How are indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness informing the way I am taking action?

Bishop in Edutalks (2012) states that teachers who show cultural responsiveness for young Māori are
those who challenge deficit models of thinking about Māori by being agentic teachers can manage a
learning environment to support Māori to learn and thrive as Māori. I think that this definition
emphasises Pākeha teachers need to put the responsibility for the education of Māori (and other
cultures of children they teach) back on themselves; it is us that are required to examine what
assumptions and prejudices we hold, to reflect on our practice, to continually learn more and
change/refine our teaching practice as a result of this reflection and learning to better meet the
educational needs and aspirations of all children. 

This blog entry will consider how I have been informed by indigenous knowledge and cultural
responsiveness of my learning activities by using Milne’s action continuum from CORE Education
(2017). 

When looking at the continuum, thinking about my learning activities and data collection, I believe it
probably sits in the middle section: Some language and cultural content. Might consult with community
groups, very few critical aspects e.g. success & achievement all determined by Whitestream thinking
and expectations.

In the action plan surrounding this assignment I stated I had considered Kaupapa Māori by
encouraging the children to show whakawhanaungatanga- defined by Mac Farlane, Glynn, Grace,
Penetito, & Bateman, 2008, p. 116) as “building and maintaining relationships”.I made clear to the
children I wanted them to share knowledge with each other to help them each become experts at using
the digital technology tools I had given them, and then in turn wanting them to share this with the rest of
the hub so all could develop their skills. As part of this, I was also wanting to promote a ‘tuakana-teina’
type relationship where the older year 4 children in the class I chose to be the experts were encouraged
to assist the younger year 3 students. However, looking back at Milne’s continuum for CORE Education
(2017) when looking at how I am defining success of the research project in my data collection, I do not
have any measure of how the children shared their knowledge and skills with others; it is based on the
digital technology skills they individually possess. Milne’s for CORE Education (2017) example within the
place in the continuum I identified of  “...success & achievement all determined by Whitestream thinking
and expectations” therefore rang true; how easy it is to fall back to what I know as a Pākeha!

Therefore, a next step for me to work towards more sophisticated cultural responsiveness is to include
a learning outcome around how a child can help and support another in digital technology learning.
This goes some way to signal how I see success in this research project. Furthermore, although I had
considered Kaupapa Māori within these learning activities, how we show culturally responsive
pedagogy is not a regular discussion I have with my colleagues, nor are there really effective
mechanisms to promote this reflection at my school. Beginning these conversations would be a next
step towards moving to the next level on Milne’s continuum. 

References:

CORE Education.(2017, 17 October). Dr Ann Milne, Colouring in the white spaces:
Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools.[video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTvi5qxqp4&feature=em-subs_digest

Edtalks. (2012, September 23). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file]. Retrieved
from https://vimeo.com/49992994

MacFarlane, H., Glynn, T., Grace, W., Penetito, W. & Bateman, S. (2008). Indigenous epistemology in
a national curriculum framework? Ethnicities, 8, 102.