IF THIS IS EMPOWERING WHY DON’T I FEEL BETTER?

AN ABORIGINAL EDUCATOR’S PERSPECTIVE ON ACTION RESEARCH AS A STRATEGY FOR FACILITATING CHANGE IN ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

Memee Lavell

Introduction

As an Aboriginal woman who has struggled for many years within the current education system, as both a student and a teacher, I have become increasingly aware of the difficulty that an overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people experience within the confines of mainstream educational institutions. Studies of contemporary Aboriginal education point to an epidemic of low academic achievement and phenomenally high drop-out rates (Cummins, 1992; Hampton, 1995; Chisolm 1994). The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1982) reported that the secondary school retention rate is 20%. When compared to a national average of 75%, these figures indicate the problematic state of Aboriginal education in Canada (Ryan, 1989). This appalling situation calls for an immediate and sustained effort to change both the content and the process of education before more of our Aboriginal children are unnecessarily stricken by academic failure. Current theories of, practices in, and attitudes towards the education of Aboriginal people have been far from successful (Courtney, 1986). Perhaps action research, with its focus on the contextual nature of education and its reliance upon the lived experiences of the teachers of our children (both of which are often overlooked in more traditional forms of research) will prove to be a viable method to facilitate the necessary educational changes in our communities and classrooms. As in much of the literature, teacher research and action research are seen as synonymous and are used interchangeably in this analysis.

Action Research as a Way Forward for Aboriginal Educators

Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993, p. 27) define action research as "systematic and intentional inquiry about teaching, learning, and schooling carried out by teachers in their own school and classroom settings." This contextual nature of teacher research is the key. Aboriginal people recognize that no one theory can ever deal with the intricacies of diverse Aboriginal communities, schools, and classrooms across the continent. Because of tribal differences, varying levels of contact and assimilation, geographic diversity, and changing social and economic structures, research on the education of Aboriginal children must focus on the realities of the individual classrooms and communities in question, rather than seek to find or create generalizable rules that will apply to all First Nations. Thus action research, with its focus on the concrete situations of the individual classroom, ought to be an ideal method for gaining meaningful insight into the complexities of revitalizing Aboriginal pedagogy.

According to Elliot (1991), action research can be viewed as a solution to the perceived division between theory and practice in more traditional forms of educational research. Because much research bases its worth on the ability to generalize about all teacher practices, it "constitutes a denial of the individual practitioners’ everyday experience" (p. 47). Thus much theory is easily disregarded by teachers as useless, or at least irrelevant, in the real classroom situation. Furthermore, teachers feel threatened by theory because it is produced by outsiders who "claim to be experts at generating valid knowledge about educational practices" for the masses (p. 45). The methods that such experts use are symbols of the "power of the researcher to define valid knowledge" (p. 46) and, perhaps not so coincidentally, possess little resemblance to the way teachers generate knowledge in the classroom. Thus teachers may feel powerless to contribute to the body of knowledge that defines their practice. However, by valuing the "practice-based knowledge" and "understanding of individual teachers," action research challenges the entrenched ways of initiating educational change (Wells, 1994, p. 1).

Aboriginal people are in a similar position of powerlessness when it comes to determining what knowledge will be seen as valid in the classroom or, perhaps more importantly, whose knowledge is deemed valid in the classroom. Decisions about the content, process and organization of education for Aboriginal children have been made by outside experts based in universities or governments, far removed from the classrooms they affect. For centuries, Aboriginal children have been subjected to theories of education defined entirely by external experts including, in chronological order, religious zealots, government officials, and now educational researchers. As a result of these years of (often deliberately) inappropriate education (see response 1, below), Aboriginal children face the highest failure and dropout rates of any group on this continent (Courtney, 1986; Ryan, 1989).

Much like the teachers who have grown weary of merely implementing the educational theories of outside expert researchers, so too have the Aboriginal people become discontent with their role as subjects and consumers, rather than producers, of educational research. In an analysis of available literature on the subject, Swisher (1998) argues there is a need for Aboriginal people to become the producers of academic research in order to introduce a more accurate and more meaningful portrayal of both the historical and contemporary Aboriginal experience of education in North America. To illustrate, Swisher (1998, p. 193) points to three non-Aboriginal authors who have become the experts on Indian education (they have written over 30 articles and books since 1985) who are cited more often than the Aboriginal "experts from whom their experience and information was gathered." The legitimate contributions of a body of non-aboriginal writers notwithstanding, Swisher contends that even when the literature is well researched, historically accurate and sensitively written (as opposed to the plethora of Eurocentric, biased, or downright prejudiced literature that has filled our libraries in the past), it is still missing the "passion from within" that can only come from an Aboriginal perspective.

The action research movement recognizes that teachers must exercise an active role in formulating the purposes of their work as well as the means. A number of authors, including Tripp (1990), Stuart (1998), Longstreet (1978), Welch (1994) and Zeichner (1994), believe that action research needs to take on a broader socially critical stance. For example, Tripp (1990) contends that teachers as action researchers must move beyond the problem-solving model of action research to questioning why something is a problem and asking what the larger societal forces are that create and maintain this problem. Only then will their action research be socially critical and only then will it be able to have the kind of impact he believes is necessary. Tripp states that neither "social critique nor action research are [sic] adequate without the other" (1990, p. 161). While Longstreet (1978) argues that teachers of Aboriginal students are best suited to provide the socially critical insight into the appropriate education of Aboriginal students, she fails to recognize the importance of Aboriginal teachers conducting action research on the Aboriginal students in the classrooms. Such research would provide unique insights and perspectives on the cultural learning behaviours that are exhibited in Aboriginal schools. It is this form of socially critical action research that holds the greatest potential for Aboriginal educators and researchers, for we have long known that the problems our students face in education are not the result of inherent inferiority or cultural deprivation as some would have us believe, but symptoms (or perhaps an objectives) of a system that functions to deny Aboriginal people any real power in our society. As such, any action research that hopes to make meaningful change in the education of our Aboriginal children must begin and end with social critique.

Along the same lines, authors such as Welch (1994) and Orzechowska and Smieja (1994) argue for the potential of action research to give a voice to those who have previously been ignored in the process of constructing knowledge in the field of education. Specifically, these authors point to the minority educators who have been silenced by the "preponderance of European perspectives" (Welch, p. 54) in the field of education research. The body of intellectual thought produced by minorities has been largely ignored in education research and therefore has had "limited influence on prevailing paradigms and ideology within the scholarly community" (Welch, p. 54). It is marginalized under labels such as multicultural studies, while "Anglo scholarship actually dominates educational practice" (Welch p. 52). Thus the importance of minority groups’ cultural knowledge and their ways of knowing are implicitly and explicitly devalued. Ideally, the inclusive dialogue and collaborative knowledge construction that are promoted by action research will allow the voices of the disempowered to be heard in a meaningful context. According to Orzechowska and Smieja (1994, p. 150), with voice comes " the power to use our own experience and knowledge and to have them recognized as a valid basis for making meaning."

Viewing Action Research Methods from an Aboriginal Perspective

Linear Sequential Process

The action research model is based on a linear sequential method of testing and processing information into knowledge. While the action- observation- revised action continuum may be conceptualized as a spiraling process (Tripp, 1990), it is still a clearly linear, sequentially organized progression towards a specific end. In contrast, many Aboriginal people think and learn in a holistic fashion (Ryan, 1992), they perceive the world as a whole rather than as a compilation of parts. Their "perception of the individual components is intimately associated with their place in , and relationship to the greater whole" (Ryan, 1992, p. 164).

Trial-and-Error Methods

The action research method is based on a continual process of trial-and-error evolving in a spiral fashion towards increasingly improved ends (McNiff, 1995; Tripp, 1990; McCutchen & Jung; Van Manen, 1990). Trial-and-error is not appropriate behaviour among many Aboriginal cultures (Fradd & Hallman, 1983), including specifically the Ojibway people. In a culture where for centuries one’s continued survival has depended upon close observation and the subsequent correct application of proven techniques, there is no room for trial-and-error learning. When resources are precious, error is seen as wasteful, unproductive and unacceptable, if not outright fatal. Even though the hunting and gathering days are effectively over, Aboriginal people are still in an extremely vulnerable position in comparison to the rest of society. Today our most precious resource is our children, and the only hope they have for survival as Aboriginal people is education. As Aboriginal people, therefore, we are reluctant to subject our children to a continual process of trial-and-error, preferring long periods of observation and thoughtful application of historical and cultural knowledge, which may in fact have more empirical application.

Journals

A number of writers in the field of action research propose the use of journals to record one’s data, insights, reflections and ideas for further research. Harris (1993) describes how her journals have informed her work by harboring questions, inviting reflections and jolting her memory. Strieb (1993, p.121) sees journals as a way "to learn about, inquire into, collect data about, and enhance" her teaching practice. As an action researcher, she states that journal writing is the genre most compatible with her "style of writing," her "way of teaching" and most importantly, her "way of thinking" (Strieb, 1993, p. 121). This statement unconsciously points to the very problem that Aboriginal people may encounter with journal writing (and, by extension, with action research itself). Journal writing is compatible with a non-aboriginal way of thinking that has evolved in literate cultures but is both incompatible with and contrary to the ways of thinking that are predominant in cultures that have a strong oral tradition, history and culture. Over the last 10,000 years, at least, Aboriginal people have practiced and perfected methods of transmitting knowledge that do not rely upon, or even involve, the written word. For example, though illiterate, my great-grandfather could recite verbatim the history of the Ojibway people in its entirety, including the relationships with the French, British and American empires and the Ojibway understanding of the attending treaties. Thus, for most members of the Aboriginal community, not only is journal writing unfamiliar and impractical but, based on my extensive personal observation and experience, it is outright abhorrent. The Aboriginal avoidance of written communication of any kind extends beyond university essays, reports, journals, expense accounts, et cetera, to personal letters, diaries, thank-you notes, Christmas cards, in short, to anything that involves the written word. How sharply this contrasts with Strieb’s claim (1993, p. 122) that "I cannot teach without writing in my journal and I am unhappy if I don’t do it at the end of each day."

Interestingly, Harris (1993.p. 131) describes how her love of writing began when she realized that "it was more socially acceptable to write to oneself than to talk to oneself." By revealing how the status of writing as a superior form of communication is socially constructed, Harris allows the critical reader to perceive the possibility of other modes of communication being just as valid, even if they are not as socially acceptable in the given culture. This is not to say that Aboriginal people cannot write journals, nor does it imply that journals would have absolutely no benefit for the Aboriginal teacher. What we can conclude is that, for people who have maintained an oral history for thousands of years, any form of reflection and communication that relies on the written word does not allow most Aboriginal people to exercise the full potential of their intellect. Suggestions for alternative methods of data collection include the use of audio or video tape recordings, which can then be reviewed at later dates if this is necessary to the teacher research process. Personal reflections and insights could also be mechanically recorded and later transcribed; such a method would preserve the flow of thought for future reflections and analysis.

Implications of Cultural Incongruence in Action Research

The point of this analysis is not to suggest that Aboriginal people cannot learn through, or benefit from the action research model, but rather to highlight specific aspects of the process that may conflict with traditional Aboriginal learning styles and therefore must be taken into consideration when Aboriginals, and those teaching Aboriginals, embark on action research projects. Factors such as acculturation, assimilation, education, and adoption will influence the degree of individual variance from the cultural norm of any given minority group, including Aboriginal populations. As Ogbu and Simons suggested, "some individuals will always believe or behave differently from the dominant pattern" within their ethnic minority group, but certain behaviours apply to enough members of the minority group to form a recognizable pattern (1998, p. 168). To suggest differently would be nothing less than racial prejudice, and is certainly not the intent of this work.

Research (Ryan, 1989) suggests that learning style is not genetically fixed; rather, learning style is constructed by the social and physical environment of the individual or cultural group and, as such, it can be altered. Whether it is preferable to adapt the action research model to meet the needs of the Aboriginal educator or to encourage Aboriginal teachers to adopt the action research model as is, and in doing so adapt their learning processes, is not something we can conclude at this stage. However, the survival of the Aboriginal modes of thought despite centuries of large scale efforts to eradicate or assimilate Aboriginal people leads me to believe that not only is it morally preferable, it is likely more profitable to adapt the action research model to the needs of the culturally distinct educator.

Conclusion

For too long, educational theory has begun with the imposition of Eurocentric norms and then focused on supporting people in adapting to these demands rather than beginning with completely "new paradigms of knowledge" (Graveline, 1998, p. 9) . So long as we continue to focus on problems and remediation rather than on critically examining the ideological foundations that undergird the entire education system, we will never achieve any real meaningful change in our society. Graveline (1998) argues that the relation between white educators and Aboriginal peoples has long been one of oppression. As educators we must examine our role in maintaining this discourse, for if we are not actively opposing it, we are, in our complacency, supporting it. Graveline (1998, p. 11) quotes Freire, who stated that educators who "do their work uncritically, just to preserve their jobs, have not yet grasped the political nature of education." Theorizing the school as a political and cultural site, Graveline explains that teachers and students "produce, reinforce, recreate, resist, and transform" ideas about race, class, equality, justice and power. While recognizing that simply using an Aboriginal teaching model in one classroom cannot overcome the realities of a racist, sexist, and oppressive society, Graveline believes that the ideal new paradigms of knowledge need to be based on Aboriginal values, perspectives and philosophies, not only to "ensure our survival as Indigenous peoples but for our very existence as humans" (1998, p. 12), because resistance is possible and necessary.

According to Zeichner’s critique, teacher research is "not fulfilling its potential" to take a role in the construction of a "more just world" (1994, p. 69). Expecting a connection between teacher research and the reduction of the sufferings and injustices beyond the walls of the school, Zeichner is disappointed to find apparently little concern for the issues of educational equity and social justice within the teacher research movement. He argues that the empowerment of teachers through action research without regard for the empowerment of others who "do not share equally in the rewards of our society" is too self-serving. By seeking only to improve one’s own practice without looking critically at the system that constrains us as teachers, we are contributing to the acceptance and reproduction of the values and beliefs that currently define what is possible in education.

Action research seems to have both the potential and the mandate to be subversive enough to make a significant contribution to the process of altering the balance of control of the educational knowledge that defines and informs the work of teachers and policymakers (Zeichner, 1994). Ideally, once embraced by Aboriginal scholars and adapted to suit our learning styles, action research can take on the socially critical stance that is seen to be lacking by Zeichner. Perhaps what is necessary, then, is an Aboriginal holistic educational perspective that looks beyond the sequence and sum of the parts to find meaning in the whole picture, i.e., the social structures that work to oppress the many for the benefit of a few. Aboriginal contributions have the potential to create a new variety of action research that may allow us to alter the course and nature of educational research in our own communities. Placing the power to construct knowledge about teaching into the hands of those who work in the field of teaching, especially in Aboriginal communities, is not just a revolutionary idea, it is a truly empowering one as well.

Final Clarifications

Several reviewers of this paper raised interesting questions to which I respond in the following question-and-answer format.

1. What does "deliberately inappropriate education" mean?

Historically, education has been a means of destroying Aboriginal culture. What began as a misguided belief in the obligation of the church to bring civilization and Christianity to the heathens through education, soon became a government policy of eradicating Aboriginal culture through the schooling of the children (Barman et al., 1987). Government policies of assimilation have used education "as a weapon to annihilate" the Aboriginal cultures and languages (Cummins, 1992, p.15). Institutions were "designed to extinguish Indian identity altogether," (Adams, 1995, p. 336) and the very school itself was seen as the physical "manifestation of the governments determination to completely restructure the Indian’s minds and personalities" (Adams, 1995, p. 97).

Around 1910, a shift in government policies for educating Aboriginals was instigated by complaints that Aboriginals were, in fact, being educated too well, which placed them in direct competition with the non-Native population for jobs. The future Federal Minister of Indian Affairs recognized the common sentiment when stating that "we are educating these Indians to compete industrially with our own peoples, which seems to me a very undesirable use of public money" (Barman et al., 1986. p.7). In response to this outcry, the revised goal of education was "to fit the Indian for civilized life in his own environment" (Barman et al., 1986. p.7). Therefore, while the Aboriginal people were still being instructed in the superiority of the civilized Western European way of life, they were not being provided with the academic or vocational skills that would allow them entrance into the dominant white society. Thus Aboriginal people were dealt a double blow, having lost their traditional way of life children were now being schooled in a way that ensured they would not be successful in the larger society, and would in effect be forced to remain on their reserves.

