INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS - Week 28
Indigenous knowledge and educational systems - The requirements of NCEA Visual Art.
An experience on visartsnet (an email list which is effectively a national community of practice for NZ Visual Arts teachers) earlier in the year has me critically evaluating the collective practice of NZ visual arts teachers. A discussion on the requirements for the Level 3 folio standard highlighted to me some issues around cultural responsiveness when advising students on how to best meet the marking criteria. The discussion was around students producing paintings that could be viewed as whole panel works. The example was a folio with irregular shaped (not square or rectangular) individual paintings that could be read as a whole in that each painting was integrated into the next. Many teachers were confused as they had experienced students not achieving when treating a whole panel as one work. It was also mentioned that work like this should be kept to the 3.5 ‘Produce a finished work appropriate to cultural conventions’ (only 4 credits as opposed to 14 for the folio). The marking criteria ‘Produce a systematic body of work that integrates conventions and regenerates ideas within painting practice’ has traditionally been interpreted as many small (usually) rectangular paintings that build and develop getting larger in size. The folio was a representation the Māori creation myth and was laid out in a culturally appropriate way reminiscent of Cliff Whiting’s whakairo works or John Hovell’s kōwhaiwhai murals. The folio did receive an excellence grade from the national moderators but this did not stop teachers from being confused and stating that they would never let their students work in this way and that it was ‘too risky’. This to me is an example of how the interpretation of a NCEA standard could lead to cultural bias. 'As a consequence, a mainstream school’s organisational structure, language, materials, and symbolism provide the systemic context for affirming some students and de-valuing others.' (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005 as cited in Hindleb, Hyndsa, Meyerc, Penetitob, Savagea, Sleeterd, 2011, p185).
The fact that we have specific Visual Arts standards (1.1 and 1.5, 2.5, 3.5) that specifically address different cultural practices is a good thing. However, if these standards are the only place our learners can achieve within their cultural norms then we have a problem. David Bell in 2009 noted the avoidance of visual art educators in assessing two very important strands ‘Communicating and Interpreting’ and ‘Understanding the Arts in Context.’ These strands are the most effective in developing culturally responsive teaching practices in Visual Arts as they lead us and our students to examine the context that art works are made and valued in, interpret this context and communicate ideas through making artwork that is culturally relevant to the individual. Visual Arts teachers seem to be scared to let their students try something different, try something that feels right for them as learners, for their context and their culture. Why do teachers think visual arts students have to conform to a very western idea of what body of work is? I would say that with the high stakes assessment of NCEA teachers are just trying to do their best for their students, by sticking to tried and true methods for achieving the standards. In this case the NZQA moderators got it right and understood the cultural context of the learner and the requirements of the standard.
Cultural Responsiveness and the Practising Teachers Criteria:
The understanding of tikanga and te reo Māori is just a part of becoming a culturally responsive teacher. As my understanding of tikanga and te reo develops I am able to incorporate this into the teaching contexts and my teaching practice. However many teachers feel they lack the necessary knowledge of te reo and tikanga Māori to approach Māori kaupapa within their subject areas. I have learnt that it is important to not be scared of te ao Māori and understand that there are many ways of getting things wrong but if we don’t try then we don’t learn. Māori students appreciate the effort their teachers make to learn te reo and incorporate kaupapa Māori into the learning environment. (Hindleb et al, 2011.) The use of te reo and tikanga Maori is a part of our practising teacher requirements (3 and 10). (“Practising Teachers Criteria,” 2007).
Our school has begun to recognize Tātaiako in our appraisal system. Aligning the tātaiako indicators with the Practising Teacher Criteria in our appraisal summaries with evidence should help teachers to focus on improving their culturally responsive pedagogies. ‘The competencies are about knowing, respecting, and working with Mäori learners and their whänau and iwi so their worldview, aspirations, and knowledge are an integral part of teaching and learning, and of the culture of the school.’ (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2011). We have also begun to incorporate the education strategies of our local runaka in some of our subject areas. ERO reports that:
‘There are clearly established links with the local (Moeraki) marae. Along with the school’s responsive curriculum practices, this connection continues to influence thinking and practices around: • the local iwi’s mātauranga document which sets out desired learning for Māori students
• the meaningful incorporation of aspects of Māori culture into teaching and learning
• retention and NCEA achievement levels which are good for Māori students
• the responses to and support for Māori students whose learning requires additional support.
The school should continue its support for teachers to incorporate the intent and grow the application of the mātauranga document into teaching and learning practices.’ (“Education Review Office,” 2016).
Agentic thinking through tapping into rugby culture:
‘The ETP requires teachers to reject explicitly deficit theorising as an explanation for Maori student educational underachievement and to instead assume agency.’ (Hindleb et al, 2011, P 186.)
In my level 2 Visual Art class we have developed a team atmosphere to learning. I have almost half the first 15 in my art class. Many of these boys did not study art in level 1 so were on the back foot to start. We have developed team spirit, we are all learners, nobody gets left behind, students’ work together using a tuakana/teina approach, we celebrate accomplishments with high fives and often the boys spend the entire lesson in song while painting. It is my job as their teacher to care about their learning, I do this by incorporating their interests into the learning contexts and having high expectations that all my students can achieve no matter their background, language barriers, initial painting ability, or sporting code.
References:
Bell, D. (2009). Confronting/Constructing Curriculum: Curriculum Constructs and meeting the needs of learners in art education in New Zealand. Scope (Art and Design), 4, 59–65.
Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2011). Cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners: Tātaiako. https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Tataiako.pdf
Hindleb, Rawiri. Hyndsa, Anne. Meyerc, Luanna H. Penetitob, Wally. Savagea, Catherine. Sleeterd, C. E. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198.
Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2007). Practising Teachers Criteria. https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/registered-teacher-criteria-1
Full moon over Oamaru during Matariki 2017
Indigenous knowledge and educational systems - The requirements of NCEA Visual Art.
An experience on visartsnet (an email list which is effectively a national community of practice for NZ Visual Arts teachers) earlier in the year has me critically evaluating the collective practice of NZ visual arts teachers. A discussion on the requirements for the Level 3 folio standard highlighted to me some issues around cultural responsiveness when advising students on how to best meet the marking criteria. The discussion was around students producing paintings that could be viewed as whole panel works. The example was a folio with irregular shaped (not square or rectangular) individual paintings that could be read as a whole in that each painting was integrated into the next. Many teachers were confused as they had experienced students not achieving when treating a whole panel as one work. It was also mentioned that work like this should be kept to the 3.5 ‘Produce a finished work appropriate to cultural conventions’ (only 4 credits as opposed to 14 for the folio). The marking criteria ‘Produce a systematic body of work that integrates conventions and regenerates ideas within painting practice’ has traditionally been interpreted as many small (usually) rectangular paintings that build and develop getting larger in size. The folio was a representation the Māori creation myth and was laid out in a culturally appropriate way reminiscent of Cliff Whiting’s whakairo works or John Hovell’s kōwhaiwhai murals. The folio did receive an excellence grade from the national moderators but this did not stop teachers from being confused and stating that they would never let their students work in this way and that it was ‘too risky’. This to me is an example of how the interpretation of a NCEA standard could lead to cultural bias. 'As a consequence, a mainstream school’s organisational structure, language, materials, and symbolism provide the systemic context for affirming some students and de-valuing others.' (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005 as cited in Hindleb, Hyndsa, Meyerc, Penetitob, Savagea, Sleeterd, 2011, p185).
The fact that we have specific Visual Arts standards (1.1 and 1.5, 2.5, 3.5) that specifically address different cultural practices is a good thing. However, if these standards are the only place our learners can achieve within their cultural norms then we have a problem. David Bell in 2009 noted the avoidance of visual art educators in assessing two very important strands ‘Communicating and Interpreting’ and ‘Understanding the Arts in Context.’ These strands are the most effective in developing culturally responsive teaching practices in Visual Arts as they lead us and our students to examine the context that art works are made and valued in, interpret this context and communicate ideas through making artwork that is culturally relevant to the individual. Visual Arts teachers seem to be scared to let their students try something different, try something that feels right for them as learners, for their context and their culture. Why do teachers think visual arts students have to conform to a very western idea of what body of work is? I would say that with the high stakes assessment of NCEA teachers are just trying to do their best for their students, by sticking to tried and true methods for achieving the standards. In this case the NZQA moderators got it right and understood the cultural context of the learner and the requirements of the standard.
Cultural Responsiveness and the Practising Teachers Criteria:
The understanding of tikanga and te reo Māori is just a part of becoming a culturally responsive teacher. As my understanding of tikanga and te reo develops I am able to incorporate this into the teaching contexts and my teaching practice. However many teachers feel they lack the necessary knowledge of te reo and tikanga Māori to approach Māori kaupapa within their subject areas. I have learnt that it is important to not be scared of te ao Māori and understand that there are many ways of getting things wrong but if we don’t try then we don’t learn. Māori students appreciate the effort their teachers make to learn te reo and incorporate kaupapa Māori into the learning environment. (Hindleb et al, 2011.) The use of te reo and tikanga Maori is a part of our practising teacher requirements (3 and 10). (“Practising Teachers Criteria,” 2007).
Our school has begun to recognize Tātaiako in our appraisal system. Aligning the tātaiako indicators with the Practising Teacher Criteria in our appraisal summaries with evidence should help teachers to focus on improving their culturally responsive pedagogies. ‘The competencies are about knowing, respecting, and working with Mäori learners and their whänau and iwi so their worldview, aspirations, and knowledge are an integral part of teaching and learning, and of the culture of the school.’ (Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2011). We have also begun to incorporate the education strategies of our local runaka in some of our subject areas. ERO reports that:
‘There are clearly established links with the local (Moeraki) marae. Along with the school’s responsive curriculum practices, this connection continues to influence thinking and practices around: • the local iwi’s mātauranga document which sets out desired learning for Māori students
• the meaningful incorporation of aspects of Māori culture into teaching and learning
• retention and NCEA achievement levels which are good for Māori students
• the responses to and support for Māori students whose learning requires additional support.
The school should continue its support for teachers to incorporate the intent and grow the application of the mātauranga document into teaching and learning practices.’ (“Education Review Office,” 2016).
Agentic thinking through tapping into rugby culture:
‘The ETP requires teachers to reject explicitly deficit theorising as an explanation for Maori student educational underachievement and to instead assume agency.’ (Hindleb et al, 2011, P 186.)
In my level 2 Visual Art class we have developed a team atmosphere to learning. I have almost half the first 15 in my art class. Many of these boys did not study art in level 1 so were on the back foot to start. We have developed team spirit, we are all learners, nobody gets left behind, students’ work together using a tuakana/teina approach, we celebrate accomplishments with high fives and often the boys spend the entire lesson in song while painting. It is my job as their teacher to care about their learning, I do this by incorporating their interests into the learning contexts and having high expectations that all my students can achieve no matter their background, language barriers, initial painting ability, or sporting code.
References:
Bell, D. (2009). Confronting/Constructing Curriculum: Curriculum Constructs and meeting the needs of learners in art education in New Zealand. Scope (Art and Design), 4, 59–65.
Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2011). Cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners: Tātaiako. https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Tataiako.pdf
Hindleb, Rawiri. Hyndsa, Anne. Meyerc, Luanna H. Penetitob, Wally. Savagea, Catherine. Sleeterd, C. E. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198.
Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2007). Practising Teachers Criteria. https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/registered-teacher-criteria-1
Comments
Post a Comment