Teacher Guide to
Teacher Guide
to
Rekindling
Traditions:
Cross-Cultural Science
& Technology Units
Glen Aikenhead
College of Education
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0X1
THE REKINDLING
TRADITIONS PROJECT TEAM
Gloria Belcourt, Minahik Waskahigan
School, Pinehouse Lake: Unit: Wild Rice
Morris Brizinski, Valley View School,
Beauval: Unit: Nature’s Hidden Gifts
David Gold, Rossignol School,
&Ile-&-la-Crosse: Unit: Snowshoes
Keith Lemaigre, La Loche Community
School, La Loche: Unit: Trapping
Shaun Nagy, La Loche Community
School, La Loche: Unit: The Night Sky
Earl Stobbe, Timber Bay School,
Timber Bay: Unit: Survival in Our Land
FACILITATOR /
COORDINATOR:
Glen Aikenhead, College of Education,
University of Saskatchewan
Henry Sanderson, La Ronge
Ann Lafleur, Beauval
Alec Campbell Beauval
Cameco Access Program for Engineering
and Science (CAPES)
Stirling McDowell
Foundation
Northern Lights School
Division
&Ile-&-la-Crosse School
Division
Saskatchewan Education (Northern
Division)
College of Education (University of
Saskatchewan)
http://capes.usask.ca/ccstu
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2. TEACHING SCIENCE IN
SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOLS
Chapter 3. THE NEED FOR
CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING
Chapter 4. THE REKINDLING
TRADITIONS PROJECT
Chapter 5. BACKGROUND
Western Science
Versus Aboriginal Knowledge of Nature
A Cross-Cultural Approach to
Teaching and Learning
Cultural Border
Coming to Knowing
Culture Brokering
Different Relationships Between
Western and Aboriginal Sciences
Resolving Cultural Conflicts
Between Aboriginal and Western Science
Collateral
Translation is Not Enough
Treating Aboriginal Knowledge
with Respect
Standards of Education for
Aboriginal Students
Chapter 6. INTEGRATION OF WESTERN AND
ABORIGINAL SCIENCES
Chapter 7. AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITS
Nature’s Hidden Gifts
Survival in Our Land
The Night Sky
Chapter 8. CULTURALLY SENSITIVE
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
Principles of
Assessment
Written Tests
Assessment Rubrics
Checklists
Portfolios
Chapter 9. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Chapter 1.
INTRODUCTION
An important feature of our
project Rekindling Traditions is the community’s
involvement in helping decide what is worth learning in school
science. An Aboriginal way of knowing, defined by the community
itself, forms the foundation for each unit. Elders and other
knowledgeable people in the community teach local content to students
and to you, who in turn record this knowledge appropriately. The
process teaches students the proper protocol for gaining access to
their community’s knowledge and wisdom, and it teaches them to
value and respect their Aboriginal heritage.
When you introduce students to the
science content in a unit (from the provincial curriculum), you do it
with sensitivity to the authentic knowledge shared by the community.
Consequently, students learn Western science without feeling the need
to discredit the Aboriginal knowledge they have learned. If any
conflicts do arise between the two ways of knowing (Western and
Aboriginal), the students are encouraged to resolve the conflict.
Their Aboriginal self-identities tend to be strengthened. At the same
time, students become better prepared for, and sometimes more
interested in, next year’s science course. This interest follows
from the fact that students find the Western science content more
meaningful, rather than approach it as content to be
memorized.
To accomplish this more meaningful
learning, we investigated a cross-cultural approach to science
teaching by developing six Rekindling Traditions units. They
illustrate our cross-cultural approach. Each lesson in a unit
includes specific directions and background information to help you
achieve your own cross-cultural approach.
To be a successful cross-cultural science teacher,
you may need to rework some of your ideas that guide your day-to-day teaching.
These ideas are the practical principles and values that determine what you
do in your classroom. We know that teachers construct these practical ideas
from experience and from thinking about their practice (when planning
a lesson, or when reflecting on what happened, after the lesson). This is where
our Teacher Guide to Rekindling Traditions can help. It contains
practical principles and values to think about when you teach any of our units
or when you develop one of your own units. We do not tell you what principles
and values to adopt, but we do suggest topics you should resolve in your mind
as you teach in a cross-cultural way. Thus, consider this Teacher Guide
as professional guidance that you’d expect from an in-service experience
given by other teachers. The Teacher Guide is supplemented by a sister
document, Stories for the Field: Experiences and Advice from the Rekindling
Traditions Team, in which we convey our experiences and advice related to
the challenges of contacting community people to learn their knowledge, involving
them with the school, and gaining support from the community at large.
There is nothing more practical than
a principle that works well. Practical principles found in this
Teacher Guide come from personal experiences and from research
systematically crafted to give the greatest transferability to your
classroom.
Each section in the Teacher
Guide is designed to be read independently. Thus, with one
exception, you can begin reading where ever you wish. The exception
is Chapter 7, "An Overview of the Units." Our overview has been
written to illustrate some of the ideas in Chapters 5 and 6,
"Background" and "Integration of Western and Aboriginal Sciences."
The more familiar your are with the ideas in those two chapters, the
more you’ll appreciate our overview of the units, the more at
ease you’ll feel with our concrete suggestions found in each
unit’s lesson plans, and the more fun and flexibility
you’ll have implementing any of the units.
Here are a few facts you might expect
to read at the beginning of a teacher guide. Rekindling
Traditions units deal with a theme significant to the community.
These themes are suggested by the units’ titles. The titles are
listed here (alphabetically in English) along with the
teacher-authors. (When you read the cover page of each unit, the
authentic name is shown first.)
Nature’s Hidden Gifts,
Iyiniw Maskikiy, in Cree, Y dialect: Morris
Brizinski
Snowshoes,
As&mak in Michif or Cree, Y dialect: David
Gold
Survival in Our Land,
Kipim&cihowininaw &ta Kitask&nahk in Cree,
Y dialect Earl Stobbe
The Night Sky,
Tth´&n in D&ne, S dialect Shaun Nagy
Trapping, Ilts´usi
Th&lai in D&ne, S dialect Keith Lemaigre
Wild Rice,
M&nomin in Algonkin or Cree: Gloria Belcourt
The units are copyrighted in such a
way as to invite you to copy, modify, and use them in any manner you
wish. The only limitation is that no profit be made from selling a
unit. To enhance their flexibility, the units are available on CD (in
Microsoft Word, 97 or 95) and on the internet
(http://capes.usask.ca/ccstu).
It is anticipated that you’ll print out a
unit that interests you and take it to some people in your community who know
the topic well. You’ll then ask, "How could we modify this unit
so it fits our community?" These local advisory people become a major resource
for you in modifying the unit (or developing a new one). Perhaps they may interact
with your students in school or on a field trip. See Stories from the Field
for more information on how to locate and involve these local advisory people.
Each unit is organized the same way,
as shown on the left-hand side in the table below. In each lesson
plan (right-hand side), the "Lesson Outline" section details how to
teach the lesson. The "Teacher Notes" section includes practical
hints as well as background information applicable to that one
lesson.
Structure of Each
Structure of Each
Lesson Plan
Curriculum
Connection
Objectives
Aboriginal (or
Scientific) Value to be Conveyed
Objectives
Instructional
Strategies
Background
Information
Acknowledgments
CELs / Subject
Integration
Appendices
The units are available (as of
September 2000) on CD from:
Lights School Division
Teacher Resource
Department
Bag Service 6500
La Ronge, SK, S0J
(306-425-3302)
They may also be down loaded from the
internet (as PDF files) at the Rekindling Traditions web site
(http://capes.usask.ca/ccstu). This web site has details about the
Rekindling Traditions project not found in this Teacher
Guide.
Chapter 2. TEACHING SCIENCE
IN SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOLS
It is the policy of Saskatchewan
Education that all curricula include First Nations and M&tis
content to be taught to all students, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
alike. How does a teacher put this policy into practice in science
classrooms?
The project Rekindling Traditions:
Cross-Cultural Science & Technology Units illustrates one
modest way of meeting this challenge. The Aboriginal knowledge found
in each of our units creates a context for instruction that most
Aboriginal students relate to. It is also a context into which
Western science instruction logically fits. In other words, Western
science content is taught in the context of the local
community’s Aboriginal knowledge of nature, a context that
creates an Aboriginal framework for the unit. Aboriginal content is
central to each unit, it is not merely a token addition.
In our cross-cultural approach
(described in a later Chapter), Aboriginal knowledge and languages
are treated as an asset in the science classroom. Rather than
adopting a deficit model (i.e. an Aboriginal background puts a
student at a disadvantage in school science), we recognize the
advantages that accrue to Aboriginal students who can see the world
from two different perspectives (Aboriginal and Western), and who can
choose the one that better fulfills their goals at any given moment.
The flexibility to move back and forth between cultures is a definite
asset in Canadian society today. Some educators call this flexibility
"empowerment," others call it walking along two different
paths.
The Saskatchewan Science Curriculum
itself is composed of seven Dimensions of Scientific Literacy (DSLs)
— a balanced approach to scientific literacy for citizens living
in cultures increasingly influenced by Western science and
technology. Two of these dimensions embrace canonical science content
("key science concepts" and "processes of science"). Three other
dimensions to the science curriculum are: "the nature of science"
(the human, philosophical, historical, and social aspects of
science), "values that underlie science" (paradigm, communal, and
personal values that guide scientific decisions in the community of
scientists), and "STSE interrelationships" (interactions between
science and technology, between science and other social
institutions, and between science/technology and the environment).
Much of the content of these last three Dimensions of Scientific
Literacy can be taught to students by comparing Western
science/technology with Aboriginal science/technology, which we do in
our Rekindling Traditions units. In addition, as expected of
all Saskatchewan courses, the units explicitly enhance students’
development in the Common Essential Learnings.
In short, our units support teachers
in their instruction of the Saskatchewan Science Curriculum in a way
that implements Saskatchewan Education’s policy to include
Aboriginal knowledge in the science curriculum. At the same time, our
units make Western science content accessible to Aboriginal students
in ways recommended by respected Aboriginal educators such as Greg
Cajete (1999), Eber Hampton (1995), Oscar Kawagley (1995), and
Madeleine MacIvor (1995); ways that differ from the conventional
approaches of the past.
Chapter 3. THE NEED FOR
CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING
The goal of conventional science
teaching has been to transmit to students the knowledge, skills, and
values of the scientific community. This content conveys a Western
worldview due to the fact that science is a subculture that evolved
within Western culture (Pickering, 1992; Rashed, 1997). This
worldview is often quite different from the conventional worldview of
Aboriginal peoples. (A comparison between the two is found in Chapter
5, "Background.") Thus, whenever Aboriginal students study Western
science they can experience it as a cross-cultural event (Aikenhead,
1997). As a result, school science seems culturally foreign to most
students and only a few study it seriously in high school and
university. No wonder so few First Nations and M&tis people
are employed in jobs and careers related to science and
engineering.
This under-representation of
Aboriginal peoples in science related positions in society creates a
social issue for Canada: How can Aboriginal students master and
critique a Western scientific way of knowing about nature without
losing something valuable from their own cultural way of
knowing?
To First Nations science educator
Madeleine MacIvor (1995), the answer to this question is clear: "The
need for the development of scientific and technical skills among our
people is pressing. ... Reasserting authority in areas of economic
development and health care requires community expertise in science
and technology" (p. 74). "Conventional science must be presented as a
way, not the way, of contemplating the universe" (p. 88). In
Australia and New Zealand this is called "two-way" learning, while in
the U.S. it is often called "bi-cultural" instruction (Cajete, ; Kawagley, 1995). This non-assimilative approach to teaching
science is illustrated in Snively’s (1990) case study of Luke,
an Aboriginal boy in grade 6 who had studied the Canadian
seashore:
Clearly, after instruction,
Luke continued to have many ideas and beliefs about seashore
relationships consistent with a spiritual [Aboriginal]
view of the seashore and many ideas and beliefs consistent with an
ecological view of the seashore [gained from science
instruction]. ... It is possible to increase a student’s
knowledge of science concepts without altering substantially his
or her preferred orientation [worldview]. (pp.
In other words, First Nations and
M&tis students can learn Western science without being
assimilated into Western culture, that is, without losing their
cultural identity as Aboriginals. But to make this happen, the
curriculum and instruction must be cross-cultural in nature, as it
was for Luke. Central to this cross-cultural approach is the tenet
that Aboriginal children are advantaged by their own cultural
identity and language, not disadvantaged in some deficit sense.
Aboriginal students have the potential of seeing the world from at
least two very different points of view, rather than just one, as
many of their Euro-Canadian counterparts do.
Based on the idea that learning
school science is a cross-cultural experience for many students,
Aikenhead and Huntley (1997) conducted research into northern
Saskatchewan science teachers’ views on: (1) the connection
between the culture of science and the culture of Aboriginal
students, (2) the possible assimilation of these students into a
Western way of relating to nature, and (3) the degree to which
teachers saw themselves as culture brokers — people who help
students move back and forth more smoothly between their
community’s culture and the culture of school. The teachers who
were interviewed in the study were both Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal, and taught Aboriginal students in grades 7 to 12. The
research identified barriers to student participation in science and
technology. While the science teachers tended to blame various
inadequacies (a lack of this and a lack of that), no teacher shared
the views of Canadian Aboriginal educators who pointed to the vast
differences between Aboriginal culture and the culture of Western
science, differences that make science a foreign world to most
students (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students alike). Thus, a
major barrier is a conceptual one — to think of science
instruction as being similar to French instruction (i.e. a
cross-cultural experience). One participant, who identified the major
barrier as a lack of relevance of the curriculum for students
(perhaps expressing the barrier of cultural differences), complained
that the extensive practice of note taking in classrooms squelched
any connection between school science and the student’s personal
world (Aikenhead and Huntley, 1997). On the other hand, all teachers
agreed that there was a lack of suitable materials for teaching
Aboriginal content in science classes.
The research study also found a great
diversity in cultures from community to community across the north.
Thus, instructional techniques and teaching materials developed in
one community can not necessarily be directly transferred to
another community. Unless the teaching materials provide a meaningful
context to students (defined by the local community), many students
find the science curriculum inaccessible.
If teachers are going to teach
science in a meaningful way to students — in the context of the
school’s community — teachers need continuous support.
Aikenhead and Huntley (1997) recommended that teachers be provided
with appropriate units of study and, equally important, a way of
engaging their community in modifying the units to suit their local
culture. Such units of study would illustrate cross-cultural
(bi-cultural) science teaching. The adaptation process would involve
community people who have valid knowledge to contribute.
Chapter 4. THE REKINDLING
TRADITIONS PROJECT
The Northern Lights School Division
(Dr. Bruce Decoux, Deputy Director) and the
&Ile-&-la-Crosse School Division (Dr. Bill Duffee,
Director), along with the University of Saskatchewan (Dr. Glen
Aikenhead), proposed to conduct action research by developing some
cross-cultural science units applicable to grades 6 to 11 in northern
Saskatchewan. Their proposal was based on the needs of Aboriginal
students and the research recommendations, both summarized in Chapter
3. They were guided by the new directions for science education
proposed by Aboriginal educators. Six teachers volunteered to
participate in this R&D project: Gloria Belcourt, Pinehouse L
Morris Brizinski, B David Gold, &Ile-&-la-C
Keith Lemaigre, La L Shaun Nagy, La L and Earl Stobbe,
Timber Bay. All had a personal interest in developing their
bi-cultural science teaching further.
The teachers formed a working network
in January 1999, facilitated by Glen Aikenhead and other community
resource people. The network was called the "Cross-Cultural Science
& Technology Units" (CCSTU) project. Funding came from the Cameco
Access Program for Engineering and Science (CAPES) and from the
McDowell Foundation. Financial support was also provided by Northern
Lights School Division, &Ile-&-la-Crosse School Division,
Saskatchewan Education (Northern Division), and the College of
Education, University of Saskatchewan. As a result of this funding,
teachers received a modicum of release time for research and writing
(up to eight days) and for attending work meetings (seven two-day
meetings, one during the summer). As the project evolved, the focus
of these meetings changed from identifying themes to finding
resources, to editing manuscripts, and then to planning in-service
workshops. Instructional support materials were purchased, draft
versions of units underwent field trials, and a web site was
constructed (http://capes.usask.ca/ccstu). Minutes of each of our
work meetings are posted on the web site. We constantly sought the
wisdom of one Elder (Henry Sanderson of La Ronge), although different
Elders have helped the team at different times. The R&D project
produced six cross-cultural science and technology units: Wild
Rice, Nature’s Hidden Gifts, Snowshoes, The
Night Sky, Trapping, and Survival in Our Land.
These are described in Chapter 7, "An Overview of the
Units."
During its 18 months of research and
development, the action research team was guided by educators such as
Greg Cajete (), who had written about their experiences,
knowledge, and insights. These experiences, knowledge, and insights
are summarized in the next chapter.
Chapter 5.
BACKGROUND
Several topics are presented here in
order to describe the general ideas that informed Rekindling
Traditions, ideas that should help you implement any of the
units, or help you develop your own cross-cultural science and
technology unit. Chapter 5 has a number of references so you can
investigate any of the topics on your own.
Western Science Versus
Aboriginal Knowledge of Nature
The word "science" has different
meanings for different people. It also has different meanings in
different contexts for the same person. Hence, the phrase
"Aboriginal science" can make sense to some people, but not to
others. In this Teacher Guide, the basic notion of "science"
is: a rational empirical way of making sense of nature. This
"definition" conforms with international perspectives on science
education (Ogawa, 1995) by recognizing that each culture has its own
rationality which has proven itself over the years by developing
dependable knowledge about nature. Cajete (1986) talked about science
in much the same way: "There is no word in any traditional Native
American language which can be translated to mean ‘science’
as it is viewed in modern Western society" (p. 129). "From the Native
American perspective, science, traditionally speaking, is an
abstract, symbolic and metaphoric way of perceiving and understanding
the world" (p. 207).
In Western industrialized societies,
we often distinguish between science and technology, but in First
Nations societies the two are intertwined so closely that
technological artifacts are often an expression of the rational
abstract knowledge of nature held by an Aboriginal community. Thus,
the subtitle of our project contains both words — science and
technology.
In 1997, Glen Aikenhead summarized the literature
comparing and contrasting Western and Aboriginal sciences. This summary is condensed
here. Lillian Dyck (1998) also has written on this topic.
Aboriginal knowledge about the
natural world contrasts with Western scientific knowledge in a number
of ways. Aboriginal and scientific knowledge differ in their social
goals: survival of a people versus the luxury of gaining
knowledge for the sake of knowledge and for power over nature and
other people (Peat, 1994). They differ in intellectual goals: to
co-exist with mystery in nature by celebrating mystery versus
to eradicate mystery by explaining it away (Ermine, 1995). They
differ in their association with human action: intimately and
subjectively interrelated versus formally and objectively
decontextualized (Pomeroy, 1992). They differ in other ways as well:
holistic First Nations perspectives with their gentle, accommodating,
intuitive, and spiritual wisdom, versus reductionist Western
science with its aggressive, manipulative, mechanistic, and
analytical explanations (Knudtson and Suzuki, 1992; Peat, 1994). "The
Western world has capitulated to a dogmatic fixation on power and
control at the expense of authentic insights into the nature and
origin of knowledge as truth" (Ermine, 1995, p. 102). They even
differ in their basic concepts of time: circular for Aboriginals,
rectilinear for scientists.
Aboriginal and scientific knowledge
differ in epistemology. Pomeroy (1992) summarizes the difference
succinctly:
Both seek knowledge, the
Westerner as revealed by the power of reason applied to natural
observations, the Native as revealed by the power of nature
through observation of consistent and richly interweaving patterns
and by attending to nature’s voices. (p. 263)
Ermine (1995) contrasts the
exploration of the inner world of all existence by his people with a
scientist exploring only the outer world of physical existence. He
concludes:
Those who seek to understand
the reality of existence and harmony with the environment by
turning inward have a different, incorporeal knowledge paradigm
that might be termed Aboriginal epistemology. (p. 103)
Battiste (1986) describes an
Aboriginal epistemology further by giving detail to what Pomeroy
called "nature’s voices":
A fundamental element in
tribal epistemology [lies] in two traditional knowledge
1. from the immediate
world of personal and tribal experiences, that is, one’s
perceptions, thoughts, and memories which include one’s
shared exp and
2. from the spiritual world
evidenced through dreams, visions, and signs which
[are] often interpreted with the aid of medicine men or
elders. (p. 24)
On the one hand, the culture of
science is guided by the fact that the physical universe is knowable
through rational empirical means, albeit Western rationality and
culture-laden observations (Ogawa, 1995); while on the other hand,
Aboriginal science celebrates the fact that the physical universe is
mysterious but can be survived if one uses rational empirical means,
albeit Aboriginal rationality and culture-laden observations
(Pomeroy, 1992). For example, when encountering the spectacular
northern lights, Western scientists ask, "How do they work?" while
the Waswanipi Cree ask, "Who did this?" and "Why?" (Knudtson and
Suzuki, 1992, p. 57). Aboriginal knowledge is not static, but evolves
dynamically with new observations, new insights, and new spiritual
messages (Hampton, 1995; Kawagley, 1995).
The language, norms, values, beliefs,
knowledge, technology, expectations, and conventional actions of
First Nations peoples contrast dramatically with those of Western
science. Western science has been characterized as (but not entirely)
mechanistic, materialistic, reductionist, empirical, rational,
decontextualized, mathematically idealized, communal, ideological,
masculine, elitist, competitive, exploitive, impersonal, and violent
(Kelly, Carlsen, and Cunningham, 1993; Pickering, 1992; Rose, 1994;
Snow, 1987; Stanley and Brickhouse, 1994). By comparison, Aboriginal
knowledge of nature tends to be thematic, survival-oriented,
holistic, empirical, rational, contextualized, specific, communal,
ideological, spiritual, inclusive, cooperative, coexistent, personal,
and peaceful. Based on these two lists, Western and Aboriginal
sciences share some common features (empirical, rational, communal,
and ideological). Consequently, it is not surprising that efforts are
underway to combine the two knowledge systems into one field called
"traditional ecological knowledge" (Corsiglia and Snively, 1995).
While a romanticized version of a First Nations peaceful
coexistence with the environment should be avoided, Knudtson and
Suzuki (1992) document the extent to which environmental
responsibility is globally endemic to First Nations cultures,
a quality that led Simonelli (1994) to define "sustainable Western
science" in terms of First Nations cultures. Simonelli (1994) quoted
a Lakota ceremonalist’s view of science and technology: "This is
not a scientific or technologic world. The world is first a world of
spirituality. We must all come back to that spirituality. Then, after
we have understood the role of spirituality in the world, maybe we
can see what science and technology have to say" (p. 11). Deloria
(1992), also of the Lakota nation, challenged the objective validity
claimed by Western science when he spoke about improving the
subculture of science by getting science to adopt a First Nations
sense of contextualized purpose. He said:
The next generation of
American Indians could radically transform scientific knowledge by
grounding themselves in traditional knowledge about the world and
demonstrating how everything is connected to everything else.
Advocacy of this idea would involve showing how personality and a
sense of purpose must become part of the knowledge which science
confronts and understands. The present posture of most Western
scientists is to deny any sense of purpose and direction to the
world around us, believing that to do so would be to introduce
mysticism and superstition. Yet what could be more
superstitious than to believe that the world in which we live
and where we have our most intimate personal experiences is not
really trustworthy and that another mathematical world exists that
represents a true reality? (p. 40, emphasis added)
Both knowledge systems tend to be
viewed as superstitious by members of the opposite group.
This brief characterization of
Aboriginal and Western sciences hints at the intellectual and
emotional challenges faced by many First Nations students who attempt
to cross the cultural border from their everyday world into the world
of Western science in school classrooms. These challenges are
clarified further in the next section.
A Cross-Cultural Approach to
Teaching and Learning
Several aspects of cross-cultural
teaching and learning are summarized here. This summary reveals the
difficult and hazardous cultural negotiations that students must win
if they are to succeed in school science.
Cultural Border
Crossings
Within First Nations cultures,
subgroups exist that are commonly identified by nation, tribe,
language, location, religion, gender, occupation, etc. Within Western
cultures, subgroups are often defined by race, language, ethnicity,
gender, social class, occupation, etc. A person can belong to several
subgro for example, a female Cree middle-class
research scientist or a Euro-Canadian male working-class technician.
Each of these groups has its own subculture. When we move from one
group to another, we move between two subcultures, that is, we cross
a cultural border. Cultural border crossings are natural social
occurrences we often take for granted. In our everyday lives we
exhibit changes in behaviour as we move from one social setting to
for instance, from interacting with our professional
colleagues at work to our families at home. As we move from the one
subculture to the other, we intuitively and subconsciously alter our
language, and we modify certain beliefs, expectations, and
conventions. In other words, we effortlessly negotiate the cultural
border between professional and family settings.
Two scenarios illustrate the type of
difficulties that First Nations students can encounter when they try
to negotiate the transitions between two diverse subcultures. (These
scenarios are taken from Aikenhead, 1997.) In each scenario a
misunderstanding arises because at least one of the players does not
recognize that a cultural border has been crossed.
1. Two Aboriginal students in Susan
Chandler’s 10th grade science class again did not
follow her lab instructions. When she reviewed her instructions for
these lab partners, her frustration peaked as she demanded, "Look me
in the eye when I’m speaking to you!" Susan had failed to
realize the deep respect the two students thought they were showing
her by not making eye contact when she explained what they had done
wrong.
2. University physics student Coddy
Mercredi disobeyed his faculty advisor by avoiding geology courses
throughout his university career. Coddy did not want to spoil his
aesthetic understanding of nature’s beauty by "polluting" his
mind with mechanistic explanations of Mother Earth’s landscapes.
He understood science all too well and chose not to cross one of its
borders. His advisor thought he was lazy and not worthy of a science
scholarship.
These scenarios alert us to the
potential obstacles that students face when they travel from their
home culture to the culture of a science classroom. Coddy Mercredi,
for instance, feared he would be assimilated by geology, and
therefore border crossing for him was a problem. For him cultural
border crossing into geology was more than hazardous, it was
impossible. Hennessy (1993, p. 9) summarized a wealth of research
worldwide when she concluded, "Crossing over from one domain of
meaning to another is exceedingly hard." (Science classroom research
into the varying degrees of difficulty for different students is
discussed in the next section, "Coming to Knowing.")
The idea that Aboriginal students
cross cultural borders into school science was adopted by Greg Cajete
in his 1999 book, Igniting the Sparkle: An Indigenous Science
Education Model.
As Native American students
grow up they intuitively develop a facility to cross the everyday
worlds of peers, family and community into sub-cultures of
schools. This natural tendency of students’ negotiating
cultural borders can also be applied to the learning of school
science. In facilitating this kind of cultural border crossing
students and teachers interact in a creative expression of
cultural adaptation. In the creative expression students act as
explorers and teachers as guides in a metaphoric journey through
the cultural landscape of Western science. (p. 97)
We need to treat the process of
learning science as a process for enriching students’ cultural
identities, a process that engages students in who they are and where
they are going in their lives. In other words, we need to engage them
in cultural negotiations (Stairs, 1993/94).
Coming to Knowing
Cultural negotiations best occur in
an atmosphere where learning is experienced as "coming to knowing," a
phrase used by Saskatchewan First Nations educator Willie Ermine
(1998). Coming to knowing is reflected in John Dewey’s
participatory learning: "If the living, experiencing being is an
intimate participant in the activities of the world to which it
belongs, then knowledge is a mode of participation" (Dewey, 1916, p.
393). The world in which most Aboriginal students participate is not
a world of Western science, but another world increasingly influenced
by Western science and technology.
Coming to knowing engages Aboriginal
students in their own cultural negotiations among several sciences
that could be found within their school science. Four such sciences
were identified by Ogawa (1995). First, students reflect on their own
understanding of the physical and biological world. Second, students
learn some of the Aboriginal common sense held by their community.
This creates a direct connection between school content and the
student’s local environment. Third, students may encounter ways
of knowing of another culture, including other First Nations peoples.
Fourth, students are introduced to the language, norms, values,
beliefs, knowledge, technology, expectations, and conventional
actions of Western science — the culture of Western science.
Negotiating among various sciences in school science is known in
Japan as "multi-science education" (Ogawa, 1995). Cross-cultural
(bi-cultural) teaching facilitates these negotiations. Coming to
knowing is about developing cultural identity and
self-esteem.
As mentioned above, studying Western
science for most (but not necessarily all) Aboriginal students is a
cross-cultural event. Students move from their everyday cultures
associated with their home and friends to the culture of Western
science. These transitions, or border crossings, are smooth
for students who Vikki Costa (1995) calls "Potential Scientists"
(students who want to be encultured into Western science). Most
science teachers belong to this group. Their border crossings into
school science were so smooth that borders did not exist. For them,
learning science was not a cross-cultural event. However, for "Other
Smart Kids" (students who are very bright at school work in general,
but have no personal interest in science, even though they get very
high marks in school science), the border crossings are
manageable cross-cultural events. On the other hand, the
border crossings are most often hazardous or impossible
for everyone else — the vast majority of students (Aikenhead,
2000; Costa, 1995). The two children in Susan Chandler’s
10th grade class and Coddy Mercredi (in the scenarios
above) are examples of hazardous and impossible border crossings,
respectively. Success at coming to knowing the science of another
culture depends, in part, on how smoothly one crosses cultural
borders. Cajete (1999) described the situation this way:
The reality of
student-teacher interaction with regard to science learning is
wrought with difficulty. Negotiating meaning from one domain of
meaning to another can be complicated. Students generally get very
little help doing this kind of border crossing. Few teachers are
inclined to assist students, and if they are, they have few
resources for being trained in this kind of cross-cultural
negotiation. (p. 97)
Too often students are left to
negotiate border crossings on their own. Most students require
assistance from a teacher, similar to a tourist in a foreign land
requiring the help of a tour guide. According to Aboriginal educator
Arlene Stairs (1995), a science teacher needs to play the role of a
culture broker.
Culture Brokering
A culture-brokering science teacher
understands that Western science is a sub-culture itself. Scientists
generally work within an identifiable set of attributes: language,
norms, values, beliefs, knowledge, technology, expectations, and
conventional actions. These attributes define a culture. For Western
science, these attributes are identified as "Western" because the
culture of Western science evolved within Euro-American cultural
settings (Pickering, 1992; Rashed, 1997). The culture of Western
science today exists within many nations, wherever Western science
takes place.
A culture-brokering science teacher
makes border crossings explicit for Aboriginal students by
acknowledging students’ personal and Aboriginal worldviews that
have a purpose in, or connection to, students’ everyday culture
(Jegede and Aikenhead, 1999). A culture broker identifies the culture
in which students’ personal ideas find meaning, and then
introduces another cultural point of view, for instance the culture
of Western science, in the context of Aboriginal knowledge.
(This strategy is illustrated in Chapter 7 "An Overview of the
Units.") At the same time, a culture broker must let students know
what culture he or she is talking in at any given moment (e.g.
Aboriginal science or Western science), because as teachers talk they
can unconsciously switch between cultures, much to the confusion of
many students.
To facilitate students’ border
crossings, teachers and students both need to be flexible and
playful, and to feel at ease in the less familiar culture (Lugones,
1987). This will be accomplished differently in different classrooms.
It has a lot to do with the social environment of the science
classroom, the social interactions between a teacher and students,
and the social interactions among students themselves. A teacher who
engages in culture brokering promotes conversations among students in
a way that gives students opportunities to engage in the following
three types of activities (Aikenhead, 1997). First, students should
have opportunities for talking within their own life-world cultural
framework without sanctions for being "unscientific." Second,
students should have opportunities to be immersed in either, their
everyday Aboriginal culture or the culture of Western science, as
students engage in some activity (e.g. problem solving or decision
making in an authentic or simulated event). Finally, students should
be consciously aware of which culture they are participating in at
any given moment.
Effective culture brokers build on
the validity of students’ personally and culturally constructed
ways of knowing. Sometimes bridges can be built in various ways
between cultures, other times ideas from one culture can be seen as
fitting within the ideas from another culture. Whenever apparent
conflict between cultures arises, it is dealt with openly and with
respect. (See the section below called "Collateral Learning" for more
ideas on this point.)
It may be helpful if a culture broker
addresses Western science’s social, political, military,
colonial, and economic roles in history. Smooth border crossings
cannot occur if a student feels that he or she is associating with
"the enemy" (Cobern, 1996). By acknowledging Western science’s
historical roles in the colonization of Aboriginal peoples, a teacher
can address Aboriginal students’ conflicting feelings toward the
culture of Western science, thus making a student feel more at ease
with learning (appropriating) that subculture’s content without
accepting its values and ideologies. Appropriating Western science to
serve one’s own needs is a key aspect of coming to knowing, and
therefore, it is a goal for cross-cultural (bi-cultural) teaching
(Aikenhead, 1997).
The sections that follow provide
specific ideas to help a culture broker be flexible and playful, and
to feel at ease when attempting to smooth the cultural border
crossings for Aboriginal students.
Different Relationships
Between Western and Aboriginal Sciences
June George (1999) has studied
cross-cultural science for a long time in her native Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago. She discovered that ideas from her
country’s indigenous culture can relate to ideas in Western
science in four identifiably different ways.
1. "The indigenous practice can be
explained in conventional science terms. For example, the indigenous
practice of using a mixture of lime juice and salt to remove rust
stains from clothes, can be explained in conventional science in
terms of acid/oxide reactions" (George, 1999, p. 85). In northern
Saskatchewan, for example, the "force" of an animal trap is measured
scientifically as "momentum."
2. "A conventional science
explanation for the indigenous knowledge seems likely, but is not yet
available" (p. 85). For example in northern Saskatchewan, a brew made
from the tamarack tree has healing properties (see the unit
Nature’s Hidden Gifts). This tree is considered in
conventional science circles to have pharmacological properties, but
appropriate usage has not been verified by scientists.
3. "A conventional science link can
be established with the indigenous knowledge, but the underlying
principles are different" (p. 85). For example, in northern
Saskatchewan the beaver is considered to be central to the
interrelationships among many animals. In Western science, the beaver
has recently been recognized as playing the role of "key species" in
ecology.
4. "The indigenous knowledge cannot
be explained in conventional science terms" (p. 85). For example, the
belief that gazing into the northern lights affects the function of
one’s brain.
By finding examples that fit
categories 1 and 3, a teacher can highlight the apparent similarities
between the two knowledge systems. Examples that fit category 2, on
the other hand, demonstrate to students that there is much more
scientific knowledge to be discovered. However, category 4 content
will present a challenge for teachers. These challenges are discussed
in the next section "Resolving Cultural Conflicts Between Aboriginal
and Western Sciences."
June George cautions teachers against
stereotyping Aboriginal peoples:
All aspects of indigenous
knowledge may not be held sacrosanct by all members of the
community. I have found that young people in the village, who
generally have had far greater exposure to school science than
their parents, display some ambivalence to the indigenous
knowledge. The young people were aware of many of the beliefs and
practices, disputed some, and held on to others. It is interesting
to note that, at times, the young people’s decision to
embrace the indigenous knowledge was based on their personal
experiences and/or a respect for the authority of elders. (p.
Some indigenous knowledge is embedded
in the technologies and practices of a community used over a long
period of time. Other expressions of Aboriginal science can often be
found in art, dance, songs, Elders’ stories, and other cultural
conventions (Cajete, 1999).
Resolving Cultural Conflicts
Between Aboriginal and Western Sciences
Waldrip and Taylor (1999) found that
Melanesian high school students in a small South Pacific country were
aware of conflicting ideas between school science and the indigenous
ideas of their village life. These students coped with discrepancies
by employing a process Waldrip and Taylor called the
"compartmentalization" of school knowledge. Because of students’
compartmentalization of school science, Waldrip and Taylor "obtained
disturbingly little evidence of the influence of the Western school
view of science on young people’s traditional world views."
Students and Elders alike felt that school knowledge was not useful
to village life (except for reading and writing). The
researchers’ negative view of compartmentalization was
challenged by Lowe (1995). Based on his Solomon Islands research, he
concluded, "To compartmentalize the world into domains, each with an
interpretive framework [Western science versus magic], is not
a perversity but an effective survival technique" (p.
665).
The effectiveness of the technique of
compartmentalization is supported by Maria Lugones’ (1987)
account of how she, a woman of colour, survived in the world of the
American White Anglo male by being a different person in different
domains without losing her self-identity in any of the domains. Her
effectiveness is mirrored in the Japanese experience of wearing a
Western business suit but maintaining a bamboo heart.
Lowe (1995), in his Solomon Island
study, argued for a sophisticated view of learning that went beyond
the simple dichotomy of "science versus traditional knowledge." He
concluded that learning should empower students for life in the
21st century:
Students of science are in
fact able to retain much of their traditional worldview while
still appreciating the new view that science offers. They see
science as opening up new horizons without losing sight of the old
ones, and develop strategies to deal with apparently
incompatible visions. (pp. 665-666, emphasis
Lowe did not elaborate on what these
strategies might be. Luckily another science educator, this time from
Nigeria, explored a variety of strategies, a topic to which we now
turn.
Collateral Learning
Whenever integration of Western and
Aboriginal science occurs, conceptual conflicts are bound to arise.
These conflicts can be resolved in more ways than
compartmentalization. Olugbemiro Jegede (1995) recognized several
strategies with which people seemed to resolve conceptual cultural
conflicts. He referred to these strategies as "collateral learning."
In general, collateral learning involves two conflicting, culturally
based ideas held simultaneously in long-term memory. A simple example
of collateral learning is illustrated by students learning the cause
of a rainbow. In the culture of Western science, students learn that
the refraction of light rays by droplets of w
while in some African communities, a rainbow signifies a python
crossing a river or the death of an important chief. Thus for African
students, learning about rainbows in school science means
constructing a potentially conflicting idea in their long-term
memory. Not only are the concepts different (refraction of light
versus pythons crossing rivers), but the type of knowledge also
differs ("causes" versus "signifies").
Jegede, who originally learned
Western science in his native Nigeria, recognized variations in the
degree to which conflicting ideas interacted with each other in his
mind, and the degree to which he resolved those conflicts in his
mind. He identified four types of collateral learning: parallel,
simultaneous, dependent, and secured. These four types of collateral
learning are not separate categories but points along a spectrum
depicting degrees of interaction and resolution. (For more
information on how collateral learning is identified in science
classrooms, please refer to the article by Aikenhead and J
1999.)
At one end of the spectrum, the
conflicting schemata do not interact at all. This is parallel
collateral learning, the compartmentalization technique. Students
will access one idea or the other depending upon the context. For
example, students use a scientific concept of energy only in school,
never in their everyday world where commonsense concepts of energy
prevail (Solomon, 1983). Many teachers the world over complain that
their students leave their science knowledge at the school
door.
At the opposite end of the collateral
learning spectrum, conflicting schemata consciously interact and the
conflict is resolved in some manner. This is secured
collateral learning. The person will have developed a satisfactory
reason for holding on to both ideas even though the ideas may appear
or else the person will have encompassed both ideas
holistically, with one idea reinforcing the other, resulting in a new
conception in long-term memory.
Between these two extremes of
parallel and secured collateral learning lies dependent
collateral learning. It occurs when an idea from one culture
challenges an idea from a different culture, to an extent that
permits the student to modify an existing idea without radically
restructuring their existing worldview. A characteristic of dependent
collateral learning is that students are not usually conscious of the
conflicting domains of knowledge. Students are not aware that they
move from one domain to another (unlike students who have achieved
secured collateral learning).
A fourth type of collateral learning
is simultaneous collateral learning. This fits in-between
parallel and dependent collateral learning on the spectrum described
above. A unique situation can occur in which learning a concept in
one culture can facilitate the learning of a similar or related
concept in another culture. It does not happen often but when it
does, it is usually co-incidental. For instance, suppose a Nigerian
student is studying photosynthesis in school and comes across terms
such as "chlorophyll," "denaturing," and "chloroplast." Initially he
or she may likely have problems comprehending these concepts. But
suppose that after encountering the concepts in school, he or she
finds something that makes the school science vivid while helping
mother in the kitchen. In Nigeria, people often blanch green
vegetables before adding them to soup. During this preparation the
vegetables are left for some minutes to soak in boiling water, and
the vegetables lose some of their green colouration (chlorophyll).
When people drain the water, all they see is green colour. In that
situation, a student might simultaneously learn more about the school
concepts of chlorophyll, denaturing, and chloroplast while learning
to prepare soup with green vegetables at home. In these two settings
(home and school), learning about a concept is not usually planned,
but arises spontaneously and simultaneously. By reflecting on the two
settings and their concomitant concepts (e.g. green blanched water
and chlorophyll), a student may easily cross the cultural border
between home and school science. The two ideas, established in
long-term memory by simultaneous collateral learning, may over time:
(1) become further compartmentalized, leading to parallel collateral
learning, or (2) interact and be resolved in some way, resulting in
either dependent or secured collateral learning, depending on the
manner in which the conflict is resolved.
If you can understand how different
students perceive and resolve cultural conflict differently
(described in terms of collateral learning), then perhaps you can be
more effective in helping your students perceive and resolve their
own cultural conflicts that might arise in your science classroom. It
is important for us to be cognizant of our own preferred type of
collateral learning, otherwise we tend to assume that everyone else
resolves cultural conflicts the same way we do.
Translation is Not
Enough
A different type of conflict arises
when we translate from one language to another. With the aid of a
dictionary or knowledgeable friend, we can translate an English word
into, for instance, a Cree word. But we must be mindful that the
thing we are actually referring to can change dramatically from one
context to the next. For example, in both Western and Aboriginal
sciences, people rely on observations. The process "to observe" in
English might be translated into "wapahtam" in Cree (Y dialect). But
wapahtam signifies two things not conveyed by the English verb "to
observe." First, wapahtam suggests only one of five senses (sight) is
being used. English is full of words (super-ordinates) that abstract
general categories from more specific ones (observing generalizes
seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling). The Cree language
abstracts ideas quite differently, often through the use of other
complex verb forms. Therefore, strictly speaking there is no accurate
translation of "to observe." Secondly, there is an unstated
assumption with "wapahtam" that the person doing the observing and
the thing being observed are related in some way. There is no
objective distancing as there is in the Western scientific "to
observe." Therefore, a fundamental relationship changes between "to
observe" and "wapahtam," a change not readily apparent on the
surface. Each verb is embedded in cultural meanings that differ
dramatically.
Another example of what gets lost in
translation is illustrated when we identity an animal as a "wolf." In
the culture of Western science one asks, "What is a wolf?"
— Canis lupis. The convention in the culture of Western
science is to categorize animals according to a Linnean worldview. As
our unit Trapping points out, this worldview is useless in the
context of survival based on trapping. For trappers, the relevant
knowledge is not Linnean classification, but instead, animal
behaviour. (Animal behavior has no significance to a Linnean
worldview.) Knowledge of a wolf’s behavior is embedded in many
stories and legends about mahihkan (Cree, Y dialect) or about
noji& (D&ne, S dialect). Did you notice in the last two
sentences that as we shifted from Western science to Aboriginal
science, so did our language? Our language should give a clear hint
about which culture we are speaking in at any given
moment.
In some Aboriginal cultures, the
important question to ask is, "Who is mahihkan?" This is
clearly a different question from the one posed by Western science
(How is a wolf classified?). Only superficially does "Canis
lupis" translate into "mahihkan." For an Aboriginal student
familiar with mahihkan, the myriad of images and concepts associated
with the word "mahihkan" is very different from the images and
concepts science teachers want students to associate with "Canis
lupis." Crossing the culture border between Western science and
Aboriginal communities involves more than simple translation. A
culture brokering teacher must be sensitive to the culturally
embedded meanings of words in both cultures (e.g. Canis lupis
and mahihkan).
Treating Aboriginal Knowledge
with Respect
Understandably it is quite easy, at
first, to misunderstand culturally embedded meanings when we do not
fully share the other person’s culture. Culturally sensitive
instruction consciously acknowledges the potential for
misunderstandings. Wise science teachers are vigilant, flexible, and
open-minded. Showing respect for Aboriginal knowledge was discussed
at several meetings held by the Rekindling Traditions R&D
team. We formulated nine principles to guide our work when we
incorporated Aboriginal knowledge into our units. Elder Henry
Sanderson found them to be satisfactory. They are repeated
here.
1. Let us learn from the story of the
people in the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) who
attempted to translate Project Wild into a First Nations
context. The people quickly realized that the worldview of Western
science was hidden within Project Wild. (This concealed
worldview is like a Trojan Horse — when an ancient Greek army
fought the city state of Troy by hiding Greek soldiers in a huge
wooden horse, and then leaving the horse outside the gates of Troy
where the curious Troy people brought it into their fortification and
were subsequently overtaken by the hidden soldiers.) The worldview of
Western science implicit in Project Wild was at odds with a
worldview of First Nations science. The FSIN people felt that the
worldview of Western science was going to distort the meaning of
nature for First Nations children. As a consequence, a new parallel
project was developed, Practising the Law of Circular
Interaction. Aboriginal knowledge must be taught within an
Aboriginal context or framework. The act of "translating" Western
science into an Aboriginal context (or visa versa) can
unintentionally force a Western worldview onto Aboriginal students.
Thus, in spite of our best intentions, we can inadvertently engage in
assimilation, rather than empowering students to walk in two worlds.
Each of our units should establish an Aboriginal framework of a
community, to which Western scientific knowledge can relate without
distorting that Aboriginal worldview. Beware of Western Trojan
Horses.
2. Always acknowledge
diversity within a First Nation or M&tis group and
among Nations or groups. This can be done, for instance, by
associating a group’s name with the knowledge that is described,
or by recognizing that others may have a different understanding.
Avoid representing Aboriginal peoples as all the same
(homogeneous).
3. Let the reader know about the
origin of any particular knowledge, and about the permission we have
to describe that knowledge. All Aboriginal knowledge found in our
units should have gone through a partnership process of involving
Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal knowledge found in a unit should
contribute to the empowerment of Aboriginal peoples. One way to do
this is to make the reader aware of how the representation of
the Aboriginal knowledge (found in the text) was obtained and
rechecked later by those whom the knowledge represents. This will
remind the reader that stories and information that come from
Aboriginal peoples belong to that community unless explicit
permission is granted to repeat the story or information in one of
our units. Avoid appropriating Aboriginal knowledge to suit the
purposes of the author. The purposes of the Aboriginal community must
be served.
4. Clarify what "traditional" means
whenever the word is used. Recognize that culture changes. It is not
static. What is traditional knowledge today in a community may not
necessarily have been traditional knowledge in the days before
contact with Europeans. People in a community must decide what is
traditional for them, not an outsider. It may help if we use phrases
such as "ways of living three hundred years ago" or "pre-contact
technology" instead of "traditional ways of living" or "traditional
technology" (respectively). Avoid prescribing what is
authentic to a group of people. The people themselves must decide
what is authentic.
5. Remember that gaining Aboriginal
knowledge is a journey towards wisdom. This process of
learning is described by the phrase "coming to knowing." Avoid
thinking of Aboriginal knowledge as something to be accumulated and
possessed (like money in the bank — a Western European view of
knowledge), but instead, as a process of coming to
knowing.
6. Ensure that Aboriginal knowledge
is acknowledged as being inter-connected with many areas or fields of
thought, to remind the reader that Aboriginal knowledge fits into a
"wholistic" point of view. Avoid being bound to a narrow context in
which the knowledge is described.
7. Think of the content of each unit
as being taught to your community’s grandchildren. Chances are
very high that, as future parents, our students will pass on to their
children (the grandchildren of the community) important ideas they
learn from our units. Our vision should be multi-generational. Avoid
the short-term perspective on what we write.
8. Incorporate Aboriginal language
into the unit’s text (with the appropriate English word in
brackets) and continue to use the authentic word or phrase. Avoid
tokenism which uses Aboriginal terms just for "window
dressing."
9. Pay attention to the verb tense
when we write about Aboriginal knowledge. The present tense indicates
that the practices and knowledge are useful to some people today in
contemporary society. On the other hand, the past tense gives the
impression (connotation) that the practices and knowledge have been
superseded by "modern" scientific or Western views. Avoid dismissing
powerful ideas as being applicable only in the past.
These principles, for instance,
guided us through a potential conflict related to spirituality. It is
challenging, yet crucial, not to distort local knowledge by making it
conform to a Western worldview endemic to school culture. Inadvertent
assimilation will take place in a science classroom if the local
knowledge is taken out of its cultural context. Disrespect can occur,
for instance, if the teacher ignores the unifying spirituality that
pervades Aboriginal science (Ermine, 1995). Spirituality, whether
pre-contact Traditional, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Fundamentalist
Christian, has force for most Aboriginal students even though it is
purposefully absent from science classrooms where an adherence to a
Cartesian duality is the cultural convention. It is not the
case that the community’s spirituality is integrated into
Western science in our units, but it is the case that the
community’s spirituality is given voice in the context of
Aboriginal knowledge in order to ensure the authenticity of that
knowledge. Although content from both cultures is studied for the
purpose of understanding it, students are not expected to
believe (to personally adopt) that content. The
culture-brokering teacher engaged in cross-cultural (bi-cultural)
instruction simply identifies spirituality in Aboriginal knowledge
and identifies its absence in Western science concepts.
Standards of Education for
Aboriginal Students
Eber Hampton’s 12 standards of
education for Aboriginal students guided the development of our
units. The standards represent a First Nations perspective on
education. The degree to which the 12 standards are evident in our
actions as science teachers, is the degree to which Aboriginal
content is authentic in our cross-cultural science teaching. The
following summarizes these standards, using Eber Hampton’s
(1995, pp. 19-41) own words as much as possible.
1. Spirituality — At the
centre of spirituality is respect for the spiritual relationships
that exist between all things.
2. Service to the community
— The individual does not form an identity in opposition to the
group but recognizes the group as relatives (included in his or her
own identity). The second standard is service. Education is to serve
the people. Its purpose is not individual advancement or
status.
3. Respect for diversity
— The respect for diversity embodied in the third standard
requires self-knowledge and self-respect without which respect for
others is impossible.
4. Culture — Indian
cultures have ways of thought, learning, teaching, and communicating
that are different than but of equal validity to those of White
cultures. These thought-ways stand at the beginning of Indian time
and are the foundations of our children’s lives. Their full
flower is in what it means to be one of the people.
5. Contemporary tradition
— Indian education maintains continuity with tradition. Our
traditions define and preserve us. It is important to understand that
this continuity with tradition is neither a rejection of the
artifacts of other cultures nor an attempt to ‘turn back the
clock.’ It is the continuity of a living culture that is
important to Indian education, not the preservation of a frozen
museum specimen.
6. Personal respect — The
individual Indian’s sense of personal power and autonomy is a
strength that lies behind the apparent weakness of disunity. Indian
education demands relationships of personal respect.
7. Sense of history —
Indian education has a sense of history and does not avoid the hard
facts of the conquest of America.
8. Relentlessness in championing
students — Indian education is relentless in its battle for
Indian children. We take pride in our warriors and our teachers are
warriors for the life of our children.
9. Vitality — Indian
education recognizes and nourishes the powerful pattern of life that
lies hidden within personal and tribal suffering and oppression.
Suffering begets strength. We have not vanished.
10. Conflict between cultures
— Indian education recognizes the conflict, tensions, and
struggles between itself and White education.
11. Sense of place —
Indian education recognizes the importance of an Indian sense of
place, land, and territory.
12. Transformation — The
graduates of our schools must not only be able to survive in a White
dominated society, they must contribute to the change of that
society. Indian education recognizes the need for transformation in
the relation between Indian and White as well as in the individual
and society.
This last standard expresses the
overall goal o