Keywords

Introduction

Australian teachers continue to struggle to implement authentic and rigorous Aboriginal content in their curriculum and employ culturally responsive teaching practices to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student learning. This chapter considers how the theory of practice architectures identifies and makes visible early career teachers’ practices in implementing AboriginalFootnote 1 curriculum and pedagogy in their classrooms. These teachers completed Aboriginal education electives which included Aboriginal-led, place-based experiences in their final year of university. These electives are the focus of the Learning from Country in the City teaching and research project (henceforth referred to as LFC). LFC is designed to build a deep understanding of Aboriginal local histories, cultures, and narratives of Country, by listening to and walking with local Aboriginal community-based educators, cultural knowledge holders, and EldersFootnote 2 (Thorpe et al., 2021). Aunty Laklak Burarrwanga, a Datiwuy and Rirratjingu Elder, explains that Country has many layers and meanings including,

people, animals, plants, water, and land. But Country is more than just people and things, it is also what connects them to each other and to multiple spiritual and symbolic realms. It relates to laws, custom, movement, song, knowledges, relationships, histories, presents, futures and spirit beings… So you see knowledge about Country is important because it’s about how and where you fit within the world and how you connect to others and to place. (Wright et al., 2012, p. 54)

Centring Country as “knowledge, cultural norms, values, stories and resources within that particular area—that particular Indigenous place” (Fredericks, 2013, p. 6) in curriculum and pedagogies provides a unique opportunity to harness Aboriginal ways of knowing, being, and doing through direct participation in existing life. This ontology of relationality nurtures a world worth living in by focussing on relationships between and within Country. These relationships are illuminated by Aboriginal community members and supported by teachers through the interweaving of Aboriginal narratives of place into their curriculum as they learn to relate to Country and to their students on Country. The focus on local Country provides the impetus upon which to build a relational connection to Aboriginal peoples and histories and their lived experiences, as well as to honour the significance of local ecologies to Aboriginal people.

We argue that local place-based learning with Aboriginal people and Country facilitates Yindyamara Winhanga-nha’. In the Wiradjuri language of central New South Wales Yindyamara Winhanga-nha’ translates to ‘the wisdom of respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in’ (Charles Sturt University, 2023).

A consideration of Yindyamara Winhanga-nha is not just a provocation for this book but an ethos that resonates with LFC as a significant opportunity to facilitate genuine and respectful relationships between teachers, students, Country, and Aboriginal people and communities. Western education systems and schooling have silenced and marginalised Aboriginal pedagogies with consequent devastating impacts on Country and Aboriginal people. By contrast, Aboriginal Country-centred learning is an ecocentric way of knowing, being, and doing that Aboriginal people have sustained for social and ecological wellness for thousands of years (Country et al., 2020, p. 41). Like Country et al., we believe that through LFC, “students can learn how to live as effective local citizenry before considering how to do it regionally, nationally and globally” (2020. p. 41).

This chapter is informed by a three-phase research project which analyses the experiences in, and responses to, LFC by preservice teachers, Aboriginal community-based educators, and early career teachers. LFC provides the foundational principles for three Aboriginal education electives available to teacher education students at an urban university in Sydney, Australia. This much needed pedagogical strategy aims to overcome the known lack of knowledge, preparedness, and confidence of many teachers in delivering effective teaching and learning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges in Australian schools (Salter & Maxwell, 2016). Lowe and Yunkaporta’s (2013) research highlight the low level of cognitive, cultural, and social–political rigour in the current Australian curriculum that leaves teachers struggling to identify and embed an authentic and coherent Aboriginal narrative in their daily practices. To counter this, LFC experiences occur alongside classroom-based theoretical learning which is structured in ways to develop deep listening, critical reflection, and cultural humility needed to move beyond stereotypical and surface level practice and build relationships with local Aboriginal families and communities. We hope that preservice teachers are then inspired to implement these principles in any location when they become teachers, whether it be urban, rural, or remote.

In this chapter we consider the significance of LFC experiences in preservice teacher education to ‘stir’ teachers into the practices of embedding Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogy in their classrooms. Here, we use the term ‘stir’ to provide an account of ‘learning’ that foregrounds the “process, activity and sociality of learning as a practice” (Kemmis et al., 2017, p. 46) when encountering a new practice. Therefore, this ‘stirring in’ can be used to describe the teachers’ experiences of Learning from Country as well as their attempts to implement LFC in their classrooms. In this sense, the early career teachers are ‘stirred in’ and ‘stir in’ their students through the relationships that emerge between teachers, students, Aboriginal people, Country, and the resultant co-produced knowledges.

These practice landscapes reveal themselves through the teachers sayings, doings, and relatings and illuminate the complex, heterogeneous, and shifting cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social–political arrangements that enable and/or constrain their practices. Here, we analyse the extent to which teachers have been ‘stirred into’ (Kemmis et al., 2017) practice.

Why the Theory of Practice Architectures?

The theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) enables us to better understand how different kinds of arrangements enable and constrain the efforts and ambitions of those attempting to embed Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogies through developing an understanding of and relationship with Country. This chapter uses the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) to explore how the different kinds of arrangements found in school and university sites, which together form practice architectures, shape the practices of early career teachers. A practice perspective helps us to make sense of social interactions in a school between early career teachers and students, community members, and other teachers and school leaders in order to understand what practices have been made possible through their understandings of Country. Centring Country changes the arrangements that enable and constrain practices, and has the potential to transform practices. When Country is positioned as foundational for all Australian school students, a new appreciation of Aboriginal peoples’ knowledge of Country and the significance of this to local ecologies and well-being for all is nurtured. As Awabakal, Gumaroi, and Yuin scholar Anthony McKnight (2016) notes, “a collaborative partnership between academics [teachers], Aboriginal people and Country is imperative to embed Aboriginal perspectives” (p. 14). Knowing how to develop a relational connection with Country in order to create a world worth living in is potentially transformative for teachers and students alike.

This approach, which foregrounds Country, recognises that (like other practices) teaching is fundamentally a social endeavour (Green, 2009) that is influenced by far more than just levels of teachers’ disciplinary knowledge and understanding of their subject area. Here, we take a ‘practice turn’ (Schatzki et al., 2001) in the way we frame our understanding of and research on the work of teachers—drawing on the tradition of practice theory that has emerged from Schatzki’s understanding of education as a fundamentally social and integrative practice. Building on Schatzki’s works, Kemmis et al. (2014) note that practice is as follows:

A form of socially established human activity in which characteristic arrangements of actions and activities (doings) are comprehensible in terms of arrangements of relevant ideas in characteristic discourses (sayings), and when people and objects are distributed in characteristic arrangements of relationships (relatings), and when this complex of sayings, doings, and relatings ‘hangs together’ in a distinctive project. (p. 31)

Reframing our understanding of teacher practice in this way has significant implications for how we understand the influence of LFC on teachers’ experiences and practices because it allows a deeper consideration of how Country, culture, identity, and social relationships inform and create practice. LFC is recognised as situated, embodied, and enacted (McKnight., 2016) in the intersubjective spaces between teachers and students in which they encounter one another (Kemmis & Edwards-Groves, 2018). The theory of practice architectures argues for a deep view of practice that is relational, dialectical, and recognises the symbiosis between practice and local context. This opens up a range of possibilities for researching teacher practice, reframing it from something teachers ‘deliver’ in lessons, to a reciprocal, dynamic, and situated experience in which teachers, working collaboratively with colleagues, Aboriginal community educators, and students, co-construct practice through the lived experience of being on Country.

Building on this approach, we can gain an even more nuanced and powerful understanding of teachers’ work by looking at the wider structural, political, and cultural conditions of the learning environment within and beyond the classroom. The theory of practice architectures is also a methodological tool for analysis that recognises the complexity of practice and the range of personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural influences at play when professionals engage in practice (Kemmis & Edwards-Groves, 2018, pp. 136–139). People’s sayings provide an insight into the cultural-discursive arrangements that not only include what is said but also highlight what is not said, which is critical when working with Aboriginal Knowledges that are typically rendered silent and invisible in the curriculum. Their doings reveal the material-economic arrangements that are available (or not) when planning activities for students, particularly beyond the classroom on Country, and their relatings indicate the social–political arrangements that enable or constrain social interactions and relationships with people and Country.

Approaching an understanding of teacher practice this way pivots our research interest away from the individual teacher and specific ‘attributes’ necessary to be a ‘good’ teacher, to understanding teachers’ work in the context of educational ‘practices’ focuses our attention on how the ‘sayings’, ‘doings’, and ‘relatings’ of particular practices ‘hang together’ in ways that enable and/or constrain certain educational possibilities. Further, the theory brings hope as teachers can be stirred into and create changes in these arrangements within the contexts in which they work.

The theory of practice architectures is a particularly powerful tool for analysing and understanding the work of teachers because it begins with the premise that the work of teaching is fundamentally entwined with issues of the arrangements of politics and identity—that teaching is driven by a purpose, and that purpose is formed personally and collectively through relationships, and politically through the teachers’ experiences of Aboriginal cultures, identities, history, Country, and indeed Western education itself.

Methodology

A critical Indigenous methodological stance shapes this research study to push back against past trends of harmful and disrespectful research on Indigenous peoples rather than with Indigenous peoples (Rigney, 1999). As Wagiman scholar Marnee Shay (2016) notes, Western research does not necessarily account for the socio-cultural context within which Aboriginal peoples and communities operate, and pays little attention to the essential protocols and accountabilities in Aboriginal communities for appropriate knowledge sharing. This often results in the misrepresentation and underrepresentation of Indigenous Knowledges in research, and also impacts the curriculum content taught in schools and universities. To push back against this trend, the LFC project positions Aboriginal voices front and centre in the teaching and research through our collaboration with Aboriginal community-based educators who lead the LFC experiences for the preservice teachers and provide ongoing critical feedback for the duration of the research project.

This qualitative study engages Yarning as a method. The informal, non-linear, and relational way of conversing and deep listening embedded in this method provided a pathway for the teachers to articulate their experiences of the LFC and how this has influenced their teaching. As Barlo et al. (2021) note:

Yarning is a powerful methodology from the vantage point of a relationship journey because the process engages the researcher in a web of relationships which includes research participants, the knowledges and stories themselves, Ancestors and Country, and histories and futures as they live in the telling and hearing of stories. (p. 46)

As well as being a more inclusive way to engage with participants, Yarning also reflects Aboriginal protocols and accountabilities and so continues to reinforce and build culturally responsive ways of working in Aboriginal contexts.

Individual Yarns were conducted in person and via Zoom over two years due to participant location and the COVID pandemic. Participants were given pseudonyms to protect privacy and meet confidentiality protocols as required by the university’s ethics process. We analysed the Yarns with seven early career teachers, two of whom are Aboriginal, five are female, and five are non-Aboriginal teachers:

Fiona is an Aboriginal teacher in a large regional primary school in a low socio-economic area with a substantial Aboriginal population. Kylie is an Aboriginal secondary English teacher in a large urban, multicultural, low socio-economic status school with very few Aboriginal students and a large new arrival immigrant population. Rosie is a non-Aboriginal secondary History and Aboriginal Studies teacher in a large urban college with very few Aboriginal students and a mix of Anglo-Australian and second-generation migrant students. Evie is a non-Aboriginal primary teacher working in a large inner-city Kindergarten to Year 12 community school with a significant Aboriginal population and a mix of low and middle-income families. Tessa is a non-Aboriginal secondary English, History teacher in an urban, largely Anglo-Australian, middle-income school with a very small number of Aboriginal students. Oscar is a non-Aboriginal secondary History, Geography teacher in a remote Aboriginal community school with very few non-Aboriginal students and a very low socio-economic status community. Ken is a non-Aboriginal secondary Aboriginal Studies, History teacher working in a wealthy non-government school with a largely Anglo-Australian student population. These teachers and their school sites provide rich and diverse contexts to explore the enablers and contraints visible when introducing an LFC approach to their teaching and learning.

The theory of practice architectures was used as a methodological tool for analysis using the table of invention for analysing practices (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 39). Each individual transcript was analysed within the frame of sayings, doings, relatings, and concurrently cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social–political arrangements that enabled and/or constrained the teacher’s efforts and practices in centring LFC in their everyday teaching as well as more broadly across the school-community. Sayings, doings, relatings, and their associated arrangements cannot be separated from each other, as they form the practices that exist together in a site. A site can also be understood by analysing the cultural-discursive, social–political, and material-economic arrangements whilst acknowledging that they build towards a complete picture of practices. Mapping the elements of practices for each participant as a ‘Project’ enabled us to better understand the practice landscape, illuminating practices, the dispositions of our participants and of people in the site of the social, as well as the practice traditions to understand what changes had taken place. An example of part of this mapping process for Oscar is represented in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 Sample from table of invention for analysing practices: Learning from Country in the City
Full size table

Following individual analyses, we aggregated these to identify common and nuanced practices that the teachers employed as well as highlight the critical role of context in impacting these practices. Consequently, the table of invention provided the means by which to better understand the practices employed by the teachers to bring LFC into their classrooms in response to their specific location.

