Talk:Indigenous education

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Szabad lelek (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelswimmer (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Salliejohnson99.

11/26/12 Added post regarding Indigenous education in the Americas. The information is well-cited in research, and is intended to demonstrate more specifically the tactics used by Indigenous communities in education, specifically in the Americas. Discussion of specific tactics used in indigenous education was previously relatively absent from the page.

Achurilla (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Achurilla

11/24/15 Planning to add a post regarding assessment in indigenous ways of learning, specifically for children in the Americas. The post expands on the content in terms of understanding how assessment is used as a tool for a child's learning in indigenous-heritage communities.

In many indigenous communities of the Americas, children rely on assessment to master a task. Assessment can include the appraisal of oneself, as well as appraisal through external influences. Children learn by correction and acceptance feedback as they actively participate in their activity. While contributing in the task, children are constantly appraising their learning progress based on the reaction of their support. Based on this reaction children modify their behavior in mastering their activity.

In Mexican Indigenous heritage, there is available feedback to a learner by observing the results of their contribution and by observing if their support accepted or corrected them. For example, a 5 year old girl shapes and cooks tortillas with her mother, when the girl would make irregular tortilla shapes her mother would focus her daughter’s attention to an aspect of her own shaping, by doing this the young girl would imitate her mother’s movements and improve her own skills. This example shows how the feedback given by the mother helped the young girl appraise her own work and correct it.

The Chippewa offer assessment and feedback in variety of ways. They would punish, reward, frighten and scold the children, however no real emphasis was placed on these methods. Generally speaking, Chippewa children were not given much praise for their contributions. Occasionally the parents would offer assessment through rewards given to the child. These rewards were given as feedback for work well done, and came in the form of a toy carved out of wood, a doll of grass, or maple sugar. When children did not meet expectations, and failed in their contributions, Chippewa parents made sure not to use ridicule as a means of assessment. The Chippewa also recognized the adverse effects of excessive scolding to a child’s learning process. Chippewa parents believed that scolding a child too much would “make them worse,” thus hindering the child’s ability to learn

For the Chillihuani community in Peru, parents bring up children in a manner that allows them to grow maturely with values like responsibility and respect. These values ultimately influence how children learn in this community. Parents from the Chillihuani community offer assessment of their children through praise, even if the child’s contribution is not perfect. Additionally, feedback can come in the form of responsibility given for a difficult task, with less supervision. This responsibility is an important aspect of the learning process for children in Chillihuani because it allows them advance their skills. At only five years old, children are expected to herd sheep, alpaca and llamas with the accompaniment of an older sibling or adult relative. By age 8, children take on the responsibility of herding alone even in unfavorable weather conditions. Children are assessed in terms of their ability to handle difficult tasks and then praised on a job well done by their parents. This supports the learning development of the child’s skills, and encourages their continued contributions.

mimperat (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)mimperat

References

Adding references for language revitalization section

Aguilera, D., & LeCompte, M.D. (2007). Resiliency in native languages: The tale of three indigenous communities' experiences with language immersion. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 11-36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398541.

Hermes, Mary. (2007). Moving toward the language: reflections on teaching in an Indigenous-Immersion school. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 54-71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398543.

Lee, T.S. (2007). “If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all schools”: Navajo teenagers’ experiences, choices, and demands regarding Navajo language. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(1), 7-33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131300.

McCarty, T.L., & Nicholas, S.E. (2014). Reclaiming Indigenous languages: A reconsideration of the roles and responsibilities of schools. Review of Research in Education, 38, 106-136. doi: 10.3102/0091732X13507894.

McCarty, T.L, Romero, M.E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the gift: Indigenous youth counter-narratives on Native language loss and revitalization. American Indian Quarterly, 30(1/2), 28-48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4138910.

Ngai, P. B. (2008). An emerging Native language education framework for reservation public schools with mixed populations. Journal of American Indian Education, 47(2), 22-50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398557 Meghankoos (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding "Language Revitalization Efforts in Schools" Section

Many Native American and Indigenous communities in the United States are working to revitalize their Indigenous languages. These language revitalization efforts often take place in schools, via language immersion programs.

