Reflection

This artifact represents a growth in my learning. While this artifact was created during my M.Ed, in my B.Ed I developed a unit that looked at texts that explored homosexuality in literature. My co-author and I chose to revisit this topic because we felt we could really delve in armed with new information. He and I have done both our B.Ed and M.Ed together at UOIT. One of the major theories that provided us with direction in this presentation is the poststructuralist perspective of a fluid identity and identity as performance. Through this lens we explored the connection between privilege, culture and sexual identity. Previously our work focused more on how we could use literature in our classroom to help promote discussions on acceptance and understanding of those who identify as queer. This project we looked at the concept of heteronormativity, as opposed to acceptances of queer identity, in schools. I think this shows a shift in paradigm and thinking. We really started to explore how our culture sets up gender norms and sexual norms from an early age. Like our work in our B.Ed program our aim was to ask tough questions and challenge our viewers to examine their bias.

Heteronormativity was a new word for me. Interestingly, Microsoft Word identifies it as an error. In many ways I think it is akin to the difference between multiculturalism and anti-racism. Both heteronormativity and anti-racism require critical thinking and the challenging of the norm. It is not about just celebrating otherness but exploring how groups are” othered” within our social structure and why. It challenges the way we think about tradition practices that reinforce this structure. Until I created this artifact I had not thought a lot about teaching queer identity to young children. I am a high school teacher in the public system. To me it is not a question of if I discuss homosexuality in my classroom but how. However, several years ago I was introduced to a children’s book about two gay penguins. In one of my B.Ed classes we engaged in a debate about why or why it should not be included in classroom reading lists. I argued it should but I know that after writing this artifact my reasons would be much more developed. This task required me to consider early childhood education (ECE) in relationship to heteronormativity. This is reflected in my artifact by some of the questions we pose to the audience. One major point that struck home for me was that by not talking about sexuality with our children we still make a statement. Heterosexuality and gender norms are ingrained into our culture. When we begin examining fairy tales, games, dolls, and other toys the concept of heteronormativity is enforced. It goes back, for me to a discussion I had with Dr. Hughes about “boy books”. We discussed what implications there could be if a girl liked a book on the “Boy Book” shelf. This same concept applies here. If we only show children “normalised” gender identities and roles and fail to discuss sexuality because of our own fears, we leave them with questions and create a topic that is taboo.

I have since been able to pull concepts from this presentation and my readings into a class I teach on media. We typically do a unit on gender and explore concepts of gender in the media. My learning in this course has really helped me to articulate to my students the way in which power, society, and gender are related. I feel that as a result of my learning in the course I am better equipped to discuss “sensitive topics”. I am not afraid to ask my students tough questions. Additionally, since writing this I have had a daughter. I can now say with absolutely certainty that I will also read her stories that explore queer identity. I want her to grow up seeing all different types of families, relationships, and identities. I do not want her to feel her identity is limited by our social belief of the norm. So I will read her stories of princess who fall in love with princes, and stories about monster trucks, and stories about gay penguins.

My final reason for including this artifact was because of its format. I think that my partner and I did an effective job of creating a multimodal presentation. We made use of interactivity, critical thinking, pedagogy, and social constructivism. It is also one of the few artifacts I have included that was co-authored. This is for two reasons. Firstly, in almost every class I did at least one project with another person. However, often they were seminars conducted face to face. I don’t necessarily have it all recorded and my style is more of facilitator than lecturer. These artifacts would thus fail to demonstrate anything very well, in my opinion. Additionally, due to the great number of commitments I have I usually choose to work independently. I actually really value my peers and their ideas, however I want the freedom to dictate my own schedule and work when I have time. I am also fairly introverted and after teaching all day I find it exhausting to try ad work with more people. However, my co-author and I frequently work together because of our prior friendship and academic relationship. We are a good balance for one another and each bring different strengths to the assignment. I thought it was important to show that in this program I was not an island, I did learn from ad with my peers.