This is the fourth in a series of posts in which I will attempt to demonstrate critical reflection with respect to different aspects of life as a teacher. This post aims to explore my understanding and practice of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness relative to learning activities and assessment.
Firstly, I acknowledge that the concepts of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness are complex and nuanced, and that I have a long journey ahead in appreciating them with significant fullness. As a straight, cis-gender, NZ European male, I have no doubt that I am blind to many privileges I benefit from, and many deficits of access and opportunity that I haven't had to overcome.
I work with Gay's (2001, p.106) broad-but-comprehensive definition of culturally responsive pedagogy: "using the cultural characteristics, experiences and perspectives as conduits for effective teaching”.
My reading and reflecting resonated strongly with an experience last year working towards the school goal of having 100% of year 11 students meet the NCEA Level 1 Numeracy requirement (10 credits). The goal was set in recognition of the role of Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy for opening opportunities for further training and study. Literacy mostly took care of itself (owing to the large number of standards tagged with literacy), but numeracy was a challenge, so we made a targeted effort to track progress and provide additional support for struggling students. Students and their families were well on board with the goal, and there was a big buy-in from all involved. We succeeded. The initiative was a success and many students who may have previously fallen through the cracks will benefit for the expanded opportunities open to them.
However, I can't help but feel that we (staff and students) worked very hard, effectively employing culturally responsive pedagogy, to help learners cope with our very un-responsive assessments and structures.
By Bishop's criteria (EdTalks, 2012), I feel we're doing pretty well in our teaching approach:
So what's missing? I can't help but return to last week's post on responsive curricula. It's difficult and it's messy, but if we are to be truly responsive we must recreate curricula. NCEA is certainly flexible enough to accommodate a range of assessment methods, and the process of embracing change alongside learners and whānau can't begin soon enough. Again, it's difficult and it's messy, but giving the community agency is crucial if we are to see a shift away from the Euro-centric systems and structures that dominate current practice (Freire, 1996).
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. England: Penguin Books.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Savage, C, Hindleb, R., Meyerc,L., Hyndsa,A., Penetitob, W. & Sleeterd, C. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198
Teaching Tolerance. (2010). Introduction to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGTVjJuRaZ8
Unitec. (n.d.). Learning and Teaching at Unitec Institute of Technology. Retrieved from Booklet.http://www.unitec.ac.nz/ahimura/publications/U008817%20Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Booklet.pdf
Firstly, I acknowledge that the concepts of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness are complex and nuanced, and that I have a long journey ahead in appreciating them with significant fullness. As a straight, cis-gender, NZ European male, I have no doubt that I am blind to many privileges I benefit from, and many deficits of access and opportunity that I haven't had to overcome.
I work with Gay's (2001, p.106) broad-but-comprehensive definition of culturally responsive pedagogy: "using the cultural characteristics, experiences and perspectives as conduits for effective teaching”.
My reading and reflecting resonated strongly with an experience last year working towards the school goal of having 100% of year 11 students meet the NCEA Level 1 Numeracy requirement (10 credits). The goal was set in recognition of the role of Level 1 Literacy and Numeracy for opening opportunities for further training and study. Literacy mostly took care of itself (owing to the large number of standards tagged with literacy), but numeracy was a challenge, so we made a targeted effort to track progress and provide additional support for struggling students. Students and their families were well on board with the goal, and there was a big buy-in from all involved. We succeeded. The initiative was a success and many students who may have previously fallen through the cracks will benefit for the expanded opportunities open to them.
However, I can't help but feel that we (staff and students) worked very hard, effectively employing culturally responsive pedagogy, to help learners cope with our very un-responsive assessments and structures.
By Bishop's criteria (EdTalks, 2012), I feel we're doing pretty well in our teaching approach:
- care for Māori as Māori
- care for the performance of Māori (high expectations)
- create learning context wherein young Māori can draw upon their own experience
- pedagogy promotes interactions that give academic feedback, feed-forward
- evidence of student performance guides teaching
- students are made aware of outcomes, progress and direction
Digging further with reference to Unitec's Poutama (n.d.), I believe our pedagogy to be moving towards knowledge/stage 2: "Learning/Teaching approaches are enhanced by understanding of Māori knowledge concepts", while our assessment isn't yet at learn/stage 1: "Assessment approaches and tools are designed to be diverse and responsive to student preferred pedagogies" (p.12).
In fact, the findings of Savage et al. (2011) resonated far too strongly for comfort:
"Secondary schools have remained relatively unchanged since their inception, despite massive social change in their populations and high expectations for their graduates." (p.196)In fact, the findings of Savage et al. (2011) resonated far too strongly for comfort:
So what's missing? I can't help but return to last week's post on responsive curricula. It's difficult and it's messy, but if we are to be truly responsive we must recreate curricula. NCEA is certainly flexible enough to accommodate a range of assessment methods, and the process of embracing change alongside learners and whānau can't begin soon enough. Again, it's difficult and it's messy, but giving the community agency is crucial if we are to see a shift away from the Euro-centric systems and structures that dominate current practice (Freire, 1996).
References
Edtalks. (2012). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/49992994Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. England: Penguin Books.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Savage, C, Hindleb, R., Meyerc,L., Hyndsa,A., Penetitob, W. & Sleeterd, C. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198
Teaching Tolerance. (2010). Introduction to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGTVjJuRaZ8
Unitec. (n.d.). Learning and Teaching at Unitec Institute of Technology. Retrieved from Booklet.http://www.unitec.ac.nz/ahimura/publications/U008817%20Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Booklet.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment