I have never experienced math as a pre-service teacher. However, I did spend the majority of my elementary school and high school having to take math classes. I think the main aspects of teaching and learning of mathematics in relation to oppression is how our math curriculum takes a wholly European world view. For example, when we learned about patterns, we learned about the European version of patterns:
- 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
- Red Red Red Blue Blue Blue Red Red Red Blue Blue Blue
We did not spend our classes looking at the patterns of nature, or “the earth’s cycles, phases and patterns” (Leroy Little Bear, 2000, 78). The only way we learned about math was if we followed a curriculum made in European mindset. Even when math tries to be inclusive of different cultures, it is simply inserting other cultures’ examples into a European curriculum. For example, in the Math Makes Sense textbook, there is a section on totem poles, a section made to be more “inclusive”. However, these sections just teach the Eurocentric purposes of math with examples that are supposed to relate to Indigenous people. The lack of actual diversity of worldviews in mathematics promotes the power system that allows European worldviews to remain dominant in our country while oppressing and ignoring other world views on maths purpose.
One of the ways Poririer’s article challenges how we learn mathematics is how Inuit mathematics teaches to its students. Mathematics, or even most subjects, are taught in English and are from a Eurocentric viewpoint. However, according to Poirier’s article, this community has been spending 75% of its time learning math in Inuktitut and only 25% of the time learning it in French or English. This is a reversal of the typical format we see in school and fundamentally changes how mathematics is taught and learned. Another way Inuit mathematics challenges Eurocentric ideas is what math is fundamental. In a European worldview, math has always been something written down or expressed in written numbers or written words. Inuit math is based on an oral tradition. According to Poirier’s article, Inuit culture is founded in oral tradition, so they did not have the “standard” counting system Europeans used. This changed the way children learned math because the numbers, while European based, are founded in Inuit language and have different meanings in Inuktitut. For example, from the article, Poirier discussed how the Inuktitut words for one mean invisible, while in English, one means singular. Finally, according to Gale’s lecture, Inuktitut and Europe have very different counting systems. Eurocentric views use a base ten counting system (10,100, 1000). However, Inuktitut has a base 20 counting system (20, 400). According to Gale, Inuktitut has its own counting system, its own subgroups, many different names and symbols for numbers, and the math is spoken orally in context. This is a drastic change to how math is taught in a classroom following a European worldview. I think these differences show that math can be put into context and used in almost any culture, and students can be successful in studying mathematics following their own worldview. However, because of the power dynamics of Canada, most schools use and will continue to use a Eurocentric worldview despite this information, which shows how even math can be oppressive.
Steph's Blog 