Indigeneity and Indigenization of Education
Through convenience sampling of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants, in
seeking to identify meaningful ways Indigenous people and their settler allies foresee
Indigenizing the Canadian academy, Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) surveyed 25 scholars using an
anonymous survey containing five open-ended questions as part of a broad qualitative
framework. Study participants were most likely Indigenous academics and academic allies. In
addition to identifying participants as being inclined toward foundational decolonial change,
29
Gaundry and Lorenz found high levels of skepticism among the participants toward half-
measures or diluted policies and any other propositions that failed to acknowledge the need for
major change in the way universities operate.
Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) offered two suggestions for policy and praxis; (a) treaty-based
decolonial Indigenization and (b) resurgence-based decolonial Indigenization to help manifest a
more just Canadian academy. They pointed out treaties in Canada have created a compromise of
coexisting sovereignty in which “free and equal peoples on the same [territory] can mutually
recognize the autonomy and sovereignty of each other in certain spheres and share jurisdictions
in others without incorporation or subordination” (Tully, 2000, p. 53, as cited in in Gaudry &
Lorenz, 2018, p. 224). They argued universities using the dual structure of treaty frameworks
must engage in a substantial amount of education, and in universities situated in treaty territories,
“treaties should be taken to the heart of campus” (Gaudry & Lorenz, 2018, p. 224).
Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) explained although decolonization seeks to transform
institutions “to remake colonial structures in a new image” (p. 224). Indigenous resurgence is a
parallel movement that focuses on “rebuilding and strengthening Indigenous culture, knowledge,
and political order” (p. 224). Matsunaga (2016, as cited in Gaudry & Lorenz, 2018) affirmed
Indigenous resurgence ought to be a land-centered approach to decolonization rather than
attempts to decolonize settlers’ minds and institutions. Participants in the study identified the
university as an important site of Indigenous resurgence and expressed a belief that it will
become more important if Indigenization took a more decolonial approach by [universities]
reconnecting to the land, language, and the people of the land, and supporting organizations that
have been conducting Indigenization but have been underfunded so far. Gaudry and Lorenz
30
rationalized this resurgence element of decolonial indigenization would result in making
Indigenous knowledge and experiences central in any discussion Indigenous issues, and
Indigenous issues would be understood through the lens of Indigenous perspectives recognizing
Indigenous intellectual systems in the production and preservation of knowledge about
Indigenous people and the issues affecting them.
Gaudry and Lorenz (2018) explained Indigenization as a conceptual signifier denoting a
common process, but one that obscures many meanings underlying different Indigenization
programs. Their view of Indigenization consisted of: (a) Indigenous inclusion to increase the
number of Indigenous students, faculty, and staff in Canadian universities; (b) reconciliation
Indigenization as a conceptualization creating common ground between Indigenous and
Canadian (Western) ideals; and (c) decolonial Indigenization, a comprehensive reenvisioning of
the academy to restructure knowledge production based on power relations. As Gaudry and
Lorenz explained, Indigenizing the academy is ultimately about forging collaborative
relationships that decentralize administrative power and redistribute intellectual privilege.
Vogel (2011) conducted a study evaluating a program funded by the Office of Indian
Education in the U.S. Department of Education. The program emphasized culturally responsive
curriculum and instruction and was offered entirely online to make the program accessible to
students living in remote locations where travel to campus is challenging. The study examined
the role of oral tradition in Indian culture and education. Vogel’s study also examined the values
and structure of the program, the accommodations, and enhancements the program featured to
provide culturally responsive curriculum and instruction. The program was a 39-credit preservice
administration preparation program. Students in this program earned an interdisciplinary master
31
of arts degree in educational leadership and special education. The program served and was open
to any member of a tribe or band. At the time of the study, as Vogel pointed out, the number of
Native teachers and administrators had increased from previous decades, but barely half of all
Bureau of Indian Education schools were led by Native principals. The program’s values
included a multicultural perspective that actively acknowledged and reinforced Native American
cultural knowledge and acknowledgement that Native American students process information in
a distinct and unique manner that is not entirely compatible with Western curricular approaches.
Vogel (2011) highlighted a need to Indigenize online learning, especially by infusing Indigenous
oral traditions into the curriculum. She explained Western societies tend to use storytelling to
entertain, and Indigenous stories tend to have a moral purpose. Because many Indigenous
cultures are communal societies, the purpose of their storytelling is more geared toward building
and maintaining relationships than for individual achievement or entertainment (Vogel, 2011).
Garrett and Garrett (1996, as cited in Vogel, 2011) identified a common thread running
among Indigenous stories: the interrelationship of all things and how from those relationships a
responsibility to others emerges because “the survival and well-being of the individual is
synonymous with that of the community” (p. 3). Because Indigenous cultures generally value
community well-being over individual achievement, it is natural for Indigenous students to feel
out of place in courses designed from Western ontological perspectives that emphasize
competition and individual achievement.
Seeking to understand the perspective of Native American students about online learning,
Hunt and Oyarzun (2020) conducted an ethnographic case study with two participants. Each
participant was interviewed once and submitted three journal entries to the researchers. The
32
following research questions guided their study: (a) How do Native American students
experience online courses? and (b) Are online courses tailored to the learning needs of Native
American students? Participant responses were coded using Kirkness and Barnhart’s (2016)
framework consisting of four principles: respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility. Study
participants indicated a desire for coursework infused with Indigenous knowledge and a desire to
inform their professors and peers of their Native identity. Both participants expressed there was a
lack of Indigenous knowledge in any of their courses, onsite and online (Hunt & Oyarzun, 2020).
Additionally, participants in this study expressed an interest in project-based learning and a
desire for groupwork and collaboration, explaining this would increase their interest and stake in
their courses.
Hunt and Oyarzun (2020) recommended teachers create curriculum content and activities
that are relevant to the lived experiences of the students who take their courses. They pointed out
Indigenous people have contributed in every field of human endeavor, including science and
mathematics; therefore, there is ample source material to incorporate into the curriculum in most
disciplines (Hunt & Oyarzun, 2020). The authors argue sustained cultural identification and
acknowledgement, especially if it starts early on, can help educators create environments that are
more inclusive, learner-centric, and culturally relevant.
In a study using a convergent mixed methods approach, Walton et al. (2020a) surveyed
212 Indigenous undergraduate online students in Canada. The team interviewed 20 participants
from the 212 that responded to the survey. They also held a talking circle with six participants
and interviewed four faculty and staff from the online division at the university site where they
conducted their study. The framework for the talking circle and interviews was based on
33
Archibald’s (2008) storywork framework; a way of looking at interviews as individuals narrating
their life stories. The underlying assumption of the framework is researchers ought to listen to
the stories of Indigenous students and hear from the students’ communities to identify key
factors that contribute to Indigenous online persistence.
Walton et al.’s (2020) study goals were to identify strategies to increase Indigenous
student persistence online and to identify their online learning preferences. Findings from a
parallel study the authors conducted with face-to-face students indicated the “strongest predictors
of program completion were engagement factors, especially with faculty and other students, and
a positive social environment” (Walton et al., 2020a, p. 10). Study findings with online students
indicated most students expressed having positive relationships with faculty and peers but
indicated some courses had not created positive environments and expressed the most effective
way to engage them is providing easy access to faculty and receiving prompt responses from
their instructors. Many of the students surveyed also stated having international students in their
online courses would enhance their relationships. Similarly, many participants expressed
receiving the same grade in a group project (i.e., everybody in the group gets the same grade
regardless of effort) works against group cohesion. Many participants reported experiencing few
instructional methods in their online courses.
The survey results in Walton et al. (2020a) showed 30% of the participants did not have
the financial support necessary to complete their program. Thirty percent reported housing
problems, and 15% reported a lack of childcare. Although most participants reported receiving
family, tutoring, technical, and non-academic support, 15% reported they did not have family
support. Fifteen percent reported they did not have tutoring. Twenty percent did not have non-
34
academic support, and 10% did not have technical support. Participants also reported they would
like to have more virtual environments and Indigenous content infused in the online curriculum.
The most important support Indigenous students identified was to add a face-to-face component
to online courses and that this component should include Indigenous content and be mediated
using a learning management system (LMS) and information communication technologies. This
literature helps provide context to the experiences of Indigenous college students in the 21st
century, and findings in this dissertation study are congruent with the literature.
| 