Case Study of an Indigenous Teacher's Writing Instruction

CASE STUDY OF AN INDIGENOUS TEACHER’S WRITING INSTRUCTION: TENSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS AMONG WESTERN DISCOURSES OF WRITING AND 8 WAYS ABORIGINAL PRINCIPLES

Denise Hudspith Heppner

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

Case Study of an Indigenous Teacher’s Writing Instruction: Tensions and Negotiations Among Western Discourses of Writing and 8 Ways Aboriginal Principles Doctor of Philosophy 2020 Denise Hudspith Heppner Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto

Abstract

This research investigated an Indigenous teacher’s pedagogy in a rural First Nation school in order to gain insight into culturally responsive writing instruction. Pre-service and in-service educators have identified significant challenges in the teaching of writing, feeling unprepared and/or lacking confidence to teach this essential skill. Additionally, many teachers feel uncomfortable and/or ill-equipped to incorporate Indigenous content and perspectives into their classrooms. Resulting from generations of on-going colonial oppression, educational disparities in literacy development have been identified between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

Along with a focus on traditional language and cultural revitalization, Indigenous families in

Canada have advocated education for their children in the dominant literacy practices of schooling. With a growing Indigenous population, educators are seeking ways to respectfully and successfully integrate cultural perspectives, content, and traditional ways of knowing/learning into their classrooms. This study addressed the paucity of research on writing development in

Canada conducted within rural areas and with Indigenous Peoples.

Case study methodology was utilized. Qualitative data was collected and analyzed in the form of classroom observations, formal and informal interviews, and collection of artifacts (e.g., student writing, curricular resources, etc.). An initial objective of this study was to identify which of six evidence-based discourses of writing (Ivanić, 2004) were employed in the teacher’s instructional approaches and beliefs about writing instruction. Findings revealed that she utilized iii all six at varying times over the course of the classroom observations, reflecting a comprehensive approach to teaching writing. Tensions were revealed between conflicting discourses, some remained unresolved while others were successfully negotiated. The second question in this study sought to determine which of the 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies (Yunkaporta, 2009) did the teacher utilize in her writing instruction. In addition to incorporating local cultural content she utilized all instructional methods identified through the 8 Ways framework. Examination of classroom practices revealed an overlap between Western discourse theory and the Indigenous 8

Ways pedagogy framework. Utilization of Indigenous instructional strategies directly address the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (2015d) call to action regarding the integration of Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms.

Acknowledgements To my fantastic supervisor, Dr. Shelley Stagg Peterson, my deepest thanks for your guidance and encouragement throughout the last six years. You have been my guide, my supporter, my challenger, my teacher, my co-author. All of which have played a part in molding me into the academic I am today. Thank you holding me to a high standard while continually modeling grace, patience, and a love of learning. I am honoured to have had the chance to work with, and learn from, you!

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, White Stone Woman.

Thank you for helping me ‘see’. In his book Research is Ceremony Indigenous scholar Shawn

Wilson (2008) said, “if research doesn’t change you as a person, then you haven’t done it right”

(p. 135). Together, we must have done it right! I have been changed in so many wonderful ways because of knowing you! You are a creative, incredible teacher and a passionate advocate for your Indigenous culture. You continue to inspire me! Working with you has been a fantastic journey, and I know it has only just begun!

To my committee members, thank you for the time and effort you gave to this work. Each of you encouraged me to examine this research in new ways, leading to fresh avenues of personal growth. Dr. Carol Rolheiser, your feedback was not only warm and encouraging but inspired me to reflect on powerful models of professional development. This allowed me to see the significant personal and professional impact of this research as well as exciting roads leading forward. Dr. Sandra Styres, your insight into Indigenous perspectives was invaluable. Thank you for so freely sharing your knowledge and also in pointing me in the direction of additional

Indigenous authors (of which upon starting to read I could not put down!). Thank you also to my external examiner, Dr. Heather Blair and internal external examiner, Dr. Enrica Piccardo for your participation in this process; your insights were absolutely valued and appreciated! v

Finally, to my husband, Rob, and children, Luke, Sasha, Jake. Thank you for everything.

You never let me give up. You are my constant cheerleaders, my rocks, my sources of joy. You truly inspire me to be my best! Your faith in me encourages me to reach higher than I ever thought possible! I am truly blessed to be your wife and mom! vi

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my children: Luke, Sasha, and Jake. You are my source of inspiration and joy! vii

Table of Contents Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iv Dedication ...... vi Prologue ...... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose and Rationale...... 1 Education Debt ...... 2 The Importance of Effective Writing Skills ...... 5 Challenges of Teaching Writing ...... 7 Challenges of Incorporating Indigenous Content and Perspectives ...... 8 Significance of the Research ...... 13 Purpose of the Research ...... 15

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 16 Introduction ...... 16 Historical Overview of Theories of Writing Development ...... 18 Grammar Reigns ...... 18 Cognitive Theory ...... 20 Sociocultural Theory ...... 21 Theoretical Framework for Examining Discourses of Writing and Writing Pedagogy ...... 23 Multi-Layered View of Language ...... 24 Skills Discourse ...... 25 Creativity Discourse ...... 27 Process Discourse ...... 30 Genre Discourse ...... 32 Social Practices Discourse ...... 34 Sociopolitical Discourse ...... 36 Comprehensive Approach ...... 40 Summary ...... 41 Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy ...... 43 Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy ...... 44 Views on Orality and Writing ...... 45 Writing Research in Indigenous Contexts ...... 49 Summary ...... 51 Theoretical Framework for Examining Indigenous Pedagogy ...... 51 8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical Framework ...... 51 Story Sharing ...... 54 Learning Maps ...... 56 Non-Verbal ...... 56 Symbols and Images ...... 57 Land Links ...... 57 Non-Linear ...... 58 Deconstruct/Reconstruct ...... 59 Community Links ...... 60 viii

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS ...... 62 Introduction ...... 62 Research Paradigm...... 62 Research Design...... 63 Case Study Defined ...... 63 Characteristics of the Case Study ...... 64 Recognition of My Positioning as I Conducted My Research Study ...... 65 Research Within an Indigenous Context ...... 66 Research Methods ...... 69 Setting and Participants ...... 69 Selecting the research site and teacher-participant ...... 69 Setting ...... 72 Community...... 72 School...... 72 Participants ...... 73 Teacher ...... 73 Students ...... 75 Research as participant-observer...... 75 Data Collection ...... 76 Interviews ...... 76 Semi-structured interview ...... 76 Informal interviews ...... 77 Observations ...... 77 Reflective journal ...... 78 Artifacts ...... 79 Data Analysis ...... 79 Thematic analysis ...... 80 Strengths and Limitations of Case Study Research ...... 81 Strengths ...... 81 Adaptability ...... 82 Rich description situated in context ...... 82 Triangulation (data collection/analysis) ...... 83 Wide readership ...... 83 Limitations ...... 83

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 87 The Classroom ...... 87 Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Integration of Community Culture in the Classroom ...... 90 Influential Discourses of Writing in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Writing Class ...... 93 Skills Discourse ...... 95 Grammar and mechanics ...... 95 Vocabulary ...... 97 Student confidence in writing skills ...... 98 Creativity Discourse ...... 99 Choice ...... 100 Developing self-expression and voice ...... 101 ix