Understanding LFC Through Practice

Sayings and the Cultural-Discursive Arrangements

The cultural-discursive dimension represented in the table of invention of practices uncovers the semantic space through what and how people express themselves through sayings (Kemmis et al., 2014). This shapes who speaks, when, where, and how, and the extent to which education sites enable and constrain the implementation of an authentic Aboriginal curriculum through cultural-discursive arrangements. In this way, the theory of practice architectures makes visible the individual and cultural-discursive arrangements found in or brought to the site (Kemmis et al., 2014), including the thoughts of the early career teachers, represented in their sayings, doings, and relatings. Teachers embraced new ways of relating to and mobilising Aboriginal histories, cultures, and experiences in their classrooms through their engagement with local Aboriginal communities and the Country on which they teach. Through reflection to further develop their critical consciousness, teachers gained confidence to implement Aboriginal content in their classes and connect with the local Aboriginal community in their area.

As settler colonial societies around the world grapple with the extent of the impact of past conquest and continuing injustice faced by Indigenous peoples, defensiveness, guilt, and denial continue to be the response to Aboriginal truth-telling processes. Maddison (2012) has argued that Australia’s ‘collective guilt’ about historical acts has become part of the national identity creating a narrow and defensive form of nationalism that hinders reconciliation. Through their own experiences of LFC and by listening to Aboriginal voices, teachers gained confidence to challenge the dismissive and dominant narratives positioning Aboriginal history as guilt-driven (Clark, 2008) and instead perceive the positive, reaffirming value of this learning. For example, Rosie notes that “There’s a lot of resistance to doing Aboriginal history. There’s a lot of kids that say things like, ‘Why do we have to do this? Why do we do this in every subject?’” Through her knowledge sharing and incorporation of local histories she was able to “shift away from that guilt narrative … (where students say) … this is nothing to do with me” and “people see Aboriginal history as maybe the bludge or easy subject” to a cultural-discursive space where students start to value what they are learning and think “Wow, Aboriginal Studies is really cool and something we want to do as it’s relevant and linked to universities”. Rosie notes that this shift occurred after she invited Aboriginal survivors of the Stolen GenerationsFootnote 6 to talk to history classes and suggests that this changed the way in which students perceived Aboriginal histories, “having (survivors) come out to the school and actually talk to the students, made such a difference because immediately all of that stops and they get it, and they start to draw those parallels between other histories and survivor stories”. This truth-telling challenged the assumptions and misconceptions of students, building new knowledge, and understanding through sayings.

With an understanding of the power of strength-based language, Oscar builds relationships with his largely Aboriginal student group and their families. “I’m very explicit about the language I use, I want them to be safe and happy in the classroom and … [they]… just couldn’t quite conceptualise that a non-Indigenous person would care for them”. He also notes that as “lots of my students have families who are Knowledge Holders … they bring knowledge into my classroom”, he can then use LFC as a scaffold to lift their engagement in their learning. Being aware of Country and explicitly using LFC discourse has assisted teachers in demonstrating their desire to centre local Aboriginal voices and knowledges. Oscar explained the significance of speaking about and respecting Country—not something that has been a common practice in this school, as he indicates, “they haven’t been seeing non-Indigenous whitefellas knowing Country, going out, using that language of caring … and moving and being [explicit about Country]”.

For these teachers, the key to implementing Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogies is to make explicit connections between local people, places, and events in those ‘teachable moments’ when it may not necessarily be part of the formal curriculum but nevertheless adds interest and relevance to classroom learning. As Kylie notes, “when you can contextualise it so locally, and so specifically they are much more engaged because they’re like, ‘Oh, that person is from that place that I know … [and] … now I know the history of it’”. Clark’s (2008) research found that learning Aboriginal history was considered boring and uninspiring because it was “taught to death, but not in depth” (p. 67, emphasis in original). Teaching through an LFC lens counteracts this as Rosie suggests, “how it … [the local area] … is different from an area just down the road or a suburb just down the road or somewhere that you're from … makes it a much richer history and much richer culture to be learning about”.

The cultural-discursive arrangements emerging from the teacher narratives illuminate how structures expressed in particular ways impact on what is said and by whom. For instance, where an early career teacher works at a school site that is supportive of their LFC approach, they articulate positive experiences with their students and community. Oscar notes that “LFC has been a pathway for me to engage with community members directly … It streamlined my ability to spin a Yarn with Aboriginal educators, especially when they can see I am well intended [and] have common ground.” By enabling Aboriginal voice and leadership, opportunities to directly challenge deficit discourses arise.

While school leadership may indicate support for Aboriginal initiatives, if this is not supported by staff, this can constrain efforts to implement a locally based curriculum that respects the cultural assets within Aboriginal communities (Rigney, 2020). This is Fiona’s experience who notes that “leadership are very supportive, but I have found that staff as a collective … don’t see the value in Learning from Country and letting those kids have that connection. Instead, they find it a bit more of a burden per se” which she attributed to their own stereotypes and misconceptions. Oscar articulates a similar phenomenon in his school when he says “I am already beginning to see a culture of education within my classroom … (not necessarily the entire school itself) … around Aboriginal Knowledges and experiences”. Even so, he was confident to implement LFC in his classroom despite the cultural-discursive arrangements of the school which undermined the whole school curriculum change.

Where cultural-discursive arrangements promote dialogue that resists binaries of Aboriginal/Australian history, student engagement has increased. As Kylie suggests, “If students see themselves as part of that shared history, then they’re more likely to engage in that and be more generous and understanding in their interpretations … we want to spark that curiosity … by engaging locally in a way that they can all relate to and understand”. The idea that students will be more generous and understanding is an interesting one, suggesting that local place-based histories prompt an open heart and mind (McKnight, 2016) through intellectual, social, and emotional responses that result in collaborative knowledge sharing that builds belonging.

Adopting LFC as integral to curriculum in specific school sites was enabled and constrained by the cultural-discursive arrangements in school sites. For example, Oscar, Evie, and Kylie had the opportunity to build Country-centred relationships and create the cultural-discursive arrangements in their schools through strength-based language discourses. Rosie found that there was a lack of support from schools and colleagues to engage with community, and that negative language and discourses pervaded throughout the school, such as ‘anti-Aboriginal Studies’ talk from students and teachers, undermining new curriculum efforts. Where school leaders played ‘lip service’ to LFC curriculum, early career teachers such as Fiona were constrained in implementing LFC and noted the burden of convincing staff of the value of this approach.

Doings and the Material-Economic Arrangements

Here we consider the material-economic arrangements in physical space–time that enable and constrain the implementation of LFC pedagogies in the teachers’ unique school settings. These arrangements identify the physical and material resources needed to activate practice and how this plays out in the interaction between human and non-human resources (Smith et al., 2010, p. 6).

As a consequence of experiencing LFC at university, teachers were keen to create opportunities to take their students out of their classrooms to learn from Country and Aboriginal community members. LFC necessitates a change in the physical space from a classroom to the outdoors. Oscar notes that “students often struggle to differentiate between ‘learning outside’ …something fun, new, different, exploitable… to ‘Learning from Country’ …something meaningful, deep, connecting, powerful”. Part of the process of assisting their students to see learning from Country as “meaningful, deep, connecting, and powerful” (Oscar) was to consider the activities that support LFC before and after it occurs. Teachers began to not only realise the potential of LFC, but also the way that pedagogical processes embedded in LFC can be enacted in the physical space of the classroom. As Evie notes, “My understanding of Learning from Country is this idea of learning through practice, it’s not so much about being in the classroom and reading textbooks, it’s about being out in the land and on Country”. The process of being on Country with Aboriginal people and understanding the pedagogical principles behind these experiences enables teachers to understand Aboriginal pedagogical processes that could enhance their classroom practices through the lens of Country, as Oscar notes:

I think the final stage in LFC for me was taking the knowledge that I learned and applying it in the classroom so moving beyond that teacher-centric experience to student focused … how can students learn as Country on Country from Country…. learning from Country gave me the pedagogy… Even if we haven’t left the classroom, I would try to embed LFC pedagogy in the classroom.

Classroom teachers often struggle with knowing what resources to use when teaching Aboriginal content (Salter & Maxwell, 2016). As stereotyped representations of Aboriginal people often pervade texts, teachers either grapple to identify appropriate resources or are not sure how to counteract these representations (Chalmers, 2005). For the Aboriginal teachers, connecting and learning from Aboriginal Elders and community members enabled them to engage with the cultures and histories of the places where they work to embrace authentic local knowledges. Fiona moved away from home so she needed to build connections and relationships in a new place. She explains, “I have had to learn local stories and that kind of thing as I’ve moved. But again, I did feel like I had the processes to be able to learn those or the processes to know who to ask and when to ask and that kind of thing”. This highlights the power of LFC as a conceptual framework with principles and processes that can guide teachers in a range of geographical locations and school sites (Burgess et al., 2022).

The teachers identified a number of material-economic arrangements that constrained LFC in their schools, primarily lack of time, financial resources, and core curriculum requirements that were not perceived as inclusive of place-based learning. Oscar notes, “I feel like all the issues and schools are explained by like our lack of time, shortage of teachers and teaching staff and just like really heavy syllabus requirements”. The school where Ken worked had moved to a compressed curriculum model so ‘excursions’ outside of the school had been reduced, “it means it’s probably less time as well for that Aboriginal part of the unit, which is a bit of a shame”. This reflects the largely optional nature of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures Cross Curriculum Priority (CCP) in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, n.d) which gives schools and teachers an ‘excuse’ for limiting Aboriginal content knowledge in their teaching (Salter & Maxwell, 2016). Ken notes that for him, building LFC into the school depended on the goodwill of the school executive and, fortunately, the school prioritised funding for Aboriginal community partnerships.

Even so, seeking real change involved “wearing them down”.

Kylie also articulates a lack of understanding of the material and social arrangements required to support LFC and Aboriginal community engagement, “They just don’t quite necessarily know how to support you. And if you are confident in telling them what you need and how we’re going to do this and you’re happy to be that leader, then it can do really great things for the school”. As an Aboriginal teacher, Kylie identified the leadership opportunities available to her but noted that this can be burdensome in the early years of teaching if non-Aboriginal staff rely on Aboriginal staff to shoulder the responsibility of Aboriginal education.

The material-economic arrangements both enabled and constrained curriculum change. Teachers had clear opportunities to implement LFC in their schools, but these were also constrained by financial and/or human resources. For example, Oscar found that Aboriginal Education staff were a supportive human resource in his work but still felt time, resource, and curriculum constraints on his ability to fully implement LFC. Others such as Ken and Fiona found that a general lack of awareness and support from colleagues hindered their efforts, despite claims of support from school leadership.

Relatings and the Social–Political Arrangements

The third dimension in Kemmis et al’s (2014) practice architectures is that of social–political arrangements at a particular site, seen in ‘relatings’. This concerns the social connections and relationships that work to frame and construct the conditions for practice (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 32). Social–political arrangements and spaces shape how people relate to each other and the power relationships that can include or exclude curriculum decision-making practices (Kemmis, et al., 2014, p. 6), characterised by power and solidarity.

Examining the way in which the teachers relate to the non-human world that is Country, their students, and their teaching and learning, helps us understand the social and affective space that enables or constrains their practices and makes visible the connection between people and non-human objects (Kemmis et al., 2014, pp. 31–32). As interrelationships and holistic connections between the human and non-human are at the foundation of LFC, the relatings and the social–political arrangements that exist in practice sites significantly impact the extent to which teachers can implement LFC.

Oscar shows that he understands how to utilise a LFC approach to meet the challenges of the social–political arrangements in a practice site when he says “it’s about relationships on Country [and] as I build relationships, behaviour gets better”. Practices such as building relationships, forming connections, and networking shape the social–political arrangements that facilitate opportunities to develop empowerment through solidarity with one another. Kylie notes that this develops over time and is important because “it’s an opportunity to see places and things that you think you know inside out from a new perspective. And it’s important to be able to take on that new perspective”.

Tessa believes that encouraging Country-centred relationships in her teaching plays a critical role in connecting her largely non-Aboriginal student classes to their own sense of identity: “I think it’s really important because I can remind our students that just by being Australian, we have a connection to the land and when we then look at Aboriginal connections to the land, this enriches our own connection”. The affective and social benefits of a shared connection to Country support learner identity by creating a sense of belonging to this place, Australia, and to each other in the classroom. Kylie engages with truth-telling to create a sense of belonging for her students as well as to highlight the holistic interconnection in Aboriginal families and communities. Through her family’s story she reaffirms students’ identities, cultures, and histories, noting that, “Aboriginal students benefit from you having this understanding of who they are, and who their family is, and where they’re from and all of the cultural and historical factors that feature in that”. She also relates to her largely immigrant student population through notions of place and belonging and the experience of shared storytelling:

There was this moment of genuine intercultural understanding where because I’d been able to share my story of my [Aboriginal] family, suddenly he [student] felt comfortable sharing his story and he just had more empathy and more understanding through that. [We both] learnt the value of shared experiences and shared stories, and that we can learn so much from other people’s experiences.

Fiona also utilises her Aboriginal background to build relationships with Aboriginal community members to enact LFC in her work. She notes that the ‘relatings’ necessary to do this include “learning the correct protocols and measures to begin relationships but also maintain those relationships and ensure they’re balanced”. These relationships also build a connection and sense of belonging between the community and school as well as between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people engaged in LFC.

Through participating in LFC experiences at university, teachers became aware of the significance of social connections and relationships in forming an authentic and empowering foundation for learning. Subsequently, in their own teaching on Country, they can see the manifestation of this for their students. As Oscar notes, “when they do know Country, and they can talk about Country, and they can see that it is valued, then those kids feel successful, they feel achievement … I cannot understate how important that is for their wellbeing and engagement”. For these early career teachers, this is the essence of their motivation and commitment to implementing LFC in their classrooms; to make a difference for their students through subverting a Western education system that has largely excluded Aboriginal children and marginalised Aboriginal Knowledges. Oscar further notes that, “what I learned from LFC was that all knowledge needs to come from knowledge holders” and that this is significant for his students as “it shifts power dynamics that the kids probably can’t articulate in that way, but they get a sense that it’s giving a bit of power back to the community and into their own knowledge”. Critically, teachers, Knowledge Holders, community members, and students work together to decolonise the social political arrangements that have historically determined whose knowledge is important and how/when it should be transmitted. LFC therefore provides an inclusive context to facilitate this learning and build solidarity and agency for Aboriginal community-based educators, teachers, and learners alike.

This demonstrates how LFC is critical to addressing power issues and building inclusivity for Aboriginal people within curriculum and schooling. Oscar noted the transformative effect of LFC on Aboriginal students as they realise their cultural knowledge is ‘real learning’. Moreover, through leading by example, teachers enabled the slow stirring in of students, teachers, and communities.

Changing Dispositions

The table of invention of practices (Kemmis et al., 2014) also provides space for reflection upon disposition and habitus (Bourdieu, 1990) of the specific aspect of the ‘project’ being analysed, which in our project is each participant’s narrative of change. Teachers come to their teaching roles with passion, commitment, and a desire to make a difference in schools. The analysis of practices from participant interview responses demonstrates how LFC has changed their habitus. Evie demonstrates confidence in this response: “I feel incredibly prepared to teach. Where I feel there are slight gaps in my knowledge, equally I know I have been equipped with the skillset and knowledges to effectively engage with community and bridge that gap”.

Similarly, Tessa shares how she has adopted a passionate disposition for contextualising Aboriginal perspectives in English: “it really has made me feel so passionate about how I can adapt and manipulate the content that I'm teaching to offer Aboriginal perspectives and to get students thinking about the context of Australia and the texts that we read”. She does this through a relational disposition of listening: “I definitely try to engage in this idea of listening and relationships because it’s just such an engaging way to teach. I think, no matter what you’re teaching”. This comes from a disposition of authenticity, as Kylie explains: “It means that what I’m doing is reaching more students. And yeah, it’s really nice to be able to say and draw on these experiences in a more authentic way”. To Evie, Kylie, and Tessa, curriculum enactment is about relationships with students.

Oscar expressed a habitus of learning, listening, valuing, and respecting Country and community-centred relationships, not just in theory, but also in practice, as he explained during the Yarn:

LFC provided me with foundational knowledge around the importance of Country itself. [There was] that content-theory drive to move away from capitalist constructions of land and resource use towards a reciprocal understanding of Country for Aboriginal people. As a non-Indigenous person, it’s very important for me to step outside of my conceptual understandings of land. LFC was the first major time that I’ve had to do that. I sort of I saw it as an understanding of a universal Aboriginal appreciation of Country [and] relationship with Country—universal to most Aboriginal people of the nation and that provided the foundational understanding of spirituality and connection to place. LFC then taught me how to localise and contextualise Country, so acknowledge that Country is different all across Australia.

As non-Aboriginal teachers were stirred into LFC practices, their new understandings impacted new pedagogies and ways of approaching curriculum that demonstrate a change in habitus, as Oscar notes: “Pedagogy is always building and evolving—I have the skillset to stay on top of emerging pedagogies. I would always encourage and embrace further tactile and tangible pedagogies, especially as a non-Indigenous educator”. This change in habitus is emphasised by Tessa whose conscientisation is demonstrated in this comment; “it’s very present in my consciousness about this is what’s happened on the land that I live in. This has happened to these people to this day. It’s such a contemporary issue. I think the impact of that is super shocking and … a really important conversation to have with kids just as I’ve found it really important”. Developing a critical cultural consciousness is key to developing a lived curriculum that centres Country and Aboriginal voices.

Changes in habitus involved rejecting deficit discourses, and instead deliberately focussing on relationships that are the essence of lived curriculum, as these teachers were stirred into the community in their schools. Fiona explains: “Often when you walk into schools and you’re talking about Aboriginal kids and families, they’ve got that deficit kind of mindset, but one thing that the course did really well was reinforce this idea of high expectations and building relationships”.

LFC raised awareness of issues such as inequality and racism, and changes in disposition in teachers was reflected in their responses that would be enacted in curriculum and classrooms, as Tessa demonstrates, “it’s definitely about raising your awareness of what’s happened to Aboriginal people and being able to celebrate the beauty of this culture, but then being able to have the skills to understand that this is a global issue”.

Changes to habitus and disposition are about changes to the heart. LFC enables teachers to transform curriculum in the sites in which they work, and to understand how it is an issue in every site, not just sites with Aboriginal students, but in every educational space to create a world worth living in for all.

System-Wide Practice Traditions Experienced in Schools

Practice traditions potentially change over time, and history plays a role in the ways that practices are modelled and remodelled over time (Kemmis et al., 2014). LFC enabled teachers to be stirred into new practices that we hope will, over time, become new practice traditions in their schools and throughout the school system.

Teachers describe the oppressive system-wide practice traditions they struggled with as they enacted LFC despite numerous obstacles, including shifting the blame to students and away from curriculum priorities, as Oscar notes, “LFC is difficult to translate into something ‘real’ because we’re working against an oppressive system that discourages teachers from structuring alternative ideas of education. Students themselves are conditioned in this system and struggle to break free of it”.

Others experienced ignorance and dismissiveness towards implementing LFC amongst experienced teachers, even with professional learning programs, as Oscar explains, “since arriving, I have not heard a mention about LFC, and when I bring it up, staff don’t seem overly impressed by the notion of my knowing about it”. Tessa described a pervading tendency for students to misunderstand not only the history, but also the current experiences of Aboriginal people in Australia that are rarely accounted for in the curriculum and where practice traditions of ignorance pervade:

It is so important to remind the kids that this is not what’s happened with Aboriginal people in ancient history. This is in our current history. It’s still happening to this day and it’s these up-and-coming generations that are going to be the ones that can change and help to repair what's happened between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

Changing the curriculum practice traditions enables safe spaces to be created that respect.

Aboriginal Knowledges and peoples. Teachers realise that given the process of colonisation, this is complex and involves listening and building relationships with Aboriginal people on Country.

As implementing LFC curriculum and pedagogy is site-based, a system-wide understanding of its significance to education is necessary alongside a site-based learning approach given the Western and Aboriginal practice landscapes that this curriculum and pedagogy sits within. As the teachers demonstrate, these practices reflect the lived complexity of adopting LFC practices in their sites through the arrangements they have uncovered.

Concluding Remarks

The findings demonstrate how LFC experiences have a profound effect on teacher confidence and capacity for building relationships with Aboriginal students, parents, and community to implement effective and authentic Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogies within their schools. These experiences enabled participants to develop a critical cultural consciousness, which supported the development of their personal and professional teacher identity. In response to this, the early career teachers practised activism and sought to normalise LFC in their curriculum work. Understanding and living new practices, particularly for non-Aboriginal teachers, grows over time through willingness and commitment to implement a rigorous Aboriginal-informed curriculum for their teaching. In this way, teachers are stirred into new practices through their participation in a non-compulsory education unit, which brings forth a willingness and openness to change. As they are stirred into new understandings, they also stir in curriculum change, they stir in their community, and they stir in schools through their practices. In this way, teachers make real the Uluru Statement from the Heart (https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/). Stirring is not neat—it is slow, and it looks different in each site. The role of the teacher is to work out how LFC curriculum and pedagogical practices can be lived in each school site.

The teachers who generously gave of their time for this research have provided insights into the practice arrangements for LFC through sayings, doings, and relatings which include firstly the development of a critical cultural consciousness through a change in disposition, closely followed by an adeptness to adapt curriculum with local knowledge. This occurs alongside the practices of building relationships with students, staff, and Aboriginal communities, through listening and advocating through curriculum opportunities and daily practices. This project will always be an interim project as the project of teaching the teachers LFC is an ongoing project of curriculum change. All these practices connect with “the wisdom of respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in” (Charles Sturt University, 2023) through the centring of Aboriginal voices and Knowledges, and the stirring in of students and teachers to living respectfully and reciprocally with and on Country.