth of data and analysis that

I was able to conduct. These limitations highlight important considerations about this research project, and also several possibilities for further study to add more robust analysis, and which will be discussed in the following section. From the beginning of the planning process for this study, I have recognized that each methodological and theoretical choice made has important impacts on the knowledge available for study and the analysis that I could carry out. Several of these are discussed here, as are the limitations and constrictions that developed during the project and were not initially anticipated.

The choice to conduct research at only two schools, and with one classroom within each school, allowed me to develop open and close relationships with the students and teachers and

238

LEARNING TO SETTLE have rich conversations and interactions. However, within the Hamilton-Wentworth District

School Board there are over 80 elementary schools with diverse populations of students, and with teachers who employ diverse instructional approaches. A broader study with a larger amount of data collected from more schools could have enriched the analysis even more fully than was possible with the data collected from the two schools in this study. However, there are five considerations listed below that help contextualize the small sample size of this study and point to the value of focused research within broader contexts such as public education.

Firstly, the persistence of settler colonial approaches to education in Canada has resulted in similar approaches to teaching Indigenous and Canadian histories to permeate public schools throughout the country. In addition, all public elementary schools in Ontario follow the same curriculum guides, and all students in fifth grades across the province are learning about these topics from teachers who are following (to varying extents) the same guidelines and learning goals. This prevalence of settler colonialism throughout Canadian society and the consistency of curriculum (Clark, 2011; Shingler, 2018; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada,

2015) indicate that student experiences in different schools are beginning from a similar foundation. As such, research seeking to understand how students learn and take up settler narratives must necessarily be focused and in depth but will have implications for schools which share a similar curricular, cultural, and pedagogical framework.

Secondly, to help mitigate the small sample size it is helpful to consider how the amount of time I spent with the students and in the classrooms of the participants allowed me to see similarities between the two classrooms and schools, despite the differences in their community context. In this way, the data that I was collecting in the research groups and through classroom

239

LEARNING TO SETTLE observations were often repetitive and indicated that I had reached a level of saturation from which I could develop defensible findings.

Thirdly, the students who participated in the study, though all self-identified as non-

Indigenous (discussed further below), were from diverse racial, cultural, religious, and socio- economic groups. Many of the students were recent migrants to Canada, while several indicated that their families had lived on Turtle Island for several generations. The complexity that was infused throughout the students’ discussions and is shared in the previous three chapters was a result of the diversity of students and indicates many of the ways diverse students in different schools and communities may also experience studying Indigenous and Canadian histories in fifth grade social studies.

Finally, in mitigation of a small sample, it is worth considering the limits of the scope of the study as a methodological choice. By focusing on two classrooms in two schools, I was able to conduct in-depth data collection and analysis which focused on the lived experiences of students as shared by them in first voice. The resulting findings and discussion provide a rich picture of the complexities that are at work in the figured worlds of classrooms as young students learn about histories that they are asked to place themselves within. With knowledge of the complex workings of identities-in-practice, researchers can conduct additional work that would survey a broader selection of students to analyze the prevalence of these findings. For this to be possible, however, the focused and deep research with limited participants is a necessary prerequisite.

As mentioned above, another limitation of this study is that no participants in the study self-identified as Indigenous. Many classrooms across Ontario have Indigenous students who learn the same curricular content as the students in this study, and as far as these Indigenous

240

LEARNING TO SETTLE children share ideas and experiences with the participants, there would be overlap in their identities-in-practice. However, Indigenous children come from diverse communities, cultures, and backgrounds, and this study can say nothing about their figured worlds of social studies classrooms with confidence because there is no uniform Indigenous experience of settler colonial education despite its prevalence.

As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the location of the research was an additional potential limitation on the data that I was able to collect. Because this study was conducted during school hours and in the school building, the students were in the environment of teacher-student dynamics and were expected by the other adults in the building to follow all the rules and regulations that govern student behaviour in school. Added to this dynamic was my presence as an adult in the school, and at North School as a former occasional teacher. While I took deliberate steps to mitigate the impact these dynamics had on the ways participants interacted with me, this power relationship would be changed in a similar research study if it was conducted with children away from school and in an environment where the power imbalance was shifted so children could speak without fear of being wrong or receiving punishment for speaking out. Such a study would further mitigate power dynamics, but it would also separate the students’ experiences from the environment in which the curriculum and pedagogy are designed to do their work in shaping children’s understandings of themselves and the past. My study with students in school contexts therefore more closely resembled the situations in which students learn from the social studies curriculum and was in fact an opportunity for students to think more deeply about the content and their relationships to it than they would normally. In this way, the research context is inherently limited in how it represents the everyday experiences of students as the students were not observed merely engaging with the curriculum in the manner most students

241

LEARNING TO SETTLE do. However, through the interactions that I had with the students in the research groups, I was able to see how students were engaging with and reacting to the content as they considered it more deeply than they would in most classrooms. The limit of this specific part of the project is in its representation of typical classroom environment is simultaneously an exploration of the possibilities that exist when students are given opportunities to consider and confront settler norms in their curricular experiences.

As I progressed through the process of data collection, it became clear that the students were not having explicit discussions in their classroom or in their inquiry projects about the effects and legacy of colonialism on Indigenous peoples and Canada. Because of the focus of this study on settler colonialism and public schooling, I was ready to introduce the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission Report explicitly and ask students to respond to it directly in their discussions about social studies learning. This placed an expectation on the students that was not part of their classroom learning, but I made the choice to introduce the concept of broken treaty relationships to understand how students would respond to explicit teaching about settler colonialism. This revealed very interesting aspects of their figured worlds but was not based on the way they understand and think about social studies, Indigeneity, and history in their classrooms or on their own. In a similar research project where the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission Report was not discussed by the researcher, the data collected from the classrooms and interviews would be similar, and parts of the research group discussions would be fruitful for analysis, but the aspects of this study that dealt with the ways students think about colonialism and respond to hearing about it would be missing. For this reason, I made the choice to introduce the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the way that I did, and I accept that in doing so I

242

LEARNING TO SETTLE introduced a topic that was not present in the figured worlds of the classroom because of its conspicuous absence from their prior curricular instruction.

Building on the previous paragraph, I accept the theoretical limitations of the study that were the result of the deliberate choices I made to employ the framework of figured worlds.

Figured worlds reveals how students narrate and enact discourses and identities-in-practice, but the theoretical framework of figured worlds does not access the specific causal patterns that underlie what the students share. Rather, these causal patterns and the imperatives that push forward certain discourses and restrict others can only be glimpsed in an unfocused manner and hypothesized through analysis. For this reason, this study cannot definitively claim to understand such things as the causal relationships between school curricula and settler colonial understandings adopted by students. This is beyond the scope of this study, and not of primary concern in the framework of figured worlds.