Overview

Through many studies, researchers have suggested the importance of these language revitalization efforts to preserve Native culture. The extinction of these languages is one reason revitalization efforts are needed. According to McCarty, Romero, and Zepeda (2006), “84% of all Indigenous languages in the United States and Canada have no new speakers to pass them on” (p. 29). It is important that we do not lose these languages because the language is a path to preserving Native heritage, which includes “knowledge of medicine, religion, cultural practices and traditions, music, art, human relationships and child-rearing practices, as well as Indigenous ways of knowing about the sciences, history, astronomy, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007, p. 12). “Duane Mistaken Chief, a member of the Blackfeet tribe, explains that American Indians use words and phrases to reconstruct their cultures and to heal themselves. By studying the Indian words, they learn to respect themselves. From the Indian point of view, the traditional language is a sacred gift, the symbol of one’s identity, the embodiment of one’s culture and traditions, a means for expressing inner thoughts and feelings, and the source of ancestral wisdom” (Ngai, 2008, p. 26). Additionally, linguists and community members believe in the importance of revitalizing Native languages because “it is at once a direction for research, action, and documentation” (Hermes, 2007, p.5). Finally, it has been suggested that it is especially important to recognize Native languages in school settings because this leads to teachers recognizing the people, which leads to self-esteem and academic success for the students (Ngai, 2008).

School Language Immersion Models

Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) compared case studies of three different language-immersion programs in schools in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Navajo Nation. They examined evidence from prior research studies, examined descriptive documents from the study participants, conducted phone interviews and email exchanges with executive directors and school district administrators, and utilized other research on language-immersion models. In addition to qualitative evidence, they analyzed quantitative data such as school test scores and demographic.

Through their comparison of test data, Aguilera and LeCompte found that there was an increase in performance on state benchmark exam scores by the Ayaprun- and Dine’- immersion students. On the flip side, there was lower performance in these schools on the norm-referenced tests. However, the researchers note that these tests are often biased, negatively impacting Indigenous students (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007). Ultimately, the researchers did not find that one immersion model had a higher academic achievement impact on Native students than the other studies. However, they “agree with language experts that total immersion is a more effective approach to achieving proficiency in a Native language” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007, p. 31).

Through their study, Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) examined the language nest and two-way immersion models. Another researcher, Lee (2007), examined “compartmentalizing” through both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitatively, Lee examined language levels, language usage, and lifespan experiences of Navajo students. Qualitatively, Lee interviewed Navajo students to learn more about their feelings and opinions on learning the Navajo language. Below are descriptions of the three school models used in the studies by Aguilera, LeCompte, and Lee.

• Language nest – This model is used by the Native Hawaiian Aha Punana Leo consortium and begins in preschools. “In the language nest preschools, the Indigenous language is considered the student’s first language, and children converse and study in that language, every day and all day” (Aguilera and LeCompte, 2007, p. 7). These students are taught in English only after they are literate in their Indigenous language.

• Two-Way Language-Immersion Model – In this model, maintenance of the Native language is promoted, while students also learn a second language. This model typically lasts from five to seven years. One form of a two-way language immersion model is the 50-50 model, in which students use English half of the class time and the target Native language the other half of the class time. The other model is a 90-10 model, in which students use the target Native language 90% of the time beginning in kindergarten. These students then increase the use of English “by 10% annually until both languages are used equally—a 50-50 split by fourth grade” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007, p.10).

• Compartmentalizing— Schools that do not have full immersion programs often use compartmentalizing. Compartmentalizing refers to the Indigenous language being taught as a separate topic of study as opposed to having students instructed in the Native language for their academic content areas. According to Lee (2007), compartmentalizing is the most common approach for teaching Navajo language in schools today.

Through her study, Lee (2007) concluded that “Navajo-language use in the home was the strongest influence over the students’ current Navajo-language level and Navajo-language use” (p. 28). She noted that “schools need to become more proactive in language revitalization” and shared that she found the compartmentalizing language-immersion programs in her study “modest” and “the language was mostly taught as though all the students were monolingual English speakers” (Lee, 2007, p. 29). Ultimately, the researcher asserts that in order for language-immersion programs to be done well, schools need to invest in more resources, improved teaching pedagogy, and the development of students’ critical thinking and critical consciousness skills” (Lee, 2007).

Difficulties of Implementation

Despite much interest in language revitalization efforts in Native communities, it can be challenging when it comes to program implementation. Research suggests several factors in the United States that make it difficult to implement language immersion programs in schools.

Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) found the following difficulties in their study:

• An “overwhelming pressure to teach English, especially due to the “recent emphasis on high-stakes testing in English” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007, p. 12).
• “Lack of importance given to cultural aspects of language by non-native educators and policymakers” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007, p. 12)
• Lack of family participation, due to parents’ fears that their children will not learn English or be successful if they participate in an immersion program (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007)
• Securing long term funding to sustain programs (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007)

Other studies found additional difficulties in implementation:

• Hostile Policies: McCarty and Nicholas (2014) conducted qualitative research on language revitalization efforts for the Mohawk, Navajo, Hawaiian, and Hopi people and found one difficulty in implementation was hostile policies toward bi/multilingual education efforts (McCarty & Nicholas, 2014)

• Scarcity of Indigenous Staff and Resources: Mary Hermes opened Waadookodaading, a language immersion school centered around the Ojibwe language. The school is located near a reservation of about 3,000 enrolled members, but as of 2007, there were only approximately 10 fluent speakers (Hermes, 2007). Because of massive language loss among Indigenous groups, it can be difficult to find fluent native speakers. It is necessary to have high language proficiency in order to teach in an immersion school. (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007), (Hermes, 2007). Not only do immersion teachers need to be fluent in the language, but they also need to be skilled in pedagogy which presents additional challenges. Requirements from the NCLB state that paraprofessionals need to have at least an associate’s degree, and those working in the primary grades to have early childhood education coursework. Oftentimes, the people who would serve in these positions in language immersion schools are elders, and they do not have these requirements (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007), (Hermes, 2007). Additionally, a lack of materials in Indigenous languages results in a demand on educators to produce the materials along the way (Hermes, 2007)

• Conflicting Perspectives: Ngai (2008) conducted qualitative research on Salish language revitalization efforts by speaking with 89 participants through 101 interviews in three different school districts on the Flathead Indian Reservation. His goal through his research was to produce a framework that could be used for Native language education in districts that had a mix of Native and non-Native students (Ngai, 2008). Ngai found that, “Language revitalization is particularly challenging in school districts with a mix of AI/AN and non-Native populations because of the co-existence of diverse and often conflicting perspectives” (p.23).

Helpful Factors in Language Immersion Implementation

Despite the challenges of creating and maintaining immersion programs, there are many schools in existence today. Researchers suggest the following factors as helpful in leading to implementation of immersion models.

• Leadership and community activism – Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) noted that having Indigenous leaders who are invested in implementing these models is critical. In another study, Ngai (2008) notes that, “In public schools, the continuation of Salish language instruction since the 1970s can be attributed to the efforts of Salish-language teachers who are willing to step into a traditionally hostile setting in order to pass the language on to the young.”

• School Autonomy – Many schools have applied for charter status in order to protect language-immersion schools from being closed by school members who object to the programs. Charter status also allows schools the flexibility to gain more funding (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007).

• Partnerships with higher education systems—In order to implement a language immersion model, schools must have trained teachers. Several of the communities where language immersion models have been successful are, “situated in communities where there is access to higher education degree programs, and some of these postsecondary institutions offer Native language classes” (Aguilera & LeCompte, 2007).

Meghankoos (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Presently, nearly the entire article is a word-for-word duplication from this book starting at the heading "Cultural context of Indigenous learning in the Americas". All the sources cited in the book were simply turned into wiki references. This is a major copyright violation. The cleanest version of the article I could find dates back to December 2011. I am reverting to that date. Any new edits must adhere to Wikipedia's copyright policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, This is a backwards copy, see my explanation at Talk:Mind map#Copyvio violation for when I previously encountered an issue with that book. Not your fault, it was completely unattributed, and it looks like an actual book even though it's some sort of scam. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)