By Antje Bitterberg and Summer Lin
In the Spring of 2020, soon after the announcement that most courses in post-secondary institutions would be moved online because of the pandemic, we had the opportunity of co-teaching a group of ECEC students from VIU’s Cowichan, Powell River, and Nanaimo campuses. With students from several communities, and the sudden shift from face-to-face classes to online classes, we wanted to focus on creating an online community for thinking and learning together. How might we cultivate collaborative, generative, and collegial modes of being teachers?
We welcomed the invitation to think together and found much joy in the process of becoming co-teachers. We oriented ourselves toward this process of creating a space for co-teaching. On a day-to-day basis we committed to teaching together. As colleagues, we actively resisted the lure of efficiency. We did not divide the work among ourselves evenly allowing us to get things done. Instead we made time to slow down and to begin our days with dialogue. As roommates on zoom we lived and breathed the course together.
In our daily conversations within the context of our course and beyond, we became curious about the power of language. We wondered, ‘How might language shape what is possible/ measurable/ observable/ visible/ valued in early childhood spaces?’ To think about/with language, we introduced the concept of binary (paired) oppositions, where “[e]ach word…relies for its meaning on the other. We need the word fat to define slim. The same is so for straight and gay, black and white, etc. A pair always has two” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 62). We have included more pairs below, some are borrowed from Glenda MacNaughton, others we brainstormed with the students.
- complete/ incomplete
- predictable/ unpredictable
- normal/ abnormal
- boy/ girl
- developed/ underdeveloped
- rich/ poor
- efficient/ inefficient
It is important to note that these “pairs are always ranked, so one part of the pair always has higher value in the ranking and is privileged over the ‘other’. So, using binary oppositions places some meanings in a secondary, subordinate position and often an aberrant position” (Mac Naughton, 2005, p. 63). Mac Naughton (2005, p. 118) offers the following questions:
- “How does binary thinking enter your everyday discussions in early childhood studies?”
- “What is silenced or othered through the hierarchical thinking in these binaries?”
- “What everyday words could you put under erasure to help you wonder new meanings and actions for social justice in your classroom?”
Rejuvenated and transformed by our process of thinking together, we invite you to join us by sharing your (in)complete engagement with these questions, your own wonderings, or connections to the Early Learning Framework (Government of BC, 2019) by responding to this post!
References
Government of British Columbia. (2019). British Columbia early learning framework (2nd ed.). Victoria: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Children and Family Development, & British Columbia Early Learning Advisory Group. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/early-learning/teach/early-learning-framework
Mac Naughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. Routledge.
You pose the question about the quality of the instructor’s teaching AND learning and suggest that learning is a shared endeavour, concerned with “actively resisting the lure of efficiency”. I want to know more about why did you not divide the work between the two of you and how does this enable you to slow down? What does this kind of dialogue do and how does it impact the students and your learning as co-teachers? Gert Biesta poses a further thought, “to argue that an increase in effectiveness constitutes educational improvement, is a rather empty statement if we do not specify what it is that the activity aims to achieve. Given that ‘effectiveness’ is a process value, the key question to ask with regard to educational improvement should therefore be: ‘Effective for what?’ (2015).
I am asking with an inclination, but can hear the questions of efficiency that want answers. Suggesting the power of binary with the potential of how co-teaching disrupts dominant discourse is an extraordinary idea of what a collegial mode of teaching might be….I want to understand further.
Biesta, G. (2015). Improving education through research? From effectiveness, causality and technology to purpose, complexity and culture. Policy Futures in Education, 14(2), 194-210. doi:10.1177/1478210315613900
Thank you for inviting me to share my response. In what feels like such a divided world, the power of binary oppositions is often shockingly apparent.
Binary thinking is prevalent in everyday discussions in early childhood studies. The best example I can think of is when a behaviour is espoused as being “good” or “bad,” without any appreciation of the nuances in behaviours and the contributing factors. This reduces a complex series of events or circumstances to a simple idea that does not even begin to reflect this complexity. By creating “two mutually exclusive meanings” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 62) in binary thinking, everything in between is silenced and not brought out as a topic for reflection. Also damagingly, “one part of the pair always has higher value in the ranking,” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 63) being “given more status or advantage” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 63), and is often used to foment the power of a dominant culture, such as with the idea of “us/them” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 65), which is often used in the sense of anti-immigrant sentiment, and which we can currently see very clearly in the US.
Gender is also a good example of unhelpful binary thinking, in that in many people’s eyes, a child is either a boy or a girl, but this does not accurately reflect reality, as some children are intersex, and some children have the body of a boy but the mind of a girl, or vice versa. Relying on the binary here may exclude and marginalize those children who are often in the greatest need of understanding and care.
As Burman argues, in bringing standardization into assessment, “a reciprocal dependence between the normal and abnormal” (Burman, 2008, p. 22), was enacted, lending another deeply unhelpful binary into the field of child development, and acting as a vehicle for treating people with contempt or suspicion. MacNaughton shares this view, arguing that “[p]ractices of inclusion and exclusion rely on these binaries” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 65). As binaries are so deeply ingrained in our everyday language I foresee that it would be extremely difficult to get to a position where binaries don’t hold the power they currently do, although awareness of language use and word choice, and always trying to speak from a position of respect, can help to limit the damage binaries may cause. This reflection can help us in our early childhood programs to be the true role models we always seek to be.
References:
Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Thank you so much for inviting me to share my response.
As I read and reflected on this reading and question: “How does binary thinking enter your everyday discussions in early childhood studies?” I have become aware that my brain and thoughts tend to navigate to the “binary thinking” mode. I relate this type of thinking as “a pair always has two. One part of the pair is always the opposite of the other part” (MacNaughton, 2005, p.62). This thinking approach is a very black and white approach. But binary thinking can be an important strategy, especially when it comes to decisiveness.
Throughout my early childhood studies I am striving and conscientiously making the effort to be more aware and mindful of my thinking and thought patterns- this is in part due to my life experiences and relationships, classroom/online discussions with my classmates and Instructors, my Practicum mentors and the BC Early Learning Framework. If I am more aware that there are grey and even darker grey areas and not just black and white this will give me a better understanding not only of my own thoughts and discussions but of others as well. When I remove “binary thinking” it will promote empathy, more dialogue- asking open ended questions, critical thinking, gaining knowledge and even more learning, especially during my early childhood studies.
References:
Mac Naughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. Routledge.
Hello Amanda,
I was struck by your comment about the way binary thinking can serve to support a need for decisiveness. This makes me wonder if there is a difference between binary thinking that is harmful and binary thinking that is not and if so, what might the circumstances be? Can we differentiate these moments through critical reflection in practice?