Inspiring topics/personal relevance ...... 102 Process Discourse ...... 104 Writer’s Workshop ...... 105 Mini-lessons ...... 105 Writing/conferring ...... 106 Sharing ...... 106 Publication ...... 108 Teacher/student relationships ...... 108 Genre Discourse ...... 110 Text patterns and features ...... 110 Tools: Graphic organizers ...... 112 Social Practices Discourse ...... 113 Authentic writing tasks ...... 114 Contextual factors of writing events ...... 114 Writing as a tool for learning ...... 115 Sociopolitical Discourse ...... 115 Indigenous identity and social change ...... 116 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies ...... 121 Story sharing ...... 121 Teacher narratives ...... 121 Cultural importance of listening ...... 122 Learning maps ...... 123 Anchor charts ...... 123 Graphic organizers ...... 124 Non-verbal ...... 125 Experiential learning ...... 125 Lived experiences ...... 127 Symbols and images...... 127 Imagery ...... 128 Metaphors ...... 130 Land links ...... 132 Personal relevance ...... 133 Explicit connections to local community and culture ...... 134 Non-linear ...... 136 Brainstorming ...... 136 Cyclic learning ...... 136 Critical thinking ...... 138 Deconstruct/reconstruct ...... 139 Community links ...... 140 Sharing learning with others ...... 140 Community benefit ...... 140 Students’ representation and sharing of the 8 Ways pedagogy ...... 143 Influences on Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Writing Instruction ...... 146 Curricula ...... 146 Provincial curriculum ...... 146 Indigenous curriculum framework ...... 147 x

Mandated resource ...... 148 Professional development ...... 151 Personal experiences ...... 153

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 155 Academic Development ...... 157 Overlap Between Western Discourses of Writing and 8 Ways Aboriginal Pedagogies ... 157 Tensions and Negotiations ...... 160 Classroom practice: Tensions between discourses ...... 160 Beliefs about writing and learning to write: Tensions between discourses ...... 162 Nurturing and Supporting Cultural Competence ...... 164 Instruction Based on Relationships and Local Culture ...... 164 Locally Developed Curriculum ...... 165 Development of a Sociopolitical/Critical Consciousness ...... 165 Indigenous Identity and Social Change ...... 166 Hybrid Instantiations of Creativity and Sociopolitical Discourses ...... 167 Reflections of my Positioning as a Non-Indigenous Researcher ...... 167 Relationship ...... 169 Respect ...... 171 Relevance ...... 173 Reciprocity ...... 176 Responsibility ...... 178 “Inside-Out Lessons” from the Research Journey ...... 179 Implications for Teacher Practice and Education ...... 183 Entry Points ...... 183 Beyond Entry Points to Cultural Competence ...... 185 Writing is a cultural tool ...... 187 Discourse Knowledge, Contradictions, and Negotiations ...... 188 Broadening the Definition of Literacy ...... 190 Implications for Future Research ...... 192 Construction of Teacher’s Writing Identities ...... 192 Writing Pedagogy within Cultural Contexts ...... 193 Final Words ...... 195 References ...... 198

List of Tables Table 1 Percentage (%) of Types of Analysis Units Observed within Discourses ...... 94 Table 2 Examples of Similarities Between Indigenous and Western Pedagogy ...... 159

List of Figures Figure 1. Ivanić’s multi-layered view of language ...... 25 Figure 2. 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogy framework ...... 53 Figure 3. Interrelationships amongst the 8 Ways ...... 61 Figure 4. Timeline of research activities and school-community participation ...... 71 Figure 5. Daily schedule ...... 88 Figure 6. Story retelling rope...... 90 Figure 7. Wild Mind Write anchor chart ...... 90 Figure 8. Worldview grounded within Traditional Knowledge ...... 91 Figure 9. Excerpt from the Scholastic Traits writing folder ...... 96 Figure 10. Excerpt from student example using editing marks ...... 96 Figure 11. Preconference sticky note with brainstormed ideas ...... 110 Figure 12. Cluster web graphic organizer ...... 113 Figure 13. Virtue of the month ...... 123 Figure 14. Chart used as a graphic organizer ...... 124 Figure 15. Graphic organizer for cause-and-effect text pattern ...... 125 Figure 16. Example of Imagine a Canada student painting...... 128 Figure 17. Example of photo image for Imagine a Canada video ...... 128 Figure 18. Symbol for reduce, reuse, recycle ...... 129 Figure 19. Energy star symbol...... 129 Figure 20. Student writing before and after student/teacher conferencing ...... 137 Figure 21. Example of a completed Imagine a Canada writing assignment ...... 139 Figure 22. 8 Ways grounded within the Seven Grandfather Teachings ...... 143 Figure 23. Niswayak Nistohtamowin Model (Both Ways of Understanding) ...... 148

xii

List of Appendices

Appendix A Recruitment of Teacher Participant Letter ...... 224 Appendix B Recruitment of Participants – Script to Children ...... 225 Appendix C Letter of Consent for School Administrator ...... 226 Appendix D Letter of Participation and Consent for Teacher ...... 228 Appendix E Recruitment of Participants – Informed Consent – Parents ...... 230 Appendix F Question Protocol for Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 233 Appendix G 8 Ways Learning & Pedagogical Framework – Observation Template ...... 235 Appendix H When Paradigms Collide ...... 236 Appendix I Weaving Between Worldviews ...... 237 Appendix J I don’t understand! ...... 238

xiii

PROLOGUE

I would like to begin by acknowledging that this research journey occurred in Treaty Six territory, the traditional territory of Cree Peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation. I would like to thank the Indigenous teacher that I observed and the participating First Nation for warmly welcoming me to their treaty lands, to their community, school, and classrooms; and for walking with me as I engaged in this process of coming to know. “Coming to know” describes the process of developing understanding and required of me, deep personal reflection in order to conceptualize the balance between my Western/European settler views and Indigenous worldviews. Cree scholar, Willie Ermine’s (1995) description of Indigenous epistemology is harmonious with personal reflection:

In their quest to find meaning in the outer space, Aboriginal people turned to the inner

space. This inner space is that universe of being within each person that is synonymous

with the soul, the spirit, the self or the being. (p. 103)

In my quest to find meaning in the outer space, my inner space has been irrevocably changed. In the following pages I share my learning, as I experienced it. I take ownership of any mistakes, sharing my knowledge as I understand it through the lens of my background and worldview. As noted by Nehiyaw academic Margaret Kovach (2009), “We know what we know from where we stand. We need to be honest about that” (p. 7).

Generally, in Western/European academic writing one begins with an Introduction. The introduction presents an overview of the area from which the issue will be drawn and investigated, a clear and concise statement of the problem, the conceptual framework and purpose for the study. Background information into the topic is typically presented first so that the reader knows why the research is worth doing (this is commonly done by identifying the gap xiv in the research literature and the problem that the research will address). This is typical of the compartmentalized, bounded, linear ways of Eurocentric academia. However, Indigenous research is “relational work” (Kovach, 2009, p. 3). Therefore, respecting Indigenous protocol, I will briefly introduce myself in order to situate myself in relation to my readers. This prologue proves a useful device, for within “Indigenous writing, a prologue structures space for introductions while serving a bridging function for non-Indigenous readers” (Kovach, 2009, p.

4).

I am a woman who was born in Saskatchewan, Canada and adopted into a family of

European ancestry when I was seven days old. My adoptive mother left England to come to

Saskatchewan in 1969 to work as a medical doctor during a shortage. To this writing, I bring my background as a scholar of Educational Psychology/Special Education, as well as my background in elementary/secondary school teaching (in Canada, and the Bahamas) and at the post-secondary level teaching pre-service/in-service educators in the area of Special Education. I also bring my experiences as a non-Indigenous educator teaching in a remote northern Dene

Nation in a western province in Canada.

I acknowledge that as a non-Indigenous person I am attempting to provide respectful analysis and understanding of Indigenous pedagogy without being raised or grounded in it. Cree writer Neil McLeod (2007) noted that outsiders of Indigenous culture “often write from a secular point of view and in the name of objectivity but often do not reflect how their own viewpoint could distort the emergence of truth” (p. 43). As an educator and researcher, it is humbling to admit my ignorance and this research journey has forced me to look very closely at my colonial upbringing and understandings. I acknowledge that I have benefited from the unearned privileges associated with my heritage and upbringing. Adopting Indigenous perspectives organically xv involves affective learning. Initially I experienced fear of offending or providing inaccurate accounts; however, silence born of fear is no longer an option. As McLeod (2007) observes,

“apathy has become more threatening than oppression” (p. 10).

In my position as an educator of teachers I have often been asked about Indigenous education. Conversations with teachers revealed a pattern of indicating the number of Indigenous students in the school followed by a statement explaining the cultural event that was planned

(e.g., Indigenous dancers or drummers). Tokenism seemed like a common response to address

Indigenous education. I recognized the need for a shift from addressing Indigenous learning as a checklist filled by isolated cultural events, to embedding Indigenous knowledge into mainstream content. I resonated deeply with Kovach’s (2009) words, “I have a responsibility to help create entry points for Indigenous knowledges to come through” (p. 7). This dissertation is a means to create those entry points, and indeed, to overcome my silence. This is my ‘why’ that this research was worth doing.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Rationale

Indigenous Peoples1 have not been served well by the Eurocentric education system

(Battiste, 2013; Hare, 2011; Tomlins-Jahnke, Styres, Lilley & Zinga, 2019), a reality found in many areas of the world (e.g., Hawai’i, see Kaomea, Alvarez & Pittman, 2019; New Zealand, see

Maaka, 2019; North America, see Styres, 2019). These education systems and curricula have not respected the diverse cultures of Indigenous Peoples, few teachers speak Indigenous languages,

Indigenous schools are often underfunded and lacking in basic resources; and “educational programs fail to offer [I]ndigenous peoples the possibility of participating in decision-making, the design of curricula, the selection of teachers and teaching methods and the definition of standards” (King & Schielmann, 2004, p. 19).

I would be remiss to discuss Indigenous education without acknowledging the horrific past of residential schools. The devastating effects have been well documented; for example,

Cree scholar Verna Kirkness (1992) writes:

The residential schools have had a lasting negative effect on First Nations people as a

whole. These schools removed children from their parents and from their communities.

Generations of Indian children were denied a normal family childhood. They were denied

the association with family, with their extended family’s perceptions of spiritualism, of

acceptable behavior and of the means of survival. For many, residential schools meant

the loss of their Native language, the principal means by which culture is accumulated,

1Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2019) defined the following terms: -First Nation(s): “a term used to identify Indigenous peoples of Canada who are neither Métis nor Inuit” (p. 8). -Aboriginal Peoples: the “plural noun, used in the Constitution Act 1982 [and thus offensive to some groups], includes…First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples…” (p. 7). -Indigenous Peoples: a “collective noun for First Nations, Inuit, Métis and [the term that is] growing in popularity in Canada” (p. 11). 2

shared, and transmitted from generation to generation. The result was a tragic interruption

of culture. (p. 12)

In addition to the suppression of Indigenous languages and cultures and the imposition of

Eurocentric ideologies, residential schools commonly lacked adequate standards for student health and safety, enforced child labour, and were often the venue for physical and sexual abuse

(e.g., Battiste, 2013; Kirkness, 1992; Legacy of Hope Foundation, 2014; 2016; Mountain, 2019;

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Sellars, 2013; Stonefish, 2007; Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Between 1831 and 1996, over

150 000 Indigenous children attended 139 residential schools located in every province and territory of Canada excluding Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island

(Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015). With the closure of residential schools,

Indigenous children were integrated into mainstream provincial schools; however, many educational practices remained founded upon oppressive and assimilative control (Battiste &

Henderson, 2009; St. Denis, 2011). Understandably, “Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives on the school system have been negatively affected by residential school experiences, leading to intergenerational distrust of and discomfort with the Canadian education system” (Milne, 2017, p. 2). Cherokee scholar/author Daniel Heath Justice (2018) noted that, “We must honestly and clearly name that history before we can untangle the complications that different newcomer populations have brought into that relationship, or before we can look for the alliances and connections between marginalized communities” (p. 12).

Education Debt

Stemming from generations of sustained colonial assaults, research reveals an

‘achievement gap’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples (Champagne, 2009; 3

Richards, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2013). The gap in education levels between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples in Canada have been declared as “one of the great social policy challenges facing Canada” (Richards, 2008, p. 1). Over a decade ago Ladson-Billings (2006) called into question the wisdom of focusing on this gap as a way of understanding the persistent inequality that exists within our schools; arguing that, “we do not merely have an achievement gap - we have an education debt” (p. 5). This education debt refers to the cumulative impact of historical (legacy of educational inequalities), economic (differential funding for different groups of students), sociopolitical (exclusion from the educational decision-making process), and moral

(disparity between knowing/doing what is right) oppression and inequality of Indigenous People

(Ladson-Billings, 2006). Robinson (2000) stated that:

No nation can enslave a race of people for hundreds of years, set them free bedraggled

and penniless, pit them, without assistance in a hostile environment, against privileged

victimizers, and then reasonably expect the gap between the heirs of the two groups to

narrow. (p. 74)

Current scholarship indicates that it is a “continuing challenge for Indigenous knowledges, values, languages, and peoples to be included in public education systems”

(Tuhiwai Smith, 2019, p. ix-x). Findings from the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (Statistics

Canada, 2013) reported that 36% of Indigenous people aged 18 to 44 who live off reserve had not completed high school, compared to 11% of the non-Indigenous population (Bougie, Kelly-

Scott & Arriagada, 2013; Projections of the Aboriginal Population and Households in Canada,

2011 to 2036 indicate that these trends continue and the education “gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations are maintained” Statistics Canada, 2015, p. 23). Research shows that not completing high school has economic and social consequences (e.g., decreased income, 4 increased use of social services, increased crime, poorer levels of health, reduced social participation) as well as individual consequences (e.g., low levels of academic skills, and an absence of educational credentials translating into unfavorable employment opportunities)

(Uppal, 2017). According to Statistics Canada, in 2016 the employment rate among young males with less than a high school diploma was 67%, and for young woman 41%; without a high school diploma the earnings gap is considerable, and many are dependent upon government transfers for income (Uppal, 2017). Due to similar oppressive social structures and racism these educational differences are not exclusive to Canada: “In most countries, Indigenous children have low school enrollments, poor school performance, low literacy rates, high dropout rates, and lag behind other groups in terms of academic achievements nationally” (Champagne, 2009, p. 132).

Anishinaabe scholar/educator Jan Hare (2011) noted that these educational differences are evident in literacy development as well, and that “Indigenous children do not experience the same success in literacy as their non-[I]ndigenous counterparts” (p. 389). A literacy achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students has been well-documented (Alberta

Education, 2008; Cowley & Easton, 2004; Saskatoon Public Schools, 2013). Cowley and Easton

(2004), for example, reported that British Columbia’s education system is failing Indigenous students due to the findings that Indigenous students in the province “failed more than 40% of the province-wide reading tests that they wrote…[which] was more than double that of their non-

Aboriginal classmates” (p. 3). In 2002, when writing skills were last assessed on a national level in Canada, “approximately 60% of 16-year olds reached the grade level expectations or beyond and approximately 40% of 13-year olds reached this level” (Peterson & McClay, 2014, p. 20).

Statistics Canada (2003a) found that over 60% of Indigenous Canadians (aged 16 and over) did 5 not meet the basic level of literacy considered necessary for participation in daily work and life in a developed country. Anishinaabe educator Hare (2011) remarked that, “Many Indigenous people, then, do not have the literacy knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in society” (p. 390). She further observed that:

There is converging evidence that young children’s early literacy development is crucial

for their later success in school and life…There is also compelling evidence that children

familiar with the knowledge and skills associated with the dominant literacy practices of

schooling tend to have an advantage. (Hare, 2011, p. 390)

Hare (2011), drawing on group discussions with Indigenous families from a variety of First

Nations communities in Canada, found that “Indigenous families want their children to become successful in the dominant literacy practices of schooling” (p. 409).

The Importance of Effective Writing Skills

Gordon (2000) noted that, “literacy is the currency of success in our system” (p. 7).

Literacy is often characterized as reading and/or writing (Keefe & Copeland, 2011). As with skills in reading, it is undeniable that writing matters.

Writing is for stories to be read, books to be published, poems to be recited, plays to be

acted, cartoons to be labeled, instructions to be followed, designs to be made, recipes to

be cooked, diaries to be collected…Writing is for ideas, action, interaction, and

experience. (Smith, as cited in Calkins, 1994, p. 268)

With digital technology writers in the 21st century have expanded their venues to online bulletin boards, chat rooms, and blogs. Written compositions are shared via emails and text messages; as well as on Facebook, MySpace, national media sites and Google docs (Yancey, 2009). 6

Academic, and often occupational success, are dependent upon the ability to write proficiently. Huck (2015) employed an operational definition of what good writing is and compared it with fluency in speaking: the “kind of fluency I mean with respect to writing, [is] a naturally achieved fluency that indicates an ability to converse easily with peers, to convey easily what one wants to convey, and to be easily understood by one’s conversational partners” (p. xii).

To write well is to “…command a vocabulary that is generally suitable for everyday interactions in their milieu and typically use grammatical structures that their audiences can efficiently interpret” (Huck, 2015, p. xiii).

In school, writing is important for learning as it “supports and deepens students’ learning of concepts across the curriculum” (Peterson, 2014, p. 18). Writing is also the primary means for demonstrating student knowledge (e.g., through reports, exams, written projects) (Graham &

Perin, 2007). A survey of business leaders by the National Commission on Writing (2004) found that, “Writing is a ‘threshold skill’ for both employment and promotion, particularly for salaried employees” (p. 3). Within large companies it was reported that two-thirds of salaried employees have writing responsibility; one human resource director commented: “All employees must have writing ability . . . Manufacturing documentation, operating procedures, reporting problems, lab safety, waste-disposal operations—all have to be crystal clear” (National Commission on

Writing, 2004, p. 3). In addition, over half of the companies reported that employees

“‘frequently’ or ‘almost always’ produce technical reports (59 percent), formal reports (62 percent), and memos and correspondence (70 percent). Communication through e-mail and

PowerPoint presentations is almost universal” (National Commission on Writing, 2004, p. 4).

Hwang and Kim’s (2017) study found that if a corporate firm’s annual report is not well written

“investors become suspicious, perceive the firm and its managers to be of lower quality, or 7 subconsciously develop negative sentiments. This causes the firm…to trade at a discount” (p.

390).

Both non-Indigenous (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2009) and Indigenous scholars (e.g., Bell &

Brant, 2015; Hare, 2011) agree that youngsters are at a considerable disadvantage if they lack the ability to write well. School grades and content learning suffer (Cutler & Graham, 2008).

Chances of attending college and opportunities for salaried positions in the workforce are reduced (National Commission on Writing, 2004). According to business leaders, writing is often assessed during the hiring process; people who cannot write clearly and communicate well will not be hired, writing skills are considered when making promotion decisions, and

“remedying deficiencies in writing may cost American firms as much as $3.1 billion annually”

(National Commission on Writing, 2004, p. 3). Students are in need of authentic effective instruction in order to increase achievement in this essential skill so they may participate fully in the literacy practices of society (Graham & Harris, 2009; Hare, 2011; Toulouse, 2013b).

Challenges of Teaching Writing

As a former teacher and Director of Special Education in a remote northern First Nations community in a western province in Canada, I have witnessed many challenges with regard to students’ writing skills. These include teachers’ lack of confidence in their writing pedagogy, coupled with a genuine desire to learn how to effectively teach writing. Despite its importance, writing is considered to be the “Neglected ‘R’” (National Commission on Writing in America’s

Schools & Colleges; NCW, 2003, p. 9). Applebee and Langer (2006) stated that, “we are living in an educational era where…writing has evaporated from public concern” (p. 28-29). Hillocks

(2005) reported that many teachers disliked writing and displayed a negative attitude to writing within their classrooms, subsequently choosing formulaic writing strategies rather than 8 incorporating meaningful and purposeful writing experiences. Gallavan, Bowles and Young

(2012) found a similar dislike of writing among teacher candidates. Others have found that many teachers feel woefully unprepared to teach the complex process of writing (Cutler &

Graham, 2008; Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Harris & Graham, 2013; McQuitty, 2012; Myers et al.,

2016). Although the NCW’s (2003) report called for improved training of preservice teachers in writing instruction, over a decade later “there is still a lack of adequate writing methods courses for incoming teachers” (Lehman, 2017, p. 41). Furthermore, existing courses either embed writing instruction within reading methods courses or offer an imbalance between theory and practice (Myers et al., 2016). Research has consistently recognized that teachers are the key to high quality educational programs and successful student learning (Sparks, 2002; Winton &

McCollum, 2008); therefore, it is essential that teachers of writing are confident and competent in providing effective writing instruction.

Challenges of Incorporating Indigenous Content and Perspectives

There is great need for Indigenous content and perspectives to be incorporated into educational programming. Indigenous Peoples make up 4.9% of the total population in Canada

(Statistics Canada, 2017). The Indigenous population continues to grow both within their rural communities and in metropolitan areas; due to the large growth rate of the population, projections indicate that in the next two decades the Indigenous population will exceed 2.5 million persons (Statistics Canada, 2017). The OECD Directorate for Education (2004) review team examined policies and services across Canada and found that although provinces with an increasing Indigenous population were working to integrate cultural perspectives into curriculum frameworks, the overriding impression “was that the Aboriginal population – not least in urban settings – is very disadvantaged in comparison to the population as a whole” (p. 22). Due to the 9 large (and growing) Indigenous population in Canada, research must focus on how to incorporate

Indigenous ways of knowing, a strong oral tradition (foundational for many Indigenous cultures)

(Hare, 2011; Kovach, 2009), and methods of providing more culturally responsive and equitable education (Battiste, 2013; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008).

Research shows that teachers feel unprepared to incorporate Indigenous content and worldviews into the classroom (Canadian Teachers’ Federation, 2015; del Carmen Rodriguez de

France, Schlly, & McIvor, 2018; Freeman, McDonald & Morcom, 2018; Kanu, 2011; Milne,

2017; Rogers, 2018). In 2015 the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) conducted a survey of

1,881 teachers’ perspectives of Indigenous education in public schools in Canada. Results revealed that 75% of teachers were aware that issues, content or perspectives related to

Indigenous people were being taught at their school, and 65% incorporated these into their teaching practice. Of those who incorporated Indigenous issues, content or perspectives 34% taught them regularly, 51% occasionally, and 15% rarely taught them. Teachers indicated that the use of library materials was the most prevalent method used within the school to include aspects of Indigenous culture and knowledge; however, the majority of teachers indicated that appropriate resource and reading materials/books in their schools was insufficient (27%) or barely sufficient (25%). The majority of teachers also indicated that professional development and training as it pertains to integrating Indigenous content/perspectives into the curriculum was insufficient (38%) or barely sufficient (20%). Survey results revealed that teachers rated their level of knowledge with respect to the history, local culture/communities, and current issues of the following Indigenous groups as: First Nation (Limited: 40%, No knowledge at all: 3%),

Métis (Limited: 48%, No knowledge at all: 7%), and Inuit (Limited: 59%, No knowledge at all:

10%). The majority of teachers also indicated that it would be “Very important” to acquire 10 additional knowledge/skills-training in the following issues: incorporating Indigenous content into the curriculum (50%), instructional approaches including age appropriate methods for teaching about Indigenous history and other issues (51%), and strategies for addressing student’s concerns related to challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples (52%).

Milne (2017) interviewed 100 participants within provincial school boards in Ontario between 2012 and 2014 (64 non-Indigenous educators, 36 identified as Indigenous). During an interview about her study Milne summarized her findings:

There were educators I met who didn't know about residential schools. They didn't know

about Indigenous people in Canada, Indigenous culture and heritage and history.

Then there were teachers who knew a bit about it but still were unsure how to incorporate

it into their classes, and maybe were too uncomfortable, and so didn't.

The problem is that when you have people that are uncomfortable and intimidated, the

result is that we have educators that may not be doing it at all. (as cited in Drinkwater,

2017, para. 4-6)

Recurring themes in both the CTF (2015) survey and Milne’s (2017) study are the lack of knowledge about Indigenous content and perspectives, and with knowledge of Indigenous culture how to teach in a culturally relevant way. Kanu (2011), during her visits to public schools and classrooms as a faculty advisor to teacher candidates, consistently “noticed that most teachers lack the pedagogical tools and the cultural knowledge to hold Aboriginal students to the same high standards and expectations as their White mainstream counterparts” (p. xi).

Indigenous content and perspectives must not be ignored within Canadian classrooms.

Mi'kmaq scholar/educator Marie Battiste (2000) indicated that historically there have been few books and other materials based authentically on Indigenous cultures utilized within schools, and 11 the ones that did exist did not accurately depict the history or represent Indigenous worldviews.

Battiste (2000) noted that Canadian education is firmly grounded in cognitive imperialism which

“projects European knowledge as universal, normative, and ideal. It marginalizes or excludes

Aboriginal cultures, voices, and ways of knowing” (p. 193). Poet Adrienne Rich (1979) profoundly captures the result of this kind of treatment:

When those who have the power to name and to socially construct reality choose not to

see you or hear you...when someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the

world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked

in the mirror and saw nothing. (p. 199)

Indigenous students need to see themselves reflected in Canadian classrooms and curriculum in authentic and accurate ways (Bell & Brant, 2015). Additionally, as noted by Anishinaabe scholar

Nicole Bell and Terrylynn Brant of the Mohawk Turtle Clan (2015), Indigenous culture needs to be recognized as a dynamic process reflecting change over time, rather than as a static entity assigning them a place frozen in the past. Freeman, and Algonquin authors McDonald and

Morcom (2018) noted that it is

vital that teachers understand that doing nothing adds to the problem. When teachers do

nothing, Indigenous children don’t see themselves in their classrooms, and non-

Indigenous children do not learn about this land’s first – and continuing – inhabitants.

Then, students implicitly learn that Indigenous people, knowledge, and perspectives are

worth less, and they may continue to pass on the systemic injustices that have gotten us

into this situation. (para. 3) 12

In order to be effective change agents in establishing and maintaining healthy cross-cultural relations both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students must understand Indigenous values and worldview (Bell & Brant, 2015).

Bell (2014) observed that,

A key question that needs to be addressed in the creation of an Indigenous, culturally

relevant educational process is how to create a schooling environment that reflects

Indigenous culture and instils traditional values while providing the students with the

skills they need to ‘survive’ in the modern world. Indigenous knowledge thus becomes

important to understand. This knowledge is crucial to creating a culturally relevant space,

pedagogy, and environment for teaching Indigenous children. (p. 14)

Indigenous educators have found that Indigenous parents “still wish for their children to participate fully in Canadian society but also to develop their personal and community potential through a fully actualized linguistic and cultural identity and from within their own Aboriginal context” (Battiste, 2000, p. 192; see also Bell & Brant, 2015; Herbert, 1998; Hare, 2011).

Schooling environments that incorporate Indigenous culture and language have shown to positively impact academic performance for Indigenous students, including those outcomes related to reading and writing (Brayboy & Castagno, 2009; Gay, 2010; McDonald, 2011).

After an extensive review, most of the Canadian studies I have been able to locate in peer-reviewed journals on writing pedagogy in the elementary grades were undertaken in large urban centres. Although some Canadian researchers (Lotherington, 2005; Lotherington & Chow,

2006; Taylor, Bernhard, Garg & Cummins, 2008) addressed the multi-cultural nature of Canada with a focus on children from immigrant families, none of the studies examined Indigenous students. Since a considerable amount of the country’s population lives in rural Canada (OECD 13

Directorate for Education, 2004) it is imperative that we investigate how writing development can be improved for students in rural Canada. Taking into consideration the importance of the socio-cultural context to writing development, it is of great concern that there is an absence of research in Canada conducted within geographically rural areas and with Indigenous Peoples.

Significance of the Research

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) revealed that, “despite the painful experiences Aboriginal people carry with them from formal education systems, they still see education as the hope for the future, and they are determined to see education fulfill its promise”

(p. 434). More recently, Indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2019) reiterates that

“education is worth our collective efforts” (p. xi). Chief Barry Ahenakew of the Ahtahkakoop

First Nations was quoted in Christensen (2000) as stating, “Education is our buffalo. It is our new means of survival” (p. xi). This phrase has been used by Indigenous people to indicate the importance of education to their communities (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2008). However,

Mombourquette and Kainai educator Annette Bruised Head (2014) asked a significant question:

“What should that buffalo look like?” (p. 107). A considerable amount of research calls for culturally responsive pedagogy and meaningful learning activities (e.g., Antone, 2003; Ball,

2010; Berryman et al., 2014; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; St. Denis, 2010), but what does that look like in the writing classroom? As Cree scholar Priscilla Settee noted, “It’s not just ‘add

Indigenous and stir’…It’s a worldview and it takes a long time to learn how to do it respectfully, even for those of us that are Indigenous” (as cited in Warick, 2017, paragraph 2-3). Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing must be taken seriously to avoid tokenism (inclusion of decontextualized superficial Indigenous content), voyeurism (observation of cultural behaviors 14 and practices without active engagement), and cultural tourism (engaging in another’s cultural behaviors/practices) (Styres, 2019).

Indigenous teachers interviewed by Cree/Métis scholar Verna St. Denis (2010) expressed a need for Indigenous curriculum and resources so that “we don’t flounder around” (p. 38). Cree scholar, Margaret Kovach (2009) discussed the importance of Indigenous curriculum development stating that, “Curriculum makes space like nothing else I know in education. It can be a mighty tool of social justice for the marginalized” (p. 6). St. Denis’ (2010) participants echoed the findings of Milne (2017) and the CTF (2015) noting that, “in general, little is understood about what Aboriginal content and perspectives are, and how they can be effectively integrated” (p. 35). Wotherspoon (2008) found that teachers need adequate support when responding to curricular change; and that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers

“welcomed curricula demands though they were uncertain about the strategies best able to accommodate such demands” (p. 401). The urgent call for the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in schools and classrooms is “one of the most advocated but still under-researched responses to the challenge of providing social recognition and justice for Aboriginal students in the Canadian public school system” (Kanu, 2011, p. ix). Thus, this research focuses on integration of Indigenous perspectives at the level of instructional methods/strategies. As noted by Cheesman and De Pry (2010), “Providing literacy instruction that is both culturally responsive and evidence-based requires an understanding of culture, effective instructional practices, and how the two intersect” (p. 83).

The participants in St. Denis’ (2010) study specified that an important step would be to access and respond to the professional knowledge and experiences of Indigenous teachers.

Therefore, this research will listen to and act upon the voice of an Indigenous teacher as she 15 describes (and demonstrates within her classroom) what the buffalo looks like in terms of writing instruction for young Indigenous students. Sharing the findings of this research will honor

Indigenous values of respect and reciprocity, with the overall goal being to assist others by giving back to the community.

Purpose of the Research

Addressing the paucity of research regarding writing education and young Indigenous students living in rural Canadian communities, the purpose of this study is to identify culturally responsive writing pedagogy by bringing together the perspectives and practices of an

Indigenous teacher and an Aboriginal pedagogical framework, the 8 Ways (Yunkaporta, 2009).

The research questions that guide this study are as follows:

1. What discourses of writing (Ivanić, 2004) does the Indigenous teacher in the study

employ in her instructional approaches and beliefs about writing instruction?

2. Which of the 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies (Yunkaporta, 2009) does the Indigenous

teacher utilize in her writing instruction?

Through the identification of culturally relevant writing pedagogy, the perspectives/experiences of an Indigenous teacher can provide a foundation for sharing knowledge on educative writing practices. Due to the persistent ramifications of an oppressive colonial history issues of power and privilege within research will be examined and discussed. Native Hawaiian scholar Julie

Kaomea (2005) asked that non-Indigenous supporters “listen closely to our wisdom as well as our concerns, interrogate unearned power and privilege (including one’s own), and use this privilege to confront oppression and ‘stand behind’ [Indigenous people], so that our voices can be heard” (p. 40). This research attempts to do just that.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This research is inspired by the voices of Indigenous parents and students who call for culturally responsive pedagogy, effective evidence-based teaching strategies, and place-based education (Berryman, Carr-Stewart, Kovach, Laliberte, Meyer, Merasty, Sloboda, Stelmach &

Steeves, 2014). Efforts to redress the legacy of residential schools cannot ignore the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s2 (2015d) calls to action to “…Improving education attainment levels and success rates…Developing culturally appropriate curricula” (p. 2), and educating “…teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms” (p. 7). By working collaboratively with an Indigenous educator to identify culturally responsive writing pedagogy this study desires to enter an ethical space of engagement:

The ‘ethical space’ is formed when two societies, with disparate worldviews, are poised

to engage each other…The new partnership model of the ethical space, in a cooperative

spirit between Indigenous peoples and Western institutions, will create new currents of

thought…and overrun the archaic ways of interaction. (Ermine, 2007, p. 193-194)

Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaborators, Styres, Zinga, Bennett and Bomberry (2010), noted that pursuing such a space is difficult, but of significant value:

Ethical space is sacred, spiritual, engaging, ambiguous, and challenging. It will

simultaneously bring us to our knees in humility and raise us up to new heights of

understanding and awareness in creating collaborative knowledge systems no longer

2 From 2008-2014 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada documented the stories of thousands of residential school survivors. Released in June 2015, the final report included 94 Calls to Action: instructions to guide governments, communities, and faith groups towards reconciliation. The Calls to Action can be found at http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf 17

based on colonialist notions of domination, power, control, and usury, but rather on

mutuality, egalitarianism, shared knowledge, and a new way of relating. (p. 645-646)

Styres and Zinga (2013) caution that non-Indigenous and Indigenous collaborators must be cognizant of the tensions and challenges that exist when working together. For example, the non-Indigenous collaborator must be aware of the ways he/she is implicated in colonial relations and the protections/privileges afforded by the dominant society, acknowledge unequal power relationships, and understand the impact that a history of colonization has had on the Indigenous collaborator (Styres & Zinga, 2013). Both parties are responsible for engaging in and nurturing the relationship, committing to work through tensions created by colonial relations, working towards balancing and restoring the collaborative relationship, and being responsible “for their willingness to engage with their own preconceived notions and to consider how what the other is introducing into the space might inform or shift those notions” (Styres & Zinga, 2013, p. 292).

Through the use of ongoing consultation with the participating Indigenous teacher and school and community leadership, I have attempted to provide such an ‘ethical space’ for meaningful and productive dialogue; with the ultimate result benefitting the learning opportunities of

Indigenous children.

In order to fully explore evidence-based practices of writing pedagogy, the following literature review will begin with a historical overview of Western theories of writing development. This is followed by an examination of discourses of writing and writing pedagogy as revealed in the research literature. Finally, research on culturally responsive writing pedagogy will be discussed. It is important to note that I begin my exploration of writing from a Western tradition because that is the worldview my experiences are grounded within, and that is where my journey began. Indigenous Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli-Meyer (2008) teaches that our 18 senses are culturally shaped which offers us distinct pathways to reality. My reality sprang from my cultural foundation. However, as I began to delve into the work of Indigenous authors their work began to bring me “into a context of world awakening” (Aluli-Meyer, 2008, p. 233). Four

Arrows (2013) asserted that, “to create understanding, we make sense of something outside of our experiences by holding it next to something from our experience…to allow for meaningful reflection” (p. 127). Spending time within Indigenous scholarship indeed awakened me to a different and wonderful way of seeing the world. Indigenous scholarship must be recognized as

“an intellectual system on par with western traditions” and recognized “on their own merits”

(Simpson, 2014, p. 21, 13) and is privileged throughout this review. Out of utmost respect, tribal affiliations of Indigenous authors are acknowledged.

Historical Overview of Theories of Writing Development

A brief historical overview of the theories of writing development is helpful in understanding the theoretical framework for this study, as well as situating it within the historical context of the field (Boote & Beile, 2005).