Next Steps and Further Study

Building on the research and findings of this study, there are multiple opportunities for further research in the areas of student experience, identities-in-practice, history education, and

Indigenous-Canadian relations. The first opportunity for study is to examine the figured worlds of students who are older yet still in the public education system, to develop comparative understandings as students progress developmentally, academically, and in their sense of themselves. These studies could be done with students studying Grade 8 history, as they cover the topics of confederation, the following growth of the nation-state of Canada, and the development of the numbered treaties. In addition, work could be done examining the figured worlds of students who study Grade 10 history and learn about the 20th century and Canada’s

243

LEARNING TO SETTLE growth through such periods as the 1969 White paper on Indian Policy, residential schools, the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Meech Lake Accord, and land claims settlements. In these contexts, it would be interesting to see how students develop identities-in-practice that are framed by their growing understanding of Canadian-Indigenous relations, and their developing sense of self.

Besides focusing on students in different ages and stages of development, it would be fruitful research to broaden the scope of this work and conduct similar research in other communities and with different demographics. It would be interesting to examine how students in more rural settings experience learning about Canadian and Indigenous histories in school, or students in schools in the neighbouring city of Caledonia next to the Six Nations of the Grand

River Reserve, or among prestigious private school students. This would allow researchers to build a broader conception of how students understand and frame settler colonial conceptions of

Canada and Indigenous peoples.

Building on the findings of this research, and specifically the notion that students in fifth grade do not categorize themselves in relation to pre-existing settler and Indigenous conceptions of identity, it would be valuable to examine whether this notion persists through time. The question of a study that researches this topic would ask if students, as they grow older, crystallize a conception of their own identity-in-practice that is framed by societal concepts of in-group and out-group dichotomies based in settler colonialism. In-depth research in this area might help indicate when students are growing into a sense of themselves in the context of settler-

Indigenous relations and reconciliation.

An additional area of research in a related area could focus attention to the pedagogy and teaching practices that brings about meaningful opportunities for students to find a place of

244

LEARNING TO SETTLE belonging in discourses about history and society. Such work would focus on linking students’ experiences of history study to their own experiences and sense of self, with the goal of bridging the study of Indigenous and Canadian histories with the students’ place and role in society today.

Conclusion

This thesis and the research that is described within it demonstrates the complexities and nuances that are evident when researchers examine a broad issue in education circles from the perspective of student experience. The lens of figured worlds and the theoretical frameworks of curriculum studies and settler colonial studies shaped this work to delve deeply into the topic at interest. As a result, this thesis examines closely the school lives of students and looks specifically for the ways they learn, adopt, connect, interrupt, and challenge narratives of history that shape their understanding of the land they live on and the people they share it with.

This thesis represents specific knowledge about fifth-grade student experiences of learning Canadian and Indigenous histories in two schools in Hamilton, Ontario at the time of this study, but the understandings and implications go beyond the experiences of the small number of students who were part of this project. Within the narrow focus of the study are glimpses and gestures that reveal ways that education broadly works to maintain settler structures of inequality and elimination through the teaching of social studies. In the minutia of student experiences, such as the process of finding books in the school library or developing inquiry questions for study, the impacts of dominant settler colonial narratives can be seen at work. By mapping these small interactions and learning from students how they approach and understand their experiences in school classrooms, research such as the work in this thesis can provide openings for challenging settler colonialism in its everyday impacts. In this research, that

245

LEARNING TO SETTLE challenge is fruitfully taken up by young students as they navigate their identities-in-practice in response to what they learn, who they learn it with, and the multiple voices that they listen to for guidance. Adults such as I who take up the calling of education have a responsibility to these students to make space for them to inquire and challenge us, and to model respectful relationships between individuals and as a collective of people walking on Turtle Island together.

246

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendices

Appendix A - Letter to principals

Dear Principal,

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum,

Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of

Toronto. I write to you to request permission to conduct a small research study at your school, exploring the experiences of students in inquiry-based social studies classrooms.

As part of the social studies curriculum, students in grade 3 and grade 5 study specific units about the beginnings of Canada as a country, and its interactions with indigenous people.

Through these units, students are given the opportunity to connect personally with the stories they learn about in the classroom and place themselves in the context of what has happened in our shared past. Most academic research in this area has focused on ways to improve pedagogy and create opportunities for students to connect meaningfully to the curriculum. This research study that I am asking to do with your school is focused on how students take part in this learning and is focused on student experiences of social studies classes so we as educators can gain a better understanding of how the students learn and engage.

This research study has two specific areas of focus that are relevant to academic and classroom-based education practice. The study will be examining inquiry-based classrooms to help the school board understanding the student perspectives of learning in these environments.

In addition, the emphasis on social studies is informed by the recent Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, which emphasize the importance of students learning various perspectives on the past relationships between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

247

LEARNING TO SETTLE

The research study will be conducted between January and May and will involve classroom visits twice a week to a grade 3 and a grade 5 class during their social studies class period. The observations that I conduct in these classes will be unobtrusive and non-evaluative, and during that time I will write notes about the actions and dialogue that take place in the classroom.

I would also like to conduct small focus groups and interviews with 3-7 students from each of the classes that I am observing, to talk about their experiences of social studies learning and work together on a mini inquiry research project together. I will obtain parental consent to conduct the focus groups and interviews for those students who volunteer for this project.

All of the information collected during this research study will be kept strictly confidential and secure. Your school and community will not be identified in any way, and each individual participant will be identified only through pseudonyms. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and any participant can refuse to answer any questions that I ask, or they withdraw their participation at any time. If you have any questions about your school's rights as participants in this research study, you can contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review

Office at the number below.

The information gathered during the observations, focus groups, and interviews will be used to compile a report on the ways students experience and engage in inquiry-based learning about Canada's history in social studies classrooms. This report will be presented to the

HWDSB's E-BEST research department and will also be available for you and your teachers.

The research will also be used towards the completion of my doctoral dissertation. You can contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule to discuss the research, and any concerns or questions you may have.

248

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Thank you very much for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,

Mark Sinke (OCT)

PhD Candidate, OISE/UT [email protected] xxx-xxx-xxxx

Supervisor:

Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule [email protected] xxx-xxx-xxxx

University of Toronto Research Ethics Review Office: [email protected] xxx-xxx-xxxx

249

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix B - Teacher information letter

Dear M_. ______,

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum,

Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of

Toronto. I write to you to request permission to conduct a small research study with your class, exploring the experiences of students in inquiry-based social studies classrooms.

As part of the social studies curriculum, students in grade 3 and grade 5 study specific units about the beginnings of Canada as a country, and its interactions with indigenous people.

Through these units, students are given the opportunity to connect personally with the stories they learn about in the classroom and place themselves in the context of what has happened in our shared past. Most academic research in this area has focused on ways to improve pedagogy and create opportunities for students to connect meaningfully to the curriculum. This research study that I am asking to do with your school is focused on how students take part in this learning and is focused on student experiences of social studies classes so we as educators can gain a better understanding of how the students learn and engage.

The research study will be conducted during the classes that you lead your students in the unit of social studies inquiry on early Canada. As a researcher I will be observing the actions and discourses of the students in the room, making notes in a research notebook to help me write up a report afterwards. The observations that I conduct in these classes will be unobtrusive and non- evaluative, and during that time I will write notes about the actions and dialogue that take place in the classroom. After introducing the research to your class and fielding any questions that the students may have, I will spend my time quietly observing the students and only interact with

250

LEARNING TO SETTLE them if they ask me questions. If you agree to let me visit your classroom, I will send a letter to the students and their parents to inform them of my work and give them my contact information.

I would also like to conduct small focus groups and interviews with 3-7 students from each of the classes that I am observing, to talk about their experiences of social studies learning and work together on a mini inquiry research project together. I will obtain parental consent to conduct the focus groups and interviews for those students who volunteer for this project.

All of the information collected during this research study will be kept strictly confidential and secure. Your school and community will not be identified in any way, and each individual participant will be identified only through pseudonyms. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and any participant can refuse to answer any questions that I ask, or they withdraw their participation at any time. If you have any questions about your students' rights as participants in this research study, you can contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review

Office at the number below.

The information gathered during the observations, focus groups, and interviews will be used to compile a report on the ways students experience and engage in inquiry-based learning about Canada's history in social studies classrooms. This report will be presented to the

HWDSB's E-BEST research department and will also be available for you and your teachers.

The research will also be used towards the completion of my doctoral dissertation. You can contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule to discuss the research, and any concerns or questions you may have.

Thank you very much for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,

Appendix C – Student information brochure

251

LEARNING TO SETTLE

(Front side of a 1/2-page brochure)

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a PhD student and researcher at the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. I have been given permission from the school board, your principal, and your teacher to do a small research study with your class while you go through your next social studies unit. I want to spend time in your classroom, learning from you about how you do an inquiry project for social studies.

While you are learning together, I will be sitting at the back of your classroom quietly writing down notes about the things that I see and hear in the class. I am trying to understand how students like yourselves learn in social studies inquiry classes about early Canada and Indigenous peoples, so I will write down in my notebook my observations about what goes on in your class during this unit.

This research is important to me and other educators because it will help us understand how you, as a student, learn in an inquiry-based social studies unit. I have chosen to study this particular social studies unit because here you will learn about Early Canada and Indigenous peoples, and I want to understand how you go through this unit and the types of things that you would do when you study this through an inquiry project.

You can ask me any questions that you have at any time about the project, the research groups, and why this project is important for. Your teacher, principal, or parents all have received information about the research as well and would be willing to talk about it if you have any concerns.

(Back side of a 1/2-page brochure)

252

LEARNING TO SETTLE

It is very important for me that everyone's privacy is protected, so I will not write down anyone's names in my notebook, and when I talk about my research, I will make sure that other people will not know specific and private information about anyone here. Also, if there are any days that you would like me to not write any notes about you, you can come and place a sticker beside your name on this class list that I have, and for that day I will not record any information about you personally.

Aside from observing your class, I will also be having a small research group that will meet outside of class time, and if you would like to volunteer to be part of that, I can give you more information.

I am very excited to have this opportunity to spend time with your class, and I will do my best to be on the sidelines of your classroom, not interfering in the things that you are doing. Thank you for letting me be your guest here.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact me at my email: [email protected].

You can also talk to my supervisor Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule at [email protected].

Finally, if you would like to talk to someone about your rights as a participant in this research, you can contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review office at [email protected] or

416-946-3273.

253

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix D – Information letter to parents

Dear Parents/Guardians,

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a PhD student in the Department of Curriculum,

Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of

Toronto. I write to you to inform you of a small research study that I will be conducting at your school.

As part of the social studies curriculum, students in grade 3 and grade 5 study specific units about the beginnings of Canada as a country, and its interactions with indigenous people.

Through these units, students are given the opportunity to connect personally with the stories they learn about in the classroom and place themselves in the context of what has happened in our shared past. Most academic research in this area has focused on ways to improve pedagogy and create opportunities for students to connect meaningfully to the curriculum. This research study that I am doing with your school is focused on how students take part in this learning and is focused on student experiences of social studies classes so we as educators can gain a better understanding of how the students learn and engage.

The research study will be conducted between January and May and will involved classroom visits approximately twice a week to a grade 3 and a grade 5 class during their social studies class period. I will also conduct small research groups and interviews with 3-7 students from each of the classes that I am observing, and if your child would like to participate, I will provide you with additional information about this process

This research has been approved by the University of Toronto, the Hamilton-Wentworth

District School Board, and your school's principal. For everyone involved, it is very important that all of the information collected during this research study will be kept strictly confidential

254

LEARNING TO SETTLE and secure. Your school, community, and child's name will not be identified in any way, and each individual participant will be identified only through pseudonyms. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and any participant can refuse to answer any questions that I ask, or they withdraw their participation at any time. If you have any questions about your child's rights as participants in this research study, you can contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review

Office at the number below.

The information gathered during the observations, focus groups, and interviews will be used to compile a report on the ways students experience and engage in inquiry-based learning about Canada's history in social studies classrooms. This report will be presented to the

HWDSB's E-BEST research department and will also be available for your school's principal and teachers. The research will also be used towards the completion of my doctoral dissertation. You can contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule to discuss the research, and any concerns or questions you may have.

Thank you very much for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,

Mark Sinke (OCT)

255

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix E - Research group letter to parents and students

Dear Parents/Guardians and Students,

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a PhD student in the Department of Curriculum,

Teaching, and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of

Toronto. I have written to you earlier about the research study that I am doing at your school, observing their social studies classroom as students learn about early Canada and Indigenous

Peoples. This letter is in regards to a small research group that I will be conducting with 3-7 students from this class. Your child has expressed interest in participating in this research group, and this letter will provide you with information about that aspect of this research study.

The research groups will be conducted by me once a week, outside of class time, at the school. We will meet together for up to one hour at a time and begin by talking together about what the students' experiences of learning are like in the social studies classroom. For the second half of our group time, I will talk to your child about research, and we will go through a mini- inquiry research project together. This project will begin with a small family history activity to help the students gain practice looking into the past and building information about people and places. After this first activity, the students will together choose a topic for inquiry that relates to the social studies curriculum and their own lives. We will research together using materials that are available and hopefully develop a meaningful inquiry project that we can present to the class or the principal.

I would like to use a digital audio recorder to record the research group, and this recording will be transcribed afterwards and used for my analysis. All names and identifying information will be removed from the transcription, and everyone's identity will be kept strictly confidential.

256

LEARNING TO SETTLE

There is one additional opportunity for your child to take part in an interview with me, to have an in-depth discussion about their experiences of social studies inquiry learning and the research groups. If your child would like to speak with me on their own, or with one other research group participant, I will have an interview with them at school, outside of class time, for up to one hour. This interview would also be audio recorded, as with the research groups. If you consent to allowing your child to take part in an interview if they so choose, please complete the form attached.

This research has been approved by the University of Toronto, the Hamilton-Wentworth

District School Board, and your school's principal. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and any participant can refuse to answer any questions that I ask, or they withdraw their participation at any time. If you have any questions about your child's rights as participants in this research study, you can contact the University of Toronto Ethics Review Office at the number below.

The information gathered during the observations, research groups, and interviews will be used to compile a report on the ways students experience and engage in inquiry-based learning about Canada's history in social studies classrooms. This report will be presented to the

HWDSB's E-BEST research department and will also be available for your school's principal and teachers. The research will also be used towards the completion of my doctoral dissertation. You can contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule to discuss the research, and any concerns or questions you may have.

Thank you very much for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,

Mark Sinke (OCT)

257

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix F – Principal and teacher consent forms

Principal Consent Form

I, ______, acknowledge that the topic and process of this research study has been explained to me and that I have received satisfactory answers to any questions I have about the study. I understand that I can withdraw my school's participation from this study without penalty. I have read the information letter provided by Mark Sinke, and consent to his conducting of this research study at ______school for the purposes described.

Signature:______Date: ______

Teacher Consent Form

I, ______, acknowledge that the topic and process of this research study has been explained to me and that I have received satisfactory answers to any questions I have about the study. I understand that I can withdraw my participation from this study without penalty. I have read the information letter provided by Mark Sinke, and consent to his observation of my classroom for the purposes described.

Signature:______Date: ______

258

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix G: Parent consent form for research groups and interviews

PARENTAL/GUARDIAN CONSENT FORM

I, ______, have read the letter describing this research.

(please print your name)

I agree to allow ______to take part in a research group.

(son/daughter's name)

OR

I do not wish ______to take part in a research group.

(son/daughter's name)

Signature: ______Date: ______

I agree to allow ______to take part in an interview.

(son/daughter's name)

OR

I do not wish ______to take part in an interview.

(son/daughter's name)

Signature: ______Date: ______

259

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix H - Student assent letter for research groups

I acknowledge that this research has been explained to me and that I am satisfied that any questions I had have been answered. I understand that I can withdraw my participation from this research study at any time without any penalty. I have read the information letter provided to me by Mark Sinke and I agree to participate in a research group for the purpose described. I have also obtained my parents’ permission to participate in this research group study.

Signature: ______

I agree to allow the research group to be audio recorded. I understand that these recordings will be transcribed to ensure accuracy and that the recordings will be destroyed once the research is completed.

Signature: ______

Name (printed): ______Date: ______

260

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix I - Student assent letter for an interview

I acknowledge that this research has been explained to me and that I am satisfied that any questions I had have been answered. I understand that I can withdraw my participation from this research study at any time without any penalty. I have read the information letter provided to me by Mark Sinke and I agree to participate in an interview for the purpose described. I have also obtained my parents’ permission to participate in this study.

Signature: ______

I agree to allow the interview to be audio recorded. I understand that this recording will be transcribed to ensure accuracy and that the recording will be destroyed once the research is completed.

Signature: ______

Name (printed): ______Date: ______

261

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix J - Introductory script for classroom observation

Good morning/afternoon everyone,

My name is Mark Sinke, and I am a PhD student and researcher at the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. I have been given permission from the school board, your principal, and your teacher to do a small research study with your class while you go through your next social studies unit. I want to spend time in your classroom, learning from you about how you do an inquiry project for social studies. Would you like me to explain what I mean by an inquiry project?

While you are learning together, I will be sitting at the back of your classroom quietly writing down notes about the things that I see and hear in the class. I am trying to understand how students like yourselves learn in social studies inquiry classes about early Canada and Indigenous peoples, so I will write down in my notebook my observations about what goes on in your class during this unit.

It is very important for me that everyone's privacy is protected, so I will not write down anyone's names in my notebook, and when I talk about my research, I will make sure that other people will not know specific and private information about anyone here. Also, if there are any days that you would like me to not write any notes about you, you can come and place a sticker beside your name on this class list that I have, and for that day I will not record any information about you personally. Do you have any questions about confidentiality?

Aside from observing your class, I will also be having a small research group that will meet outside of class time, and if you would like to volunteer to be part of that, I can give you more information.

262

LEARNING TO SETTLE

I am very excited to have this opportunity to spend time with your class, and I will do my best to be on the sidelines of your classroom, not interfering in the things that you are doing. Thank you for letting me be your guest here.

Does anyone have any questions?

263

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix K - Research group protocol

Good morning/afternoon,

Thank you everyone for agreeing to meet with me in a research group together. We are going to be meeting once a week together until your class has finished its social studies unit. Our time here will be used to accomplish two things for this research study. The first goal is to talk in depth about your experiences in the classroom as you do your social studies inquiry project. Our second goal will be to go through research project ourselves, as a group. We will start by talking about what research is, and how it is similar and different to an inquiry project. After that we will go through a small family history activity to practice how we can research people and places form the past. Finally, we will come up with an inquiry research question that is connected to our own lives and that we want to know more about. We will spend the last few meetings finding answers to our inquiry research question, and then we will share what we learn with our class or the principal. Do you have any questions about this process?

I am going to use a digital audio recorder to record our group time together, so that I can transcribe it later and use that to help me remember everything that we talk about. When I write the transcription, I will not use anyone's name, and will change any personally identifiable information to protect your confidentiality. I also want to make it clear that you don't have to answer any questions, and you can withdraw your participation at any time. Your participation in this group will have no impact on your grades whatsoever. Do you have any questions about that?

Okay, so can we begin by talking about your class time together? I'd like to hear from everyone about how it is going, what they like about it, what is challenging, and why you have chosen to do the inquiry that you are working on?

264

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Week 1 - Inquiry and Research

- Can you tell me what you understand inquiry is? What do you think research means, and is it any different than inquiry?

- The research project that I am doing is helping me complete my PhD degree. Can you think of any other reasons why this research might be helpful to me, or anyone else? How might research be harmful instead of helpful? What do you think we need to think about as researchers when we ask questions and try to find answers to them?

- What are some of the ways that we can make our research available to be shared with other people?

Week 2 - Family History Activity

- Let me tell you a little bit about my family history, who my ancestors are and where we lived.

- I have found out a lot of information about my family from the internet, as well as talking with my parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts. Let me show you a few of the ways I have used the internet to find out about my family history.

- I would like you to take these small notebooks and see what you can remember about your family history. What do you think are some important things that we can write down?

- Over the next week, can you ask your family members what they know about the people and places that are part of your family history? You can write any information you would like down in your notebook and bring it with you next week when we meet together. It is always helpful for me to think about some W questions when I am doing this type of activity: Who, What, When and Where?

265

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Week 3 - Family history recap and intro to inquiry research

- Let's talk about what it was like for you to learn about your family history? What did you learn about the people and places that are part of your background?

- After doing this family history research, do you have anything you would like to say about the process of doing research? What have you learned, and how would you do it differently next time?

- Now that we have gained some experience with research and inquiry, what is something that we would like to research together over the next couple of group meetings? Let's brainstorm some ideas about things that are important to us and have to do with some of things we are learning in social studies. We can ask some W questions: Who, What, Where and When, and we can also ask the questions why and how to go even more in depth.

- After brainstorming, what do you think we as a group should go deep into researching?

Week 4 -6 Inquiry and research

- What have you all learned since our last group about our inquiry question? Is there anything that you are really excited to bring to the group, or any new materials that you think we should talk about?

- What have you learned about inquiry and research?

- Is there anything in your notebooks that you would like to share with the rest of the group?

- How have we begun to answer our initial question, and what do we need to do to go further in our investigation?

- How could we share this with people in our class, or our principal?

266

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Appendix L - Interview protocol

-Thank you for agreeing to do this interview with me. I am going to ask you to talk about your experiences at school when you learn about social studies, and I have some questions that I can ask to help us through the interview. I want to remind you that you do not have to answer any of my questions, and you can withdraw from the interview anytime you want to. Do you have any questions about that? I will also make sure that anything you tell me will be kept confidential, so that your name or any personal information about you is never shared with anyone.

- Because I am not a fast-enough writer to write down everything you say, I would like to use this digital recorder to record our conversation, so that I can listen to it later and remember what we talk about. Is that okay with you?

Inquiry:

- Can you please tell me what it has been like for you to go through this social studies inquiry in class?

- Which parts of the class do you find the most interesting? What about the most difficult?

- Do you think that you have a clear understanding of what inquiry means in social studies? Can you explain to me what inquiry is for you?

- Why did you choose your specific topic for your in-class inquiry project?

- Is there another topic that you would have liked to choose if you could? What would you have needed or wanted to have so you could do that inquiry topic?

Social Studies:

- What do you think about social studies?

- Do you think that social studies is important to learn about in elementary school? Why or why not?

267

LEARNING TO SETTLE

- What do you really enjoy studying in social studies? What do you wish you didn't have to study or learn about?

- If you could help change the curriculum for social studies, what would you do differently?

- What specific things have you learned about early Canada and Indigenous peoples that you think are really important? Why do you think these things are important?

Research Groups:

- Would you like to talk with me about the research group that you are a part of? What do you think about the group? What are some of your favourite parts of the group? What do you think could be done better?

- Do you think that you have a good understanding of what research is? Could you explain that to me?

- How does the research group differ from the inquiry that you are doing in the classroom?

- Do you have any other things that you would like to say about the research groups? Thank you very much for speaking with me.

268

LEARNING TO SETTLE

References

Absolon, K. E. (2011). Kaandossiwin: How We Come to Know. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood Publishing. Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality. New York: Routledge. Ahmed, S. (2004). Declarations of whiteness: The non-performativity of anti-racism. Borderlands, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm Alfred, T., & Corntassel, J. (2005). Being indigenous: Resurgences against contemporary colonialism. Government and Opposition, 40(4), 597-614. Allen, K. A., & Bowles, T. (2012). Belonging as a guiding principle in the education of adolescents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12, 108–119. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging - An analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659. Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial color blindness: Emergence, practice and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 205–209. Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Arnold, P. A., & Gibbs, B. (1999). Canada revisited 6: Aboriginal peoples and European explorers. Edmonton, AB: Arnold Publishing Ltd. Bannerji, H. (2000). The dark side of the nation: Essays on multiculturalism, nationalism, and gender. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. Barron, I. (2014). Finding a voice: A figured worlds approach to theorising young children’s identities. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(3), 251–263. Bartlett, L., & Holland, D. (2002). Theorizing the space of literacy practices. Ways of Knowing Journal, 1, 10–22. Battiste, M. A., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 627–658. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137–151. Beck, M., & Malley, J. (2003). A pedagogy of belonging. CYC-Online, 50. Retrieved from https://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0303-belonging.html Bennett, D., Solomon, Y., Bergin, C., Horgan, M., & Dornan, T. (2017). Possibility and agency

269

LEARNING TO SETTLE

in figured worlds: Becoming a “good doctor.” Medical Education, 51(3), 248–257. Berkhofer, R. F. (1978). The white man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the present. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Bianchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 26–29. Bornholt, L. J. (2000). Social and personal aspects of self knowledge: A balance of individuality and belonging. Learning and Instruction, 10(5), 415–429. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2000). Reproduction in education, society and culture. (R. Nice Trans). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. (Original work published 1977) Bransford, J. D., & Donovan, S. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. British Columbia Teachers Federation. (n.d.). Racism in Canada: Elementary lesson plans. Retrieved from https://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/SocialJustice/Issues/Antiracism/RacismInCanadaElem. pdf Britzman, D. P. (1995). “The question of belief”: Writing poststructural ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 229–238. Bulkeley, J., & Fabian, H. (2006). Well-being and belonging during early educational transitions. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood, 2, 18–31. Buller, M., Audette, M., Robinson, Q., & Eyolfson, B. (2019). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Retrieved from https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/ Cairns, K. (2011). Mapping futures, making selves: Subjectivity, schooling and rural youth. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1997). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa. Canada. n.d. Indigenous peoples and communities. Retrieved on January 5, 2020 from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303. Cannon, M. J., & Sunseri, L. (Eds.). (2018). Racism, colonialism, and Indigeniety in Canada (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Caraballo, L. (2017). Students’ critical meta-awareness in a figured world of achievement: Toward a culturally sustaining stance in curriculum, pedagogy, and research. Urban Education, 52(5), 585–609. Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. Carroll, S. M. (2019). Negotiating subjectivities through literature: Anticolonial counternarrative fiction book clubs and their possibilities. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate factors on students’ sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology, 59(2), 243–

270

LEARNING TO SETTLE

272. Césaire, A. (2000). Discourse on Colonialism. (Pinkham, J., Trans). New York, NY: NYU Press. (Original Published in 1977). Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chang, A. (2014). Identity production in figured worlds: How some multiracial students become racial atravesados/as. Urban Review, 46, 25–46. Chang, A., Welton, A. D., Martinez, M. A., & Cortez, L. (2013). Becoming academicians: An ethnographic analysis of the figured worlds of racially underrepresented female faculty. The Negro Educational Review, 64(1), 97–118. Clark, P. (2011). New possibilities for the past: Shaping history education in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Colombo, E., Domaneschi, L., & Marchetti, C. (2011). Citizenship and multiple belonging: Representations of inclusion, identification and participation among children of immigrants in Italy. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(3), 334–347. Conservation Halton. (2019). Iroquoian Village. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from https://www.conservationhalton.ca/park-details?park=crawford-lake Conteh, J., & Brock, A. (2011). ‘Safe spaces’? Sites of bilingualism for young learners in home, school and community. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(3), 347–360. Corsaro, W. A. (1992). Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 160–177. Corsaro, W. A. (2012). Interpretive reproduction in children’s play. American Journal of Play, 4(4), 488–504. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books. Dagenais, D., Day, E., & Toohey, K. (2006). A multilingual child’s literacy practices and contrasting identities in the figured worlds of French immersion classrooms. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 205–218. Daschuk (2014). Clearing the plains: Disease, politics of starvation, and the loss of Aboriginal life. Regina, SK: University of Regina Press Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DeVries, L. (2011). Conflict in Caledonia: Aboriginal land rights and the rule of law. Toronto, ON: UBC Press. Dion, S. D. (2007). Disrupting molded images: Identities, responsibilities and relationships- teachers and indigenous subject material. Teaching Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210701687625 Dixon, L., & Hales, A. (2014). Bringing history alive through local people and places: A guide for primary school teachers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Donald, D. (2011). Forts, colonial frontier logics, and Aboriginal-Canadian relations. In A. A.

271

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Abdi (Ed.), Decolonizing Philosophies of Education (pp. 91-111). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Ministry of Education, Ontario. (2013c). Secretariate special edition #32. Retrieved from http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/queensrangers/files/2013/10/Inquiry-Approach-Ministry.pdf. El-Sherif, L., & Sinke, M. (2018). “One message, all the time and in every way”: Spatial subjectivities and pedagogies of citizenship. Curriculum Inquiry, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2017.1409590 Esmonde, I. (2014). “Nobody’s rich and nobody’s poor... it sounds good, but it’s actually not”: Affluent students learning mathematics and social justice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 348–391. Esmonde, I., & Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2013). Power in numbers: Student participation in mathematical discussions in heterogenous spaces. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 288–315. Fail, H., Thompson, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Belonging, identity and third culture kids: Life histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(3), 319–338. Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York NY: Grove Press. Farmer, D., & Cepin, J. (2015). Creative visual methods in research with children and young people. In Evans, R. and Holt, L. (eds). Geographies of children and young people: Methodological approaches (Vol. 2, pp. 1–28). Singapore: Springer. Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Education Psychology, 99(2), 421–431. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Francis, D. (1992). The imaginary Indian: The image of the Indian in Canadian culture. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press. Freeman, V. (2010). “Toronto has no history!” Indigeneity, settler colonialism, and historical memory in canada’s largest city. Urban History Review, 38(2), 21-35 Garrad, C., Abler, T. S., & Hancks, L. K. (n.d.). On the survival of the neutrals. Wyandotte Nation. Retrieved from https://www.wyandotte-nation.org/culture/petun-research- institute/on-the-survival-of-the-neutrals/ Garsten, C. (2008). Workplace vagabonds: Career and community in changing worlds of work. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2005). Bilingual identity among youth in minority settings: A complex notion. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwain (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism (pp. 902–913). Somerville, MA: Cascadia Press. Giroux, H., & Purpel, D. (Eds.) (1983). The hidden curriculum and moral education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

272

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Gonsalves, A., Rahm, J., & Carvalho, A. (2013). “We could think of things that could be science”: Girls’ re-figuring of science in an out-of-school-time club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1068–1097. Green, J. (2003). Self-determination, citizenship, and federalism: Indigenous and Canadian palimpsest. In M. Murphy (Ed.), Reconfiguring Aboriginal-state relations (pp. 329–352). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Hall, S. (2011). Introduction: Who needs “identity”? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Hamilton, T. (2003). The representation and appropriation of indigenous cultures at Ontario summer camps. The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(1), 9–15. Hamm, J. V., & Faircloth, B. S. (2005). The role of friendship in adolescents' sense of school belonging. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(107), 61–78. Hampton, E. (1995). Memory comes before knowledge: Research may improve if researchers remember their motives. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 21(supplement), 46–54. Hatt, B. (2007). Street smarts vs. book smarts: The figured world of smartness in the lives of marginalized, urban youth. The Urban Review, 39(2), 145–166. Head of the Lake Historical Society, T. (1941). Wentworth bygones. Hamilton, ON. Hill, R. (2013). Talking points on history and meaning of the Two Row Wampum Belt. Oshweken, ON. Retrieved from http://honorthetworow.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/TwoRowTalkingPoints-Rick-Hill.pdf Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. hooks, B. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston, MA: South End Press James, A. & James, A. L. (2004). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy, and social practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Kempf, A. (2012). Colour-blind praxis in Havana: Interrogating Cuban teacher discourses of race and racelessness. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 16(2), 246–267. Kenyon, W. A. (1990). The Grimsby site: A historic Neutral cemetery. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. Kia-Keating, M., & Ellis, B. H. (2007). Belonging and connection to school in resettlement: Young refugees, school belonging, and pychosocial adjustment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12(1), 29–43. Kilpatrick, J. (1999). Celluloid Indians: Native Americans and film. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press King, T. (2005). The truth about stories: A Native narrative. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. King, T. (2012). The inconvenient Indian: A curious account of native people in North America. Toronto, ON: Doubleday Canada. Koleszar-Green, R. (2016). Understanding your education: Onkwehonwe and guests 273

LEARNING TO SETTLE

responsibilities to peace friendship and mutual respect. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Koleszar-Green, R. (2018). What is a guest? What is a settler? Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, 10(2), 166–177. Lacan, J. (1977). The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as reavealed in psychoanalytic experience. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2015). Linear equations and rap battles: how students in a wired classroom utilized the computer as a resource to coordinate personal and mathematical positional identities in hybrid spaces. Math Education Research Journal, (27), 51–64. Lara, G. P., & Franquiz, M. E. (2015). Latino bilingual teachers: Negotiating the figured world of masculinity. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(2), 207–227. Lawrence, B. (2002). Rewriting histories of the land: Colonization and Indigenous resistance in Eastern Canada. In Race, space, and the law : unmapping a white settler society. Lawrence, B., & Dua, E. (2005). Decolonizing antiracism. Social Justice, 32(4), 120–143. Leander, K. M. (2002). The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2), 198–250. Levinas, E. (1963). The trace of the Other. (A. Lingis, Trans.). In Taylor, M. (Ed.). (1986). Deconstruction in context, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Liberal Party of Canada, T. (2015). A new nation to nation process. Retrieved July 26, 2019, from https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/a-new-nation-to-nation-process/ Lovern, L. L. (2012). Trampling the sacred: multicultural education as pedagogical racism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(7), 867–883. Lozanski, K. (2007). Memory and the impossibility of whiteness in colonial Canada. Feminist Theory, 8(2), 223–225. Lunggren, David. (2009, September 29). Every G20 country wants to be Canada, insists PM. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/columns-us-g20-canada-advantages/every- g20-nation-wants-to-be-canada-insists-pm-idUSTRE58P05Z20090926 Ma, J. Y., & Singer-Gabella, M. (2011). Learning to teach in the figured world of reform mathematics: Negotiating new models of identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 8– 22. Ma, X. (2003). Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference?. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 340–349. MacDonald, D. B. (2015). Canada’s history wars: indigenous genocide and public memory in the United States, Australia and Canada. Journal of Genocide Research, 15(4), 411–431. Mawhinney, J. (1998). “Giving up the ghost”: Disrupting the (re)production of white privilege in anti-racist pedagogy and organizational change. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Mayes, E., Mitra, D. L., & Serriere, S. C. (2016). Figured worlds of citizenship: Examining differences made in ‘making a difference” in an elementary school classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 53(3), 605–638. McLean, L. R., Rogers, P., Grant, N. E., Law, A., & Hunter, J. (2014). Spaces of collaboration: The poetics of place and historical consciousness. Historical Encounters, 1(1), 4–19.

274

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Miller, J. R. (2018). Skyscrapers hide the heavens: A history of native-newcomer relations in Canada, (4th Ed.). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Ministry of Education, Ontario. (2004). The Ontario curriculum: Social studies grades 1 to 6, history and geography grades 7 and 8. Retrieved from https://www.uwindsor.ca/education/sites/uwindsor.ca.education/files/curriculum_- _social_studies_1-6_history_geography_7-8.pdf. Ministry of Education, Ontario. (2013a). The Ontario curriculum: Social studies grade 1-6, history and geography grade 7-8. Retrieved from www.ontario.ca/edu. Ministry of Education, Ontario. (2013b, May). Inquiry based learning. Capacity Building Series, 1–8. Retrieved from www.ontario.ca/edu. Mitchell, M. (1989). An unbroken assertion of sovereignty. In B. Richardson (Ed.), Drumbeat: Anger and renewal in Indian Country (pp. 107–136). Toronto, ON: Summerhill Press. Morrow, V. (1998). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well‐being of children and young people: a critical review. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 744–765. Morrow, V. (2001). Young people’s explanations and experiences of social exclusion: retrieving Bourdieu’s concept of social capital. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(4), 37–63. Ng-A-Fook, N., & Rottmann, J. (Eds.) (2012). Reconsidering Canadian curriculum studies: Provoking historical, present, and future perspectives. New York: Routledge. Nokes, J. (2012). Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence. New York, NY: Routledge. Nussbaum, M. (1994). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. Boston Review. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/martha-nussbaum-patriotism-and-cosmopolitanism O’ Sullivan, E. (2014). Learning to ‘understand backwards’ in time: Children’s temporal cognition and the primary history curriculum. Cork, IE: National University of Ireland. O’Kane, C. (2008). The development of participatory techniques: Facilitating children’s views about decisions which affect them. In P. M. Christensen & J. Allison (Eds.), Researching with children: perspective and practice (pp. 125–155). New York, NY: Routledge. O’Tuama, P. (2013). The word became stretched and crept among us. In Sorry for your troubles. London, UK: Canterbury Press. Ono, K. A. (2010). Postracism: A theory of the ‘post-’ as political strategy. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 34, 227–233. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2006). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discources. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Price, J. F., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Toward a lived science curriculum in intersecting figured worlds: An exploration of individual meanings in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 501–529.

275

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Priest, N., Walton, J., White, F., Kowal, E., Fox, B., & Paradies, Y. (2016). 'You are not born being racist, are you?’ Discussing racism with primary aged-children. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 808–834. Prince, E. J., & Hadwin, J. (2013). The role of a sense of school belonging in understanding the effectiveness of inclusion of children with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(3), 238–262. Quijano, Anibal. (2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from the South, 1(3), 533-580. Rahim, A. (1990). Multiculturalism of ethnic hegemony: A critique of multicultural education in Toronto. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 18(3), 29-46. Restoule, J.-P. (2008). Fostering Aboriginal awareness in social studies. In C. Rolheiser (Ed.), Initial teacher education: School improvement and teacher education: Collaboration for change (pp. 6–12). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Restoule, J.-P., Mashford-Pringle, A., Chacaby, M., Smillie, C., & Brunette, C. (2013). Supporting successful transitions to post-secondary education for Indigenous students: Lessons from an institutional ethnography in Ontario, Canada. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 4(4), 1–13. Richardson, T. (2011). Navigating the problem of inclusion as enclosure in Native culture-based education: Theorizing shadow curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(3), 332-349. Robinson, C. (2007). Figured world of history learning in a social studies methods classroom. The Urban Review, 39(2), 191–216. Roffey, S. (2013). Inclusive and exclusive belonging – the impact on individual and community well-being. Education & Child Psychology, 30(1), 38–49. Roth, S., & Erstad, O. (2016). Positional identities in educational transitions: connecting contemporary and future trajectories among multiethnic girls. Ethnography and Education, 11(1), 57–73. Rubin, B. C. (2007). Learner identity amid figured worlds: Constructing (in)competence at an urban high school. The Urban Review, 39(2), 217–249. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. Toronto, ON: Random House of Canada Ltd. Salazar, J. A. (2006). Multicultural settler colonialism and Indigenous struggle in Hawai'i: The politics of astronomy on Mauna A Wakea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Sargent, J., Williams, R. A., Hagerty, B., Lynch-Sauer, J., & Holye, K. (2002). Sense of belonging as a buffer against depressive symptoms. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 8(4), 120–129. Schaefli, L., Godlewska, A., Korteweg, L., Coombs, A., Morcom, L., & Rose, J. (2018). What do first-year university students in Ontario, Canada, know about First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples and topics? Canadian Journal of Education, 41(3), 687-725. Schwimmer, E., Poirier, S., & Clammer, J. (2004). Figured worlds: Ontological obstacles in intercultural relations. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Sefa Dei, G. J. (2014). Personal reflections on anti-racism education for a global context. Encounters in Theory and History of Education, 15, 239-249.

276

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Seixas, P. (Ed.). (2004). Theorizing historical consciousness. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Shadd, A. (2010). The journey from tollgate to parkway: African Canadians in Hamilton. Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press. Shin, R., Daly, B., & Vera, E. (2007). The relationships of peer norms, ethnic identity, and peer support to school engagement in urban youth. Professional School Counselling, 10(4). 379- 388. Shingler, B. (2018, November 30). Quebec has no plans to change history curriculum despite scathing review. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-history-jean-francois-roberge-1.4927887 Silova, I., Mead Yaqub, M., & Palandjian, G. (2014). Pedagogies of space: (Re)mapping national territories, borders, and identities in post-Soviet textbooks. In J. H. Williams (Ed.), (Re)constructing memory: School textbooks and the imagination of the nation (pp. 103– 130). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Simpson, L. R. (2005). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 373-384. Simpson, L. R. (2008). Looking after Gdoo-naaganinaa: Precolonial Nishnaabeg diplomatic and treaty relationships. Wicazo Sa Review, 23(2), 29–42. Sinke, M. (2012). Liberian youth speak: Life histories of young former refugees and their interactions with the Ontario public school system. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Six Nations Lands & Resources, T. (n.d.). Nanfan treaty. Oshweken, ON. Retrieved from http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HistoricalDates.htm Skjæveland, Y. (2017). Learning history in early childhood: Teaching methods and children’s understanding. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(1), 8–22. Smith, A. (2012). Indigeneity, settler colonialism, white supremacy. In D. HoSang, O. LaBennett, & L. Pulido (Eds.), Racial formation in the twenty-first century (pp. 66–90). Berkeley, CA: UC Press. Smith, A. (2013). Unsettling the privilege of self-reflexivity. In F. W. Twine & B. Gardener (Eds.), Geographies of privilege (pp. 264–279). Toronto: Routledge. Spyrou, S. (2018). Disclosing childhoods: Research and knowledge production for a critical childhood studies. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. St. Denis, V. (2011). Foreward. In M. J. Cannon & L. Sunseri (Eds.), Racism, colonialim, and Indigeneity in Canada: a reader. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Starkey, H. (2012). Human rights, cosmopolitanism and utopias: implications for citizenship education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(1), 21–35. Statistics Canada. (2016). Census profile - Hamilton City. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, teaching, and learning history: National and international perspectives. New York, NY: NYU Press. Stewart Rose, L. J. (2008). The lived experience of learning to teach in inner city schools:

277

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Negotiating identity and agency in the figured worlds of teacher candidates. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basis of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Strauss, C., & Friedman, J. R. (Eds.). (2018). Political sentiments and social movements: The person in politics and culture. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Strohl, D. (2014, May 28). Studebaker’s Canada plant torn down to make way for industrial park. Hamilton Spectator. Retrieved from http://www.thespec.ca Sulsberger, M. J. (2018). Gathering, interpreting, and positioning children’s narratives in environmental education research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(3), 707-732. Tan, E. (2010). Transforming science learning and student participation in sixth grade science: A case study of a low-income, urban, racial minority classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 38–55. The Coalition for the Advancement of Aboriginal Studies, C. (2002). Learning about walking in beauty: Placing Aboriginal perspectives in Canadian classrooms. Toronto, ON: Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Thobani, S. (2007). Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Stimulating tensions in special education teachers’ figured world: an approach toward inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(12), 1326–1343. Thorp, R. (2014). Historical consciousness and historical media: A history didactical approach to educational media. Education Inquiry, 5(4), 497–516. Tillery, R. K. (1992). Touring Arcadia: Elements of discursive simulation and cultural struggle at children’s summer camp. Cultural Anthropology, 7(3), 374–388. Todd, S. (2009). Toward an imperfect education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, T. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. Retrieved from http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Tuck, E. & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 29(1). 72-89. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, & Society, 1(1), 1–40. Tuhai-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York, NY: Zed Books Limited. United Nations, T. (2007). United Nations ceclaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on- the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

278

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Urrieta Jr., L. (2007a). Figured worlds and education: An introduction to the special issue. The Urban Review, 39(2), 107–116. Urrieta Jr., L. (2007b). Identity production in figured worlds: How some Mexican Americans become Chicana/o activist educators. The Urban Review, 39(2), 117–144. Uwah, C. H., McMahon, G., & Furlow, C. F. (2018). School belonging, educational aspirations, and academic self-efficacy among African American male high school students: Implications for school counselors. Proffessional School Counselling, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0801100503 Veracini, L. (2010). Settler colonialism: A theoretical overview. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Veracini, L. (2011a). On settlerness. Borderlands, 10(1). Retrieved from: http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol10no1_2011/veracini_settlerness.htm Veracini, L. (2011b) Introducting. Settler Colonial Studies 1(1). 1-12. Vukelich, R., & Thornton, S. J. (1991). Children’s enderstanding of historical time: Implications for instruction. Childhood Education, 67(1), 22–25. Vygotsky, L. (1986).Thought and language. (Kozulin, A. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wade-Jaimes, K., & Schwartz, R. (2019). “I don’t think it’s science:” African American girls and the figured world of school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 679–706. Wall, S. (2005). Totem poles, teepees, and token traditions: “Playing Indian” at Ontario summer camps, 1920-1955. The Canadian Historical Review, 86(3), 513–544. Wells, K. (2016). Childhood studies:Making young subjects. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Wildcat, M. (2015). Fearing social and cultural death: genocide and elimination in settler colonial Canada—an Indigenous perspective. Journal of Genocide Research, 17(4), 391– 409. Wilkes, R., Duong, A., Kesler, L., & Ramos, H. (2017). Canadian university acknowledgment of Indigenous lands, treaties, and peoples. Canadian Review of Sociology, 54(1), 89–120. Wilkes, T. (2011). Transitioning traditions: Rectifying an Ontario camp’s Indian council ring. Pathways, 23(2), 6–9. Willinsky, J. (1994). After 1492-1992: A post-colonial supplement for the Canadian curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 613–629. Wilson, L. O. (2006). Types of curriculum: Definitions of the different types of curriculum..Retrieved from: https://evaeducation.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/9/19692577/1a._types_of_curriculum.pdf Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387-409. Woolford, A. (2015). The benevolent experiment: Indigenous boarding schools, genocide, and redress in Canada and the United States. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press.

279

LEARNING TO SETTLE

Woolford, A., Benvenuto, J., & Laban Hinton, A. (Eds.). (2014). Cultural genocide in Indigenous North America. Charlotte, NC: Duke University Press. Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation - an argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337. Yellow Bird, M. (2004). Cowboys and Indians: Toys of genocide, icons of American colonialism. Wicazo Sa Review, 19(2), 33–48. Zembylas, M. (2010). Children’s construction and experience of racism and nationalism in Greek-Cypriot primary schools. Childhood, 17(3), 312–328.

280