2. What issues arise for the Aboriginal teacher-researcher within the context of Aboriginal school councils?

Assuming that this question refers to the individual community Board of Education, such committees are primarily concerned with financial allocation decisions and polices. They are not involved in the day-to-day operation of the schools and classrooms, nor are they knowledgeable about or interested in educational theories and research in general.

3. How is the effort of an aboriginal child learning to dance different from trial-and-error learning?

This is in fact modeling (as the reviewer suggested), which is a form of observational learning and is by definition distinct from, and arguably the antithesis of, the trial-and-error process.

4. Was the author deliberately portraying Aboriginal learners as passive?

Absolutely! Aboriginal participation in the educational system has been, until quite recently, at best passive, and at worst the result of well documented coercion and intimidation when not outright physical abuse.

References

Adams, David W. (1995). Education for extinction. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Barman, J., Hebert, Y., & McCaskill, D. (1986). Indian education in Canada, Volume 1: the legacy. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Barman, J., Hebert, Y., & McCaskill, D. (1987). Indian education in Canada, Volume 2: the challenge. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Chisholm, Susan. (1994). Assimilation and oppression: The northern experience. Education Canada. 34 (4). 28-34.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Lytle. (Eds.), Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 5-22). New York: Teachers College Press.

Courtney, R. (1986). Islands of remorse: Amerindian education in the contemporary world. Curriculum Inquiry, 16, 43-64.

Cummins, Jim. (1992). The empowerment of Indian students. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Fradd, S., & Hallman, C.L. (1983). Implications of psychological and educational research for assessment and instruction of culturally and linguistically different students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 468-478.

Graveline, F. J. (1998). Circle works, transforming Eurocentric consciousness. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Hampton, E. (1995). Towards a redefinition of Indian education. In M. Batiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Harris, M. (1993). Looking back: 20 years of a teacher’s journal. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Lytle. (Eds.), Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 130-140). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jumpp, D. & Strieb, L. (1993). Journals for collaboration, curriculum and assessment. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Lytle. (Eds.), Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 140- 149). New York: Teachers College Press.

Longstreet, W. S. (1978). Learning and diversity: the ethnic factor. Educational Research Quarterly, 2, 60-73.

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, XXIX, 144-152.

McNiff, J. (1995). Action research for professional development. Mississauga, Ontario: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional, collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3, 173-201.

Ogbu, J. & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29, 155-184.

Orzechowska, E., & Smeija, A. (1994). ESL learners talking and thinking in their first language: Primary ESL students sharing picture books with a bilingual assistant. In G. Wells (Ed.), Changing schools from within, creating communities of inquiry (pp. 129-151). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Ryan, J. (1989). Disciplining the Inuit: Normalization, characterization, and schooling. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 379-403.

Ryan, J. (1992). Aboriginal learning styles: a critical review. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5. 161-181.

Strieb, L. (1993). Visiting and revisiting the trees. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Lytle. (Eds.), Inside outside, teacher research and knowledge (pp. 121-130). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stuart, C. A. (1998). Care and concern: an ethical journey in participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 32, 298-313.

Swisher, K. G. (1998). Why Indian people should write about Indian education. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.), Natives and academics: Research and writhing about American Indians. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Tripp, D. H. (1990). Socially critical action research. Theory into Practice, 29, 158-166.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action research. Theory into Practice, XXIX, 152- 158.

Welch, O. (1994). The case for inclusive dialogue in knowing, teaching and learning about multicutural education. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett ( Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 52-66) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wells, G. (1994). Introduction: Teacher research and educational change. In G. Wells (Ed.), Changing schools from within, creating communities of inquiry (pp. 1-36). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Zeichner, K. (1994). Personal renewal and social construction through teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 66-86) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bibiographical Note:

Action Research as a Strategy for Facilitating Change in Aboriginal Education

Name: D. Memee Lavell
Current Position: M.Ed. candidate, Queen’s University Faculty of Education
Academic Degrees: B.A. (Hons), Queen’s University (Film Studies); B.Ed, Queen’s University (Aboriginal Teacher Education Program); M.Ed., Queen’s University (in progress)
Current Research Interests: Due to the overwhelming need in my community, I am currently focused on the Aboriginial experience within the mainstream education system. My thesis research will focus on the needs, concerns and aspirations of Aboriginal secondary school students on Manitoulin Island, specifically in my home community, the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve.