Advertisement

Raising the standard for testing research-based interventions in Indigenous learning communities

  • Sharon Nelson-BarberEmail author
  • Zanette Johnson
Original Paper

Abstract

Preserving the unique contours of cultural communities is integral to the rich weave of our collective human heritage. However, the postcolonial United States (US) educational paradigm, reflected in curricula and standards based on white middle-class norms, has a flattening effect on the vibrancy of diverse languages and community traditions. Based on their own research, the authors demonstrate that, for distinctive populations like Indigenous groups, research-based educational interventions can actively inhibit learner achievement and suppress cultural vitality. This article presents examples of how Diné (Navajo) public schools are affected at system, teacher and individual levels, illustrating how, in a specific cultural milieu, some research-based “best practices” are not in fact for the best. Each example highlights some of the ways in which “understanding context” is an essential ingredient paving the way for student success. The authors argue that in order to optimise the potency of educational innovations developed for Indigenous learners, interventions must adhere to a higher standard of assessment practice. They suggest employing local testing and incorporating stakeholder opinions as part of the strategic design of measuring students’ learning progress, as a way of responding to the particular needs and dispositions of a community’s unique learners.

Keywords

Indigenous learning communities Research-based educational interventions Self-determination Comprehensive school reform Assessment strategies 

Résumé

Rehausser les normes de contrôle des interventions fondées sur la recherche dans les communautés apprenantes autochtones – La préservation des spécificités uniques des communautés culturelles est essentielle au tissu précieux de notre patrimoine humain collectif. Néanmoins, le modèle éducatif postcolonial des États-Unis d’Amérique, reflété dans les normes et les programmes scolaires élaborés à partir des critères d’une classe moyenne blanche, a un effet destructeur sur la vitalité des diverses langues et traditions communautaires. À partir de leur propre étude, les auteures démontrent que pour des populations distinctes telles que les groupes autochtones, les interventions éducatives fondées sur la recherche peuvent inhiber activement les performances des apprenants et supprimer le dynamisme culturel. L’article présente des exemples de cette influence sur les écoles publiques Diné (navajo) au niveau de l’individu, des enseignants et du système, et illustrent que dans un milieu culturel spécifique certaines « meilleures pratiques » fondées sur la recherche ne sont en réalité pas les meilleures. Chaque exemple éclaire certaines situations où la « compréhension du contexte » est un ingrédient essentiel qui ouvre la voie à la réussite de l’apprentissage. Les auteures avancent que, pour optimiser l’effet des innovations éducatives conçues pour les apprenants autochtones, les interventions doivent être ajustées à des normes supérieures pour la pratique de l’évaluation. Elles proposent d’utiliser l’évaluation autochtone et d’intégrer les opinions des parties prenantes dans la conception stratégique de la mesure des progrès d’apprentissage, répondant ainsi aux aptitudes et besoins particuliers des apprenants uniques d’une communauté.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from the US Department of Education (S283B120006) to WestEd. The findings and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency. It recounts and elaborates on the earlier article: Nelson-Barber, S. and Johnson. Z. (2016). Acknowledging the perils of “best practices” in an Indigenous community, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Special Issue on Indigenous Issues in Education and Research: Looking forward, 47, 44–50. All references to individuals are anonymous and any similarities reminiscent of known individuals are coincidental.

References

  1. AIUSA (Amnesty International USA). (2007). Maze of injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA. New York NY: Amnesty International USA. Retrieved 19 September 2018 from https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/mazeofinjustice.pdf.
  2. Aladjem, D., & Borman, K. (Eds.). (2006). Comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alaska DEED (Department of Education and Early Development). (2012). Guide to implementing the Alaska cultural standards for educators. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. Retrieved 21 September 2015 from https://education.alaska.gov/akstandards/cultural/cultural_standards.pdf.
  4. Averch, H. A., Carroll, S. J., Donaldson, T. S., Kiesling, H. J., & Pincus, J. A. (1972). How effective is schooling? A critical review of research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Corporation. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R0956.html.
  5. Benham, M. K., & Heck, R. (1998). Culture and educational policy in Hawaiʻi: The silencing of native voices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brait, E. (2015). Apache tribe brings battle for Oak Flat to New York’s Times Square. The Guardian, 17 July. Accessed 19 September 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/apache-tribe-oak-flat-new-york-times-square.
  9. Brave Heart, M., & DeBruyn, L. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brave Heart, M., Chase, J., Elkins, J., & Altschul, D. B. (2011). Historical trauma among indigenous peoples of the Americas: Concepts, research, and clinical considerations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(4), 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeBono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. DeGroat, J., Edgewater, V., Hale, V., Johnson, Z., Lockard, L., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2015). Creating an ecology of success for American Indian learner success. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Indian Education Association, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, D. M. (2017). Culturally inclusive practices: Implementation guidance for local education agencies. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved 21 September 2018 from https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=58dc00111130c01500d4b0a1.
  15. Ede, A. (2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success? Childhood Education, 83(1), 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Endsley, M. R. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In M. R. Endsley & D. J. Garland (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 3–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Endsley, M. R., Bolté, B., & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. GoUSA (Government of the United States of America). (1965). Elementary and secondary education Act of 1965. Public Law PL 89-10. Washington, DC: Government of the United States of America. Retrieved 20 September 2018 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg27.pdf.
  21. GoUSA. (1978). Indian child welfare Act of 1978. Public Law PL 95-608. Retrieved 20 September 2018 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg3069.pdf.
  22. GoUSA. (2002). No child left behind Act of 2001. Public Law PL 107-110. Washington, DC: Government of the United States of America. Retrieved 19 September 2018 from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
  23. GoUSA. (2015). Every student succeeds Act of 2015. Public Law PL 114-95. Washington, DC: Government of the United States of America. Retrieved 20 September 2018 from https://congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf.
  24. House, D. (2005). Language shift among the Navajos: Identity politics and cultural continuity. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kana‘iaupuni, S. M., & Kawai‘ae‘a, K. K. (2008). E Lauhoe Mai Na Wa‘a: Toward a Hawaiian Indigenous education teaching framework. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 5, 67–90. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from http://www.kpublishing.org/_assets/publishing/hulili/Hulili_Vol5_3.pdf.
  26. Kana’iaupuni, S. M., & Ledward, B. C. (2013). Hoʻopilina: The call for cultural relevance in education. Hūlili, Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 9, 154–204. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from http://www.kpublishing.org/_assets/publishing/hulili/Hulili_Vol9_7.pdf.
  27. Kanaʻiaupuni, S. M., Ledward, B., & Jensen, U. (2010). Culture-based education and its relationship to student outcomes. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, A. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education Week, 31 March [online article]. Retrieved 20 September 20185 from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html.
  29. Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). The pedagogy of poverty: The big lies about poor children. In P. Gorski & K. Zenkov (Eds.), The big lies of school reform: Finding better solutions for the future of public education (pp. 7–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. LaFromboise, T. (2006). Teen suicide prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 13(3), 16–18.Google Scholar
  32. LaFromboise, T. D., Hoyt, D. R., Oliver, L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2006). Family, community, and school influences on resilience among American Indian adolescents in the Upper Midwest. Sociology Department, Faculty Publications, vol. 26. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/26.
  33. Lee, T. (2016). The home-school-community interface in language revitalization in the USA and Canada. In S. M. Coronel-Molina & T. L. McCarty (Eds.), Indigenous language revitalization in the Americas (pp. 99–115). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Levin, S. (2016). Dakota Access pipeline: The who, what and why of the Standing Rock protests. The Guardian, 3 November. Retrieved 19 September 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/north-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-protests-explainer.
  35. Lipka, J., Hogan, M., Webster, J., Yanez, E., Adams, B., Clark, S., et al. (2005). Math in a cultural context: Two case studies of a successful culturally based math project. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(4), 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCarty, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Medin, D., & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s asking? Native science, Western science, and science education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Montana State. (1999). Indian Education for All (IEFA) Act. Recognition of American Indian cultural heritage (MCA 20-1-501). Helena, MT: Montana State.Google Scholar
  39. NCSER & NCER (National Center for Special Education Research and National Center for Education Research). (2016). Building evidence: What comes after an efficacy study? Technical working group meeting summary [14 October 2016]. Washington, DC: NCSER & NCER. Retrieved 31 October 2018 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/whatsnew/techworkinggroup/pdf/BuildingEvidenceTWG.pdf.
  40. Nelson-Barber, S. (2017). The “perfect storm” in Indigenous education: Stories about context, culture and community knowledge. In J. Reyhner, J. Martin, L. Lockard, & W. S. Gilbert. (Eds.), Honoring all teachers. Proceedings of the 7th American Indian/Indigenous Teacher Education Conference (pp. 1–8). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  41. Nelson-Barber, S., & Johnson, Z. (2016). Acknowledging the perils of “best practices” in an Indigenous community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47 (special Issue on Indigenous issues in education and research: Looking forward), 44–50.Google Scholar
  42. Nelson-Barber, S., & Trumbull, E. (2016). The common core initiative, educational outcomes and American Indian/Alaska Native students: Observations and recommendations. Knowledge Brief. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  43. Nicholson, B. (2017). APNewsBreak: Leaks found on Dakota Access pipeline system. Associated Press [online article], 22 May. Retrieved 19 September 2018 from https://apnews.com/f05582dd1a344cc0be1cc0a9311129f1/APNewsBreak:-2-more-leaks-found-along-Dakota-Access-pipeline.
  44. Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), (2015). Culture in the classroom: Indicators and evidence for evaluating culturally responsive teaching. Juneau, AK: Southeast Regional Resource Center.Google Scholar
  48. Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. Spradley, J. S. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  50. Trimble, J., King, J., LaFromboise, T., BigFoot, D., & Norman, D. (2014). American Indian and Alaska Native mental health perspectives. In R. Parekh (Ed.), The Massachusetts General Hospital textbook on diversity and cultural sensitivity in mental health (pp. 119–139). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Vernez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG546.pdf.
  53. Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. E., & Rosenberg, H. (2010). Beyond random acts: Family, school, and community engagement as an integral part of education reform. National Policy Forum for Family, School, & Community Engagement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved 18 September 2018 from https://www.sedl.org/connections/engagement_forum/beyond_random_acts.pdf.
  54. Winstead, T., Lawrence, A., Brantmeier, E. J., & Frey, C. J. (2008). Language, sovereignty, cultural contestation, and American Indian schools: No Child Left Behind and a Navajo test case. Journal of American Indian Education, 47(1), 46–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Culture & Language in EducationWestEdRedwood CityUSA
  2. 2.Intrinsic Impact ConsultingStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations