CTX and Modeling - Alaska Indigenous€¦ · Web viewDatnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3, 215-239. Demmert,

The Role of Culture in Culturally Compatible Education

Tasha R. Wyatt

Inerisaavik: The Institute for Arctic Education

P.O. Boks #110

3900 Nuuk, Greenland

MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED TO: Journal of American Indian Education

The Role of Culture, p. 1

Abstract

In spite of colossal efforts to transform educational spaces for culturally and linguistically

diverse learners, undesirable ideology still manages to appear in transformed classrooms. This

article demonstrates how despite a commitment to culturally compatible education, reform

leaders in Greenland interpreted a model of effective pedagogy developed by the Center for

Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) in ways that promoted a continued colonial

perspective in the Greenlandic schools. By analyzing reform leaders’ interpretation of two

CREDE Standards, this article shows that in spite of the research on how to use appropriate

pedagogy in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, Danish reform

leaders interpreted contextualization and modeling in a way that undermined the cultural and

political goals of Greenland’s reform.


The Role of Culture in Culturally Compatible Education

Introduction to Greenland

In the 1970’s and earlier, Greenland’s school system was largely a copy of European

models developed in Denmark and Scandinavia and reflected little of the Greenlandic culture

(Olsen, 2005). Several reforms were initiated in the 1970s and early 1990s that made slight

adjustments to the educational system already in place, but had little impact on classroom

instruction (Olsen, 2005). Atuarfitsialak, Greenland’s latest educational reform, is by far

Greenland’s most comprehensive efforts at change. Its purpose is to shift from the European

model of schooling and build a system using the “cultural competence and educational needs of

Greenlandic students” (Olsen, 2005, p. 1).

Strengthening Greenlandic identity has been a priority for Greenlanders since the

abolishment of Greenland’s colonial status in 1953, but even more so with the establishment of

Home Rule in 1979. Advocates for Home Rule saw education as a means to strengthen

Greenlandic cultural and national identity (Goldbach & Winther-Jensen, 1988). One participant

explained that it was a political value of the 1970s through the 1990s that the design of activities

in Greenland had to be Greenlandic: “As a nation we had to improve our identity by working

with our language and culture” (Interview with Kaali Olsen, March 3, 2006). This

“Greenlandization” was carried forward into the development of Atuarfitsialak so that the new

school system was designed to fit “the culture, language, and history of Greenland” (Interview

with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). The result was the adoption of Principles for Effective

Teaching and Learning developed by the Center for Research on Education Diversity and

Excellence (CREDE) as a means to assist in the development of culturally compatible

education.


Culturally Compatible Education. The culturally compatible hypothesis (Jordan & Tharp,

1979) assumes that culturally-based differences between the home and school may lead to

“conflicts, misunderstandings, and ultimately failure for those students” (Ledlow, 1992, p. 23).

This hypothesis suggests that for some groups of students, transition to school is difficult

because these differences are too overwhelming to overcome. Further, if these differences were

minimized, then all students would have an equal opportunity to achieve success (Baker, 1997;

Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994b). The null form of this hypothesis is the existence of a

universal approach to instruction that is effective in any setting.

In designing culturally compatible education, initiators are faced with how to define

culture and how it will be understood and used in education. Often, indigenous groups shift the

language of instruction to be more culturally compatible (Todal, 2003; Yamauchi, Ceppi, &

Lau-Smith, 2000). For example, Ke Kula Kaiapuni, a K-12 public school program in Hawaii

was established as an attempt to revive the Hawaiian language after colonialism nearly wiped

out its use (Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 2000). Kaiapuni students are instructed in

Hawaiian and participate in a curriculum infused with Hawaiian values. Similarly, in New

Zealand, Maori parents felt the public school system was not compatible with Maori culture and

belief systems (Smith, 2000). Their efforts resulted in range of alternative schooling innovations

that have focused on Maori language and cultural revitalization.

The most promising initiatives have approached culturally compatible education at the

level of pedagogy by paying particular attention to the role assistance plays in cultural

expression (Tharp, 2006). The Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) in Hawaii has

produced some of the most compelling evidence for how culture can be used in education of

diverse learners (Ledlow, 1992). Researchers interested in identifying Hawaiian students’ low

academic achievement and high dropout rate, employed anthropologists to study Hawaiian


students’ social organization and sociolinguistic patterns. Their observations resulted in a

program specifically designed for Hawaiian students’ social and linguistic needs (Tharp &

Dalton, 2007). Standardized tests indicated that students’ literacy and reading skills were

improved as a result of participating in this program (Au & Jordan, 1981).

To test whether the KEEP program was universally applicable or culturally specific,

researchers transferred the identical pattern of classroom organization into Navajo classrooms.

Tharp and Dalton (2007) wrote “In surface appearance, the Hawaiian and Navajo classrooms’

common pedagogical system made for instant recognition as sister programmes” (p. 56). Yet,

there were more subtle differences in teaching that rendered the program ineffective for Navajo

students. Tharp (2008) argues that the differences between the two are a direct result of cultural

patterning in interaction between teacher-student and student-student expressed in the

classroom.

Tharp (1989) wrote that in the natal Hawaiian culture, collaboration, cooperation and

assisted performance are commonplace, but in the Navajo classroom, students are not

accustomed to these types of interaction patterns. Navajo students didn’t solicit feedback or

assistance from others as was often seen with Hawaiian students. Other sociolinguistic

differences included Navajo children requiring longer speech turns and wait times between

turns, whereas Hawaiian children overlapped their speech and participated in co-narration

(Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Additionally, peer interaction required smaller groups and same-sex

grouping in Navajo society.

Jordan (1992) concluded that the necessity to modify the Hawaiian-culturally

compatible KEEP program to a Native American, Navajo-culturally compatible supported the

idea that classrooms need to be considered for their specific cultural differences. These cultural

differences are played out most explicitly in student-teacher interaction and means of assistance.


While all teachers of Hawaiian and Navajo students used a variety of means of assistance, Tharp

(2008) wrote that there were cultural “preferences and frequencies in the patterns of usage [that]

were sharply different in effectiveness across cultures” (p. 815). Hawaiian children responded

well to questioning, instruction, and contingency management (reinforcement to shape

behavior), where as Navajo children were most responsive to cognitive structuring and

modeling-demonstration. Culture was expressed in these educational programs through patterns

of interaction and social organization that were familiar to the individual cultural groups.

Key findings in the KEEP work include four variable cultural features recognized as

important in tailoring educational settings for cultural compatibility (Tharp & Dalton, 2007):

Motivation (individual or collective); cognition (holistic or analytic); sociolinguistics (courtesies

and conventions of conversation); and social organization (age, gender, and adult-child

relationships). According to Tharp (1989), these psycho-cultural variables need to be examined

and adjusted in the tailoring of classrooms to children of different cultures. Further, an emphasis

on language development and contextualized instruction should be included, regardless of

cultural settings.

CREDE’s Principles for Effective Teaching and Learning

Greenland’s reform leaders adopted CREDE’s Principles for Effective Teaching and

Learning to assist in creating culturally compatible education. Many of the same researchers and

educators who worked in Hawaii’s KEEP program were also employed at CREDE and involved

in the research and development of the Standards. These Standards are principles of teaching

and learning designed to assist educators in the promotion of higher level learning (Tharp,

Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). They were developed through a synthesis of 30 years of

research on effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students (Tharp,

Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000).


The Standards derive from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory which suggests that all

higher psychological processes have their roots in social interaction. This theory suggests that

when children interact with people more experienced, they eventually appropriate symbols, such

as language, that are used in the interaction. Learning occurs when community members assist

novices in performing tasks and roles needed to be a part of the larger culture. By engaging in

activity that is familiar, children internalize this cultural knowledge and develop sophisticated

thought processes that further assist in cognitive development. Over time, children need less

assistance until eventually the learners are able to perform the activity on their own.

The first Five Standards are (a) Joint Productive Activity, teachers and students

collaborating on joint products; (b) Language and Literacy Development, teachers supporting

language development in all classrooms and subjects; (c) Contextualization, teachers making

connections between students’ prior knowledge and new information; (d) Complex Thinking,

teachers supporting students’ engagement and skills in complex thinking; and (e) Instructional

Conversation, teachers instructing though dialogue (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi,

2000). The sixth Standard, (f) Modeling, makes use of indigenous student’s preference for

learning by observation (Cazden & John, 1971). It is based on traditional ways of learning that

include modeling and observation (Hilberg, Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000). The seventh Standard,

(g) Self-Directed Activities, promotes student involvement in decision-making. Standards six

and seven were initially conceptualized only for teacher use when working with indigenous

groups (Hilberg, Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000).

Several studies have found higher enactment of the Standards is related to greater student

achievement (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). For example, in a study of bilingual

elementary classrooms, Estrada (2004) found that student achievement in English and Spanish

was strongest among students whose teachers implemented the first Five Standards to a higher


degree. Dohery, Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003) found that compared to another school

matched on student characteristics, achievement was higher at an elementary school

implementing the Five Standards. Within the latter school, achievement was highest for students

whose teachers were more successful in enacting the CREDE Standards rated by the Standards

Performance Continuum (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003).

Several studies conducted by Saunders and Goldenberg (1999a; b) have found the

Instructional Conversation to be useful in assisting students’ thematic understanding of

literature. When the Instructional Conversation was coupled with Contextualization there was

an even greater effect for English Language Learners (ELL). Other studies have shown that

Joint Productive Activity (JPA) is positively related to Latino ELL students’ meta-cognitive

development and use of effective reading strategies (Doherty & Pinal, 2002).

Greenland & The CREDE Standards. Prior to the adoption of CREDE’s model of

effective pedagogy, Greenland’s reform leaders spent several years studying the Standards and

discussing their applicability in the Greenlandic context. Many of the participants in this study

visited the CREDE institute in Santa Cruz, California where they attended researcher-facilitated

workshops and courses. They also read related books and articles and observed laboratory

classrooms that employed the Standards. Finally, in 2004, reform leaders adopted the CREDE

model as a means of fulfilling the New School Act of 2002.

However, soon after Greenland’s adoption of pedagogical model, conflict erupted between

Danish and Greenlandic reform leaders. Reform leaders opposed each other’s interpretation of

the Contextualization and Modeling Standard that eventually resulted in Danish reform leader’s

resistance to implementation. Using grounded theory, this study aimed to understand why these

two Standards were viewed as problematic for Danish reform leaders and yet highly coveted by

the Greenalnders.


Method

Participants

Participants included 11 key informants (Fontana & Frey, 1997; Yin, 2003) who were

selected based on their employment tenure at Inerisaavik, the institute responsible for

implementation of Atuarfitsialak. All 11 participants were involved in the reform in its initial

stages or shortly thereafter, apart from one participant who had been working for Inerisaavik for

only a few months at the time of his interview.

Four of the 11 participants worked as consultants for Inerisaavik, advising teachers on

curricular issues. Three were a part of Inerisaavik’s leadership group, responsible for making

decisions for the organization and delegating tasks to subordinates. An additional two were

politicians from the Ministry of Education and were responsible for writing new legislation for

Greenland’s schools. These nine participants were part of a highly educated and politically

sophisticated group of Greenlanders who have been working for many years toward the goals of

Greenland’s independence from Denmark (R. Tharp, personal communication, May 8, 2007). In

fact, a number of these participants were involved in the 1960s movement that resulted in the

establishment of Greenland’s Home Rule government. The final two participants were external

consultants to Inerisaavik and had been involved in Greenland’s reform for several decades.

Data Collection & Analysis

Data was collected through participant observations and informal interviews (Fontana &

Frey, 1997). Participant observations were conducted on an on-going basis beginning in August,

2005 and were used to capture various realities within the reform. Observations allowed for

various complexities to emerge and informed further research questions (Alexander, 1982).

Semi-structured interviews made use of probing and open-ended questioning techniques in

order to elicit richness in responses (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).


Constant-comparative methods were used to analyze the data. According to Cohen,

Manion, and Morrison (2000), constant comparison method of analysis has its roots in grounded

theory methodology in which the process of data collection and data analysis is interactive,

iterative, and can be revised with new information. Using this technique, data are collected by

comparing social phenomena across categories allowing new categories and dimensions to

emerge. Because this study has its roots in grounded theory, these emergent themes shaped

further lines of inquiry.

It is recommended for qualitative work that at least 4-12 months of prolonged engagement

is spent in the field (Creswell & Miller, 2000). For this study, 18 months were spent living and

working in Greenland. Validity was also used by employing two colleagues who were used for

peer debriefing (Creswell & Miller, 2000). These peers challenged assumptions, asked difficult

questions, and assisted in clarifying themes in the study. One peer was an outsider to the

Greenlandic community and was used as a sounding board for broader issues of equity, access

to education, and political development. The second peer was employed in the research

department at Inerisaavik and had previously analyzed issues related to mental colonization in

Greenland.

Results

In 2000, reform leaders in Greenland adopted the CREDE Standards for Effective

Teaching and Learning as a means of implementing Atuarfitsialak. At first, reform leaders were

pleased with how the Standards dovetailed with the new School Act. One participant explained

that “every standard fits in the paragraphs [of the new School Act]. I have found a paragraph

[for] each Standard, so it is, in fact . . . the new School Act” (Interview with Bent Mortenson,

September 1, 2005).


In time, contextualization and modeling were deemed problematic in teaching in the

Greenlandic context. Although both groups viewed contextualization and modeling as effective

teaching tools, Danish and Greenlandic reform leaders disagreed on how to interpret their use.

Greenlandic reform leaders hoped the Standards would highlight Greenlandic cultural strengths,

thereby instilling a strong sense of pride and self-efficacy. Danish reform leaders were a bit

sceptical in using aspects of Greenlandic culture to teach. They interpreted the Standards in

ways that undermined the local Greenlandic culture, submerging it with a Danish ideology and

colonial power relations.

Contextualization

Initially, the CREDE Standard, contextualization, was thought to be one of two ways that

Greenlandic culture could be expressed in the classroom. Contextualization couches new

material in students’ prior knowledge from home, school, and community in order to create

meaningful connections between known and unknown material (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, &

Yamauchi, 2000). Yamauchi, Wyatt, and Taum (2005) describe it as “both teaching in ways that

are consistent with familiar socialization patterns and using curriculum that integrates academic

concepts with students’ prior knowledge” (p. 4).

Contextualization of new material can be approached in a several ways. One method is to

use students’ personal schemata to introduce new material. For example, KEEP’s Experience-

Text-Relationship (E-T-R) method in which to teacher draws upon relevant personal

experiences to introduce new instruction (Au & Jordan, 1981). Another example comes from

the work of Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) who promote teachers’ use of students’

“funds of knowledge.” These knowledge funds include the social, economic, and productive

activities of a group that are found in local households. Other reseachers, such as Demmert and

Towner (2003) suggest that there is a hierarchy within funds of knowledge and have criticized


cognitive theorists for not making a distinction between types or sources of knowledge. They

write “‘teen culture’ elements, introduced to assist comprehension of curriculum, . . . [could be

viewed] as efficacious as traditional cultural elements” (p. 8). In essence, the cognitive process

in all of these methods is the same. However, in postcolonial contexts like Greenland,

contextualization may not be as straight forward. Educators need to think critically about what

aspect of society they are drawing attention to before linking new material to student

experience.

According to Greenlandic reform leaders, contextualization was thought to be essential in

the instruction of Greenland’s indigenous population, specifically because many students don’t

have the experience of relating to many topics covered in the curriculum. Fleischer expressed

the need for contextualization because students’ home life was not considered enough in reform

development. He believes the new school system was “built up on another kind of student . . .

(a) normal student, maybe a normal European student” without giving enough attention to

Greenlandic students’ home life (Interview with Kunuunnguaq Fleischer, May 26, 2006). He

argued that issues of abuse, neglect, and violence that characterize many Greenlandic students’

lives were largely unconsidered in reform development. As a consequence, unless teachers

contextualize activities in the home with those in school, the needs of these students will remain

unaddressed.

Fleischer explained that before Atuarfitsialak was implemented, Greenland’s educational

system was largely Danish in nature and therefore, incompatible with Greenlandic culture. He

attributed the low graduation rate of Greenlandic students to the Danish way of teaching

entrenched within the school system and to Danish perceptions about what it meant to be a

successful Greenlander. He explains


I think the 5,000 educated Greenlanders had been some of the good Greenlanders in the

Danish eyes. We have been able to learn Danish, speak Danish, read Danish and act Danish.

That is why we, in some ways, we succeeded in the Danish system. All the rest who never

learned Danish or learned . . . Danish irony or the Danish way of living, they couldn’t follow the

teaching, I am afraid . . . I see that we have some very Danish demands in the system. (Interview

with Kunuunnguaq Fleischer, May 26, 2006)

According to Kaali, Greenlanders have adopted a negative self-image, as a result of

Danish teaching in Greenlandic schools. He claims “That is another heritage from the Danish

colonialist way of looking at Greenlanders. There are only some Greenlanders who can really

develop to become real Europeans; to become [full of] pride and intelligent individuals”

(Interview with Kaali Olsen, March 3, 2006). These comments illustrate one of the effects of

colonialism; only certain individuals will be deemed acceptable by the colonizing group, and it

is usually in response to how well the colonizing culture has been adopted. Gramsci (1971)

would interpret Danish success in terms of how well the dominant ideological hegemony was

internalized by the Greenlanders.

Greenlandic reform leaders interpreted the contextualization Standard in ways that were

consistent with the “Greenlandization” of society. One reform leader suggested that indigenous

worldviews be used, such as traditional Inuit epistemology (Kaali Olsen, personal

communication, January 22, 2007). To begin, teachers could present a subject in a holistic

manner beginning with a wide view of the topic and then presenting a more analytical approach.

Students taught in this way would for example, better understand the influence history and

politics have on the creation of knowledge. In this participant’s opinion, holistic teaching would

assist students in seeing how knowledge comes to be valued in a society. In turn, teachers would

replace colonial pedagogy with strategies more aligned with the Greenlandic culture and create


a consciousness that pushes against the dominant perspective. Researchers have noted that

teaching in a holistic manner is an effective teaching method for educators working with Native

American students (Rhodes, 1988; Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994a).

In contrast to the Greenlandic point of view, Danish reform leaders were a bit more

cautious in using contextualization. One participant thought that culture should remain

undefined, cautioning that “the minute you go in and define what Greenlandic or Danish culture

is, that culture is dead.” As one participant explained

(A person) should never, never, never, never define what Greenlandic culture is, or Danish

culture, or British culture . . . because then you sort of draw a line in the sand . . . (and) say, the

way the majority is thinking on this date, on this year is what is defined as our culture so that

you cannot change it because it will be un-Greenlandic or un-Danish. . . . Culture only lives

when you are debating what culture is and what it means. (Interview with Lone Hindby,

February 10, 2006)

This participant views culture as alive and organic. Although she supports contextualizing

learning, defining culture, even for classroom use, is to somehow render it impotent. Rather, this

reform leader argued for teachers’ use of socio-economic status in contextualizing material. She

explained that economic resources are more important in defining a person’s experience than

their cultural background. In her view, socioeconomic status determines who has access to

aspects of European culture. Abundant financial resources will produce a different kind of

Greenlandic student compared to a child who comes from hunting and fishing family (Interview

with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006). If teachers contextualize material based on anything

else, they run the risk of attributing activities and characteristics that only exist for small sample

of Greenlanders.


However, Hindby admits that it is difficult to contextualize new learning, especially if you

are not familiar with the students’ family background. A teacher cannot assume that the child

has had an experience that can be used. She explains,

The problem is how will you do that without knowing exactly the circumstances and

surrounds that the child is living in. You sort of have to try it out. You need to know the family

and say, okay, this is a fishing family, who moved from a settlement and the father is a drunk.

And this other family is going on vacation to Europe twice a year and he is going with them,

and he has got everything. (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)

According to Hindby, contextualizing new material in students’ prior experiences is hit or

miss situation. What might work for one student, may not work for another. When asked if there

were any universal or communal activities a teacher could use, she responded “I don’t think you

could be sure of that” (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006).

Gramsci (1971) argues that most ruling classes, such as the Danes in the Greenlandic

context, don’t use force or coercion to achieve their status. Rather, dominating groups create

subjects who become willingly subservient by using the existing hegemony of the dominant

group to “teach” students about their place in society. This participant argues that

socioeconomic status be used to contextualize new learning without reflection as to how

families achieved their lower class status in the first place. Contextualizing material according

to socioeconomic status may teach students new material, but undermine the students’ self-

efficacy for changing his/her current position in society. Likewise, students may be affirmed in

their superior status in Greenlandic society. Creating meaningful curricular experiences based

on socioeconomic status has the potential to perpetuate inequities between the two cultural

groups.


Another Danish participant expressed that consistent use of contextualization as a

pedagogical tool can be harmful. Christiansen explained that if a natural relationship does not

exist between the familiar content and new material, the teacher runs the risk of creating

“violence on the culture” (Interview with Eric Christiansen, February 10, 2006). In other words,

contextualized lessons have the potential to distort reality by creating a false relationship

between prior and new knowledge if the relationship is not easily recognizable.

Further, this participant expressed that if all new material is contextualized, students won’t

be prepared to participate in a global society where knowledge is often presented in abstract, de-

contextualized ways (Interview with Eric Christiansen, February 10, 2006). Greenlandic

students who are used to this kind of instruction might come to expect teachers to contextualize

new information. As a long-term consequence, the skill of creating relationships between what

is known and unknown will go unlearned. For Christiansen, contextualization will do a

disservice to the very students the reform is targeting.

The importance of contextualization is reported in virtually all successful programs for at-

risk students (Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Contextualization is one of the most thoroughly

researched concepts in psychology and education and remains a popular tool for teacher use in

indigenous education (Tharp, 2006). In spite of this, Christiansen supports a de-contextualized

teaching practice commonly used in European educational settings. Rather than building an

intellectual life on Greenlandic terms, Christiansen endorses teaching in ways that are opposing

for indigenous students. Gramsci (1971) argues that state hegemony not only organizes our

physical lives but our intellectual lives as well. Embracing de-contextualized teaching strategies

would support the dominant view of education embraced in Western practices.

Reform leaders’ discussions on contextualization inevitably turned to the use of traditional

versus contemporary culture when using this strategy to build Greenlandic identity. Danish


reform leaders cautioned that Greenlandic culture could be stereotyped if traditional culture was

used in contextualizing lessons.

I think one should be very, very careful because what sort of culture you are going to use

in the classroom. I think there have been some really bad examples [of contextualization] in

Greenland. All of a sudden everything in the books were about dog sledges and hunting seal on

the ice and nobody in the southern Greenland . . . from Sisimiut . . . down south, have ever even

seen a dog sledge and they don’t know what a dog sledge is, and they don’t hunt seals on the

ice. Actually, seal hunting . . . used to be a common thing in the culture, but these days it is only

a small minority that have really experienced seal hunting. (Interview with Lone Hindby,

February 10, 2006)

In a way, this Danish reform leader was protecting the Greenlandic culture from

stereotyping. However, researchers such as Dirlik (2002), suggest that a search for or the idea of

“pure” identity is futile because all identity, when viewed from an historical perspective, is a

product of one or another form of colonialism. Hybridization of identities is an ongoing

historical process, such that even pre-colonial national identities are products of colonialism.

One of the frontrunners of Greenland’s reform, Olsen urged teachers to use the

Greenlandic culture in their teaching as much as possible. In Olsen’s opinion, teachers should

use the “contemporary culture of the time . . . and the social history of the families” to

contextualize their lessons (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). Olsen, a Ministry of

Education official, explains

What is essential in these families is that they based their life both in the . . . Norwegian

lifestyle, and at the same time in the Eskimo lifestyle. . . . This creates something very dynamic

from my perspective and can be very dynamic in education . . . if you use . . . both sides of these

cultural elements. (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006)


Olsen’s answer to the traditional versus contemporary culture debate is to think about

evolution and change as a part of a group’s culture. He cautions educators and reform leaders to

not see “culture as something unique and not created by the social factors and the history of the

society” (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). In his view, elements brought in by the

colonizers are just as much a part of Greenlandic identity as traditional Eskimo culture.

Modeling

In addition to contextualization, Danish reform leaders expressed strong resistance to the

use of modeling in Greenlandic classrooms, despite its prevalent use in traditional and

contemporary Greenlandic teaching situations. Research shows that modeling is a powerful

form of assistance, shown to be highly effective in the teaching and learning of indigenous

communities (Tharp, 1997; Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994b). CREDE’s strong support of

modeling comes from research by Cazden and John (1971), among others, who characterize

American Indian children’s preference for learning to be “more visual than verbal, more

learning by looking than learning through language” (Cazden & John, 1971, p. 256). It has also

been discussed as a principle of competence before performance, in which the learner judges’

his or her readiness (Cazden & John, 1971). Modeling and demonstration are viewed by

Greenlandic reform leaders as one of the cultural strengths that can be built upon in the

Greenlandic school system.

One of the main concerns of Danish reform leaders was that modeling resulted in

reproduction rather than the generation of new ideas or products (Field Notes, February 9,

2006). For example, one participant expressed that the purpose of teaching was to generate new

knowledge and to create new and better ways of doing something. Modeling was therefore not

associated with teaching, because it left little room for inspiration and the creation of new

knowledge. For example, in a discussion on the role of modeling in art education, one Danish


consultant said, “You create a pig and everyone else produces a pig and it is not the way it . . .

should be” (Interview with Bent Mortensen, September 1, 2005).

Another Danish participant explained modeling can easily be confused with copying: “I

know you can learn a lot from modeling, [but] . . . I am a little concerned . . . because I don’t

want people to misunderstand modeling and think copying” (Interview with Lone Hindby,

February 10, 2006). The participant went on to explain that modeling is an excellent means of

teaching in “natural learning settings” for example where “you learn to hunt the seal,” but may

be inappropriate to use in formal schooling because there is no longer a societal need to perfect

a skill. In her opinion what is needed is innovation or development beyond what has already

been perfected. She elaborated,

So if [a skill has] been perfected for 1,000 years it is difficult to come up with new and

better ways of doing things. . . . If you just learn from modeling you will never be better than the

person who taught us. (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)

Hindby explains that anytime learning a new skill involves using the hands, modeling will

naturally be used to assist a learner. For this purpose, she sees modeling as an appropriate way

of assisting others. However, Hindby cautions that “when learning other things, it is different”

and teachers need to respond by employing other methods.

Hindby explains that one of the difficulties in creating change in Greenland is that the

current school system has traditionally requires students to “copy whatever the teacher says,

wrote and did” (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006) which may be typical of

colonial education. Therefore, she fears that if reform leaders support this form of assistance,

teachers will assume they are able to continue teaching using passive methods. Further, she

explained that modeling is so ingrained in Greenlandic culture that teachers reproduce the same

products in their classrooms after participating professional development. The result is that the


teachers are not bringing new information to their lessons because they are not able to reflect on

what was modeled:

They take it, use it without reflection. Okay, not everybody, but, a lot, a big group. I still

have not forgotten this one workshop on science where this one teacher said, “Well, I took this

one workshop a few years ago and I was taught how to make a lesson plan on, I think it was on

water, and I use it a lot of times in my classes and now I want to learn another lesson”.

(Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)

Hindby seems to be addressing the importance of proper placement of attention when

learning through observation (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura's Social Learning Theory,

observers retain a symbolic representation of the modelled behaviour, which will then serve as a

blueprint for that behaviour. In order to successfully learn something through observation, the

learner’s attention must be guided and properly placed on the desired behavior. Creative thought

processes and problem-solving heuristics can also be modelled and demonstrated. It seems that

Greenland’s reform leaders may need to address this issue as it relates to the professional

development of their teachers.

On the other hand, many of the Greenlandic teachers and consultants found value in

modeling, referencing personal experiences of when it was used as the primary means of

assistance in the Greenlandic home (Field Notes, February 9, 2006). For example, one

consultant shared a story about how one learns to create kamiks, the traditional knee-high

Greenlandic boots made of various traditional materials. In order to successfully learn to sew

kamiks, one has to sit with an expert and observe the technique of pulling the thread tight

against the animal skin and sewing two different materials together without leaving openings for

cold air or snow (S. S. Lynge, personal communication, January 22, 2007).


It seems that Danish reform leaders viewed Greenlandic interaction patterns and social

organization as barriers to progress in Greenland’s educational system. On the advancement of

colonialism, Dirlik (2002) writes that all things indigenous became viewed as an obstacle to

colonial progress, which is echoed in several participants’ comments. Modeling is known to be

widely practiced in Greenland and a preferred means of assistance among people living in the

circumpolar North (Darnell & Hoem, 1996). These forms of assistance express a deep structure

of cultural values and functions in many Greenlandic interactions. And yet, Danish reform

leaders viewed modeling as a barrier rather than a cultural strength to be used in the creation of

culturally compatible education.

Gramsci (1971) sees ideological hegemony as not only political and economic control, but

also the ability of the dominant class to project is own way of seeing the world so that those

who are subordinated by it accept it as common sense. By appealing to one of the difficulties in

observational learning, that of an intended action or behaviour being reproduced, Danish reform

leaders provided a logical argument for why modeling should not be supported in Greenland’s

educational reform. In that way, they may have been somewhat influential in trying to draw

some attention away from its use.

On the other hand, their comments go against proven “best practices” for indigenous

students (Cazden & John, 1971) and many of the goals of Atuarfitsialak. Appropriate teacher-

student interactions have been shown to positively influence learning in Native classrooms (Au

& Jordan, 1981; Erikson & Mohatt, 1982). In fact, the most promising research in culturally

compatible education has come from studies that have manipulated the interaction patterns and

social organization of the classroom to be more aligned with students’ natal culture (Tharp,

2006). It would make sense that modeling would be viewed as a cultural strength and not a

barrier to academic achievement.


Discussion

Considering the larger historical context from which the school was constructed is an

important aspect in school reform. Kawagley and Barnhardt (1999) state that to achieve true

cultural compatibility, the cultural and historical context of schools needs to be examined with

attention to how the rules of engagement were established and the ways in which these rules

remain in place. They point out that there has been much success on the part of indigenous

people in reclaiming their educational systems once activities within the system are reorganized.

However, the initial response by most groups has been “to accept the inherited structures

without question and perpetuate the Western systems that were put in place before, including

their implicit forms of decision making, social stratification and control” (p. 17). These

researchers assert that by changing the structures of the educational system, schools can better

provide “education in the culture, rather than education about the culture” (p. 17).

This study supports the notion that transplanted models, such as the CREDE’s Principles

for Effective Teaching and Learning, may become problematic when introduced in a new

context. Beliefs and assumptions underlying externally developed models play an important role

in reform success. Datnow (2002) explains that conflicting beliefs between the model and

participating educators are a common barrier to reform success. Reform leaders and educators

may not fully understand how to implement the imported model or in some cases, may not agree

with the model’s approach.

Hu’s (2002) work suggests that sometimes the receiving culture cannot support imported

models because of deep seated beliefs about teaching and learning processes. In Hu’s study of a

highly revered English language program imported to China, Hu found that cultural differences

between the teaching/learning model for English and traditional Chinese culture were too great

to overcome. Incongruence between Confucian reverence for knowledge written in books and


the program’s emphasis on conversation and dialogue resulted in the model’s failure to teach

Chinese students to speak English. Failure occurred despite the program’s use of techniques

supported by most Western language specialists.

Conflicting beliefs may help to explain why Danish reform leaders in Greenland did not

support all aspects of the CREDE model of pedagogy. Contextualization is a major component

in the creation of culturally compatible classrooms and educational programs (Demmert &

Towner, 2003). It is one of the most fully studied and supported principles in both cognitive

science and sociocultural theory (Tharp, 2005). And yet, many of the Danish participants were

uneasy in embracing its use.

Further, an earlier study on the implementation of Greenland’s reform may assist in

explaining reform leaders’ resistance to Contextualization and Modeling. Author (in

preparation) found that when Greenlandic reform leaders addressed the goals of Atuarfitsialak,

they consistently mentioned the impact colonialism has had on Greenland’s history and in

particular the Greenlandic educational system. Atuarfitsialak was viewed as a means for

decolonizing the classroom and subsequently ameliorating many of the problems in society. On

the other hand, Danish reform leaders never made reference to Greenland’s status as a former

colony of Denmark or the impact colonialism has had on the Greenlandic people. In this way,

Danish and Greenlandic participants may not have shared the same goals for Atuarfitsialak.

This study shows that issues related to colonization take a long time to resolve and in

some cases, may never be resolved. Just because the colonizing government pulls out physically

does not mean that the former colonized area is able to quickly create a new way of living and

feeling in society. Patterns of behavior and thought processes remain entrenched and in many

ways continue to hold formerly colonized groups into fixed realities (Loomba, 1998). Viewed in

this light, Danish reform leaders may have viewed themselves as “helping” Greenlanders by


offering seemingly valid arguments against CREDE pedagogy. Their arguments may have come

from a sincere desire to assist in Greenland’s educational reform. Therefore, Hoffman (1999)

challenges researchers to not simplify resistance and set individuals up against the dominant

groups or ideas, but to explore the cultural models of the groups appearing resistant.

Finally, the success of Atuarfitsialak appears to rest on Greenland’s ability to make candid

the larger societal goals in Greenland. The Greenlanders may need to fully express their desire

for self-determination and their intention on working towards this end. In addition, the role of

non-indigenous people working to support the Greenlandic effort needs to be clarified. Kaomea

(2005) writes

Perhaps the most helpful role that can be assumed by non-Natives who are interested in

assisting with Indigenous self-determination efforts . . . is to work collaboratively with Native

allies, listen closely to out wisdom as well as our concern, interrogate unearned power and

privilege (including one’s own), and use this privilege to confront oppression and “stand

behind” Natives, so that our voices can be heard. (p. 40)

Until indigenous communities are self-sustaining, they may need to elicit the assistance of

non-Native people (Kaomea, 2005). In Greenland, this will necessitate clarity for how

transplanted Danes will work with Greenlandic culture to ensure Atuarfitsialak’s success.


References

Alexander, R. B. (1982). Participant observation, ethnography, and their use in educational evaluation: A review of selected works. Studies in Art Education, 24(1), 63-69.

Au, K. H. P., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture in the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 140-162). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Author. (in preparation). Atuarfitsialak: Greenland's culturally compatible reform.Baker, B. (1997). Anthropology and teacher preparation: Some possibilities and

precautions. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 41-58.Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Orrville, Ohio: Prentice Hall.Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Cazden, C., & John, V. P. (1971). Learning in American Indian children. In M. L. Wax, S.

Diamond & F. O. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 252-272). New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, D. K., Marion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th Edition). London: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. J. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3, 215-239.

Demmert, W. G., & Towner, J. C. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influence of culturally based education on the academic performance of Native American students. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Dirlik, A. (2002). Rethinking colonialism: Globalization, postcolonialism, and the nation. Interventions, 4(3), 428-448.

Doherty, W. R., Hilberg, R., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. G. (2003). Five standards and student achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1-24.

Doherty, W. R., & Pinal, A. (2002, November 2002). Joint productive activity, cognitive reading strategies, and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Atlanta, GA.

Erikson, R., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural Organization of participant structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.

Estrada, P. (2004). Patterns of language arts instructional activity and excellence in first- and fourth-grade culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U. S. classrooms (pp. 122-143). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). Interviewing: The art of science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goldbach, I., & Winther-Jensen, T. (1988). Greenland: Society and education. Comparative Education, 24(2), 257-266.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.


Hilberg, R., Tharp, R. G., & DeGeest, L. (2000). The efficacy of CREDE's Standards-based instruction in American Indian mathematics classes. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33(2), 32-36.

Hoffman, D. (1999). Turning power inside out: Reflections on resistance from the (anthropological) field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6), 671-687.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.

Jordan, C. (1992). The role of culture in minority school achievement. Kamehameha Journal of Education, 3(2), 53-67.

Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1979). Culture and Education. In A. J. Marsella, R. G. Tharp & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 265-285). New York: Academic Press.

Kaomea, J. (2005). Indigenous studies in the elementary curriculum: A cautionary Hawaiian example. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 24-42.

Kawagley, A. O., & Barnhardt, R. (1999). Education indigenous to place: Western science meets native reality. In G. A. Smith & D. R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action (pp. 117-140). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Ledlow, S. (1992). Is cultural discontinuity an adequate explanation for dropping out? Journal of American Indian Education, 31(3), 21-36.

Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/ Post Colonialism. New York: Routledge.Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for

teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes to classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141.

Olsen, K. K. (2005). Educating teachers from a Vygotskian point of view: The Greenlandic school reform and what it implies for classroom practices and further education (professional development) for teachers, . Seville, Spain: International Society for Cultural and Activity Research.

Rhodes, R. W. (1988). Holistic teaching/learning for Native American students. Journal of American Indian Education, UNKNOWN(UNKNOWN), NKNOWN.

Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999a). The effects of comprehensive Language Arts/Transition Program on the literacy development of English learners (Technical Report): Santa Cruz, CA, Center for Research, Diversity, & Excellence, University of California.

Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999b). The effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluent-English proficient students' story comprehension and thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 277-301.

Smith, G. (2000). Maori education: Revolution and transformative action. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 24(1), 57-72.

Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learning in schools. American Psychologists, 44(2), 349-359.

Tharp, R. G. (1997). From risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice (Research Report No. 1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Tharp, R. G. (2005). Research in diversity and education: Process and structure in synthesizing knowledge. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 355-361.

Tharp, R. G. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, Pedagogy, and Native America. Journal of American Indian Education, 45(2), 6-25.


Tharp, R. G., & Dalton, S. S. (2007). Orthodoxy, cultural compatibility, and universals in education. Comparative Education, 43(1), 53-70.

Tharp, R. G., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (1994a). Principles for culturally compatible Native American education. Journal of Navajo Education 11(3), 21-27.

Tharp, R. G., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (1994b). Principles for culturally compatible Native American education. Journal of Navajo Education, 11, 33-39.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching Transformed: Achieving Excellence, Fairness, Inclusion, and Harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Todal, J. (2003). The Sami school system in Norway and international cooperation. Comparative Education, 39(2), 185-192.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yamauchi, L. A., Ceppi, A. K., & Lau-Smith, J. (2000). Teaching in a Hawaiian context: Educator perspectives on the Hawaiian language immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 385-403.

Yamauchi, L. A., Wyatt, T. R., & Taum, A. K. (2005). Making meaning: Connecting school to Hawaiian students' lives. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 2, 161-178.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Documents

CTX and Modeling - Alaska Indigenous€¦ · Web viewDatnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3, 215-239. Demmert,