Grammar Reigns

In the 13th-century it was thought that perfect written discourse would “emerge from perfect rules of grammar” (Roen, Goggin & Clary-Lemon, 2008, p. 429). This view persisted into the 18th-century where writing instruction focused on correctness in diction and mechanics

(Roen et al., 2008). Circa 1870, with the demands of growing industrialization, writing skills were “understood as clarity, grammatical correctness, and preferred usage” (Nystrand, 2006, p.

15). During the early 1900s scholarly dialogue about writing was concerned mainly with expository writing, prescriptive grammar, and exemplary text features of model prose (Nystrand,

2006; Roen et al., 2008). The paradigm for composing was the linear stage process model; for 19 example, Rohman’s (1965) Pre-Write/Write/Re-Write model and Britton’s (1975)

Conception/Incubation/Production model. In these models, the composing process is described as a linear series of distinct stages, separated in time, and resulting in the completion of the written product (Britton, 1975; Rohman, 1965). Fearn and Farnan (2001) noted that this system

(usually manifested in the classroom as the teacher allocating an assignment, students writing to meet the requirements of the assignment, teacher assessing the writing with comments and corrections, students making revisions) “paid little attention to what young writers thought, valued, or did when they wrote” (p. 182).

The 1966 Dartmouth Conference signalled a change in educational thinking about the nature of English language education (Myhill & Watson, 2014; Nystrand, 2006). Members of the conference (educational researchers and teachers from the USA and UK) expressed dissatisfaction with the predominant classroom practice of grammar teaching; “which was largely characterized by drills and exercises in labelling and identifying word classes and syntactical structures, and which to many education professionals had no education relevance and no impact on language development” (Myhill & Watson, 2014, p. 42). The conference participants proposed educational reform, arguing that effective writing instruction “has less to do with teaching techniques and more with fundamental insights about language processes and learning” (Nystrand, 2006, p. 13).

The Dartmouth Conference resulted in the development of a new model of English education which focused on writing processes rather than the technical correctness of the written product (MacArthur, Graham & Fitzgerald, 2006). This shift in educational pedagogy and ideology fueled the explosion of research on writing in the 1970s as the growth of cognitive 20 psychology at prominent institutions (e.g., MIT, Harvard, Carnegie Mellon) applied cognitive research to language processes (MacArthur et al., 2006).

Cognitive Theory

In the early 1980s Flower and Hayes (1980) challenged the notion of the stage process models of writing, arguing that they “have little to say about the act of writing itself because they are based not on a study of the process of writing, but on the product….the experience of writers rarely supports this tidy sequencing of stages” (p. 32). In using think-aloud protocol analysis they investigated the processes that writers went through in the act of composing and subsequently developed a cognitive process theory of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981). According to Flower and Hayes’ (1981) model, writing involves complex processes and sub-processes that occur interactively as writers proceed from the beginning to the end of their composition. The major elements and sub-processes of the model are: (1) the task environment, consisting of the rhetorical problem (topic, audience, exigency) and the text produced so far; (2) the writer’s long- term memory (knowledge of topic, audience, and writing plans); and (3) writing processes, comprised of planning (generating, organizing, goal setting), translating, and reviewing

(evaluating, revising), which are under the control of a monitor (representing the writer’s decisions to move from one process to the next) (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Flower and Hayes

(1981) highlighted that a central premise of the cognitive process theory is that “writers are constantly, instant by instant, orchestrating a battery of cognitive processes as they integrate planning, remembering, writing, and rereading” (Flower & Hayes, 1981, p. 387). Research by

Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) supported Flower and Hayes’ view that numerous demands compete for the writer’s attention; noting that the complexity of writing is found in “the 21 interdependency of components, which requires that a number of elements be coordinated or taken into account jointly” (p. 133).

Sociocultural Theory

The 1980s also brought about a social dimension to the academic discourse of writing.

Nystrand (1982) challenged Flower and Hayes’ (1981) cognitive model, arguing that, “the special relations that define written language functioning and promote its meaningful use…are wholly circumscribed by the systematic relations that obtain in the speech community of the writer” (p. 17). Research illuminating the social dimensions of writing in the 1980s were beginning to emerge; such as Heath’s (1984) work exploring the impact of membership in various discourse groups (i.e., community and classroom) on language and literacy, and Dyson’s

(e.g., 1988) classroom studies of the effects of peers on children’s written compositions. Farnan and Dahl (2003) noted that as children write, they are accomplishing specific social goals:

“Composing is a ticket to social status, to inclusion in the group, or to defining one’s writing identity within the classroom…They develop characters and personal topics that meet the social demands of their peer group” (p. 996). At this time, writing was no longer viewed as a solitary act producing an autonomous text (as proposed in an influential paper by David Olson in 1977).

Indeed, Linda Flower, herself, proposed a new model incorporating this social dimension in her

1994 book, The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing.

In the 1990s, researchers exploring writing adopted a sociocultural stance (Nystrand,

2006), which represents the dominant paradigm for writing research today (Prior, 2006).

Sociocultural theory of writing is founded on Vygotsky’s (1978) view that higher level cognitive processes are socially mediated within specific cultural contexts; and that these sociocultural interactions are essential to learning. Bakhtin’s (1981) views on the dialogic nature of every 22 utterance is also significant: “This dialogic character refers to the intertextual nature of language, oral or written, to how ‘real’ utterances indicate and point to other utterances and by so doing, connect to the social and cultural world” (Schallert & Martin, 2003, p. 40). Schallert and Martin

(2003) noted that, in a sense “we are all multicultural beings, bringing with us as we enter new groups the residue of other groups we have experienced, expressed in how we think, feel, and most of all, talk” (p. 41). Knowledge is not viewed as existing within the minds of individuals but is seen as being constructed at the intersection of socially situated activity, individuals, and culture (Englert, Mariage & Dunsmore, 2006). When the meaning and use of a particular concept shifts from the social to the internal plane, understanding is appropriated and learning occurs

(Bakhtin, 1981).

Viewing writing through a sociocultural lens, Rish, Bylen, Vreeland and Wimberley

(2015) categorized four main tenets: (1) All writing is a social act (the situated social context, social relationships, affiliations, institutions, etc. determines how, why, and what is written); (2)

Authorship is distributed (writing is collaborative and involves co-authorship due to the interactions with others during the processes of development and transcription; for example, teachers assisting with topic selection or style suggestions); (3) Writing is a mediated process of invention (resources chosen from a range of sociohistorically provided tools, such as genres or mentor texts, supports or constrains the nature/content of writing); and (4) Writing is dialogic

(previously heard/read spoken and written language is re-appropriated for the author’s use). Prior

(2006) eloquently captured these ideas when he commented, “Texts and moments of inscription are no more autonomous than the spray thrown up by the white water in a river, and like that spray, literate acts today are far downstream from their sociohistoric origins” (p. 58). 23

In summary, views of writing have moved from a focus on technical skills and the written product, to an understanding of the cognitive processes involved in writing, and finally to a more comprehensive observation that writing is embedded within social, cultural, and historic contexts. Prior (2006) commented that, “Writing emerges out of far-flung historical networks, and the trajectories of a particular text trace delicate paths through overgrown sociohistoric landscapes” (p. 64). It is these networks and landscapes we must navigate in order to gain an understanding of effective writing instruction. Before turning to the sociohistoric landscape of writing with Indigenous People of this land the following section provides an overview of the theoretical framework for examining discourses of writing and writing pedagogy.

Theoretical Framework for Examining Discourses of Writing and Writing Pedagogy

In order to improve the writing performance of Canadian children, it is critical to identify effective instructional practices for young writers. Evidence-based instruction in writing will maximize the writing development of students, as well as minimize the number of those who will experience difficultly in acquiring this skill (Graham, MacArthur & Fitzgerald, 2007). The purpose of the current section is to identify what practices have shown to be effective in writing instruction for elementary grade children, and more specifically to examine what is empirically known on this subject in the Canadian research literature. An extensive review of the literature resulted in few studies which examined the existing research on teaching writing in Canada. Due to the lack of Canadian research a selection of relevant research from non-Canadian sources is discussed within this current section to illustrate the different theoretical frameworks behind writing and the teaching of writing in elementary grade settings.

First, a framework is provided for understanding and analyzing the varied approaches and practices of writing and writing instruction. Examples are provided of effective strategies for 24 writing instruction in the elementary grades. Canadian research is identified and investigated in order to examine the empirical evidence for writing pedagogy within a Canadian context.

Multi-Layered View of Language

The multitude of differing theories regarding writing and pedagogic writing practices can be categorized using Ivanić’s (2004) framework of discourses of writing and learning to write.

Within this context, connections “are drawn across views of language, views of writing, views of learning to write, approaches to the teaching of writing, and approaches to the assessment of writing” (p. 220). Underpinning the framework is Ivanić’s view of language which consists of four interdependent layers: text, cognitive processes, event, sociocultural and political context

(see Figure 1). This model is visualized using four concentric rectangles with text (i.e., the linguistic elements of language) being the center, embedded within and inseparably linked, with mental and social characteristics. The next layer, cognitive processes, identifies the mental processing of meaning-making that is implicit within the production and comprehension of language. The third layer, event, describes the specific social context of the language use (e.g., purpose, social interaction, time, and place). The final layer, sociocultural and political context, refers to the larger context of culture and encompasses “the socioculturally available resources for communication: the multimodal practices, discourses and genres which are supported by the cultural context within which language use is taking place, and the patterns of privileging and relations of power among them” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 224).

Figure 1. Ivanić’s multi-layered view of language (adapted from Ivanić, 2004).

Through this multi-layered view of language, Ivanić (2004) provides a framework for identifying six discourses regarding writing and the learning of writing: (1) skills discourse, (2) creativity discourse, (3) process discourse, (4) genre discourse, (5) social practices discourse, and

(6) sociopolitical discourse. Discourses of writing are defined by Ivanić (2004) as “constellations of beliefs about writing, beliefs about learning to write, ways of talking about writing, and the sorts of approaches to teaching and assessment which are likely to be associated with these beliefs” (p. 224). An examination of these discourses offers insight into the various beliefs which drive practices in teaching writing. Examples of research on effective writing instruction with elementary grade children are identified using Ivanić’s (2004) recommendations and highlighted within each discourse.

Skills Discourse

The skills discourse of writing instruction focuses on the learning of the rules and patterns of writing conventions in a decontextualized manner. Explicit and prescriptive teaching of punctuation, spelling, and grammar is emphasized and assessment practices centre on accuracy 26 and correct usage of these conventions. As symbolized by the smallest unit of Ivanić’s multi- layered view of language these skills, although important, represent only a small part of good writing (Ivanić, 2004; Peterson, 2012b). Underlying the skills approaches to writing instruction is the belief that the correctness of the letters (e.g., ‘phonics’), words (e.g., sound-symbol relationship), sentences (e.g., syntactic patterns), and text formations (e.g., cohesion within paragraphs) constitutes good writing. Ivanić provides useful descriptive terms for recognizing the various discourses which aids in the investigation of discourse(s) utilized. The skills discourse is identifiable in “references to ‘skills’, spelling, punctuation and grammar, in expressions such as

‘correct’, ‘accurate’, ‘proper’, ‘learners must/should’, in the explicit and prescriptive teaching of rules, and in an emphasis on accuracy in assessment” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 228).

Campbell’s (1994) research exemplifies the skills discourse, with a focus on writing conventions. His study in a grade one classroom showed that instruction in syntax and grammar helped students move from written forms that were closer to spoken language to writing more complex sentences. Also aligned with this discourse is the work of Berninger, Vaughan, Abbot,

Begay, Coleman, Curtin, Hawkins and Graham (2002) where they examined teaching spelling alone and in combination with composition skills to struggling writers in grade three. Their

“simple view of writing” (Berninger et al., 2002, p. 291) incorporates instructional practices with diverse theoretical traditions. They theorized that problems in written expression may stem from the inability to spell the words that are necessary to express ideas. “Increasing spelling skill may improve written expression because children’s spelling becomes recognizable by others, leading to increased motivation to communicate using written language” (Berninger et al., 2002, p. 291).

They found that instruction in spelling alone as well as spelling combined with composition increased compositional fluency (however, the combined treatment showed the greatest effect). 27

The Canadian study by Saint-Laurent and Giasson (2005) emphasized the importance of teaching writing along with emerging reading skills and highlighted the positive impact of a school-supported family literacy program. Parents of first-grade students were invited to participate in workshops where they learned to, among other things, support writing activities at home. The workshops which focused on writing emphasized how children learn to write, the importance of encouraging invented spelling, playing with letters (e.g., ordering, identifying, making words) and the creation of a box of personal words and an alphabet book. The introduction of a dialogue journal activity showed the importance of communicating a message, interactive writing, and encouraging writing: “by putting the journal in an easily accessible place, writing short messages on various subjects, questions, sweet messages, congratulations, jokes and secrets” (Saint-Laurent & Giasson, 2005, p. 262). Although the functional aspect of the dialogue journal implies a social practices discourse to writing, the assessment criteria for the study indicate that the accuracy of writing conventions was the focus for improvement (i.e., skills discourse). The measure of writing achievement “consisted of a written narrative rated on seven aspects: (1) content of information, (2) sentence structure, (3) vocabulary, (4) spelling, (5) handwriting, (6) length of the text, and (7) total score” (p. 265). The results of this study indicate that the family literacy program had a positive impact on writing scores. “In particular, children produced texts with better sentence structure and spelling and a more precise and varied vocabulary. Their texts were longer than those of all other children” (p. 269).

Creativity Discourse

The creativity discourse of writing also emphasizes the written text; however, content and style are the main focus rather than its linguistic features. The mental processes of writers are involved as they engage in meaning-making. Within the creativity discourse, writing is 28 associated with the belief that children will learn to write by writing and therefore, should write as much as possible (e.g., Graves, 2004). Ivanić (2004) discussed two sub-beliefs within this view of learning to write. First, “the opportunity to write on interesting, inspiring, and personally relevant topics” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 229) encourages more writing and thus, development as a writer. Second, good writing is modeled by examples (implying implicit learning), and these models provide a stimulus for writing. Most of the written content is derived from personal experience (e.g., places, events, topics of interest) and result in a personal narrative. Feedback on writing provides opportunities for growth. Good writing is identified as that which adheres to modelled literature and is assessed for content, style, and its ability to arouse the “interest, imagination or emotions of the reader” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 230). This discourse includes approaches referred to as ‘whole language’ and ‘language experience’ and can be identified in references to “‘creative writing’, ‘the writer’s voice’, ‘story’, ‘interesting content’, ‘good vocabulary/words’” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 230).

Genishi, Stires and Yung-Chan (2001) discussed the benefits of adopting the creativity discourse within a prekindergarten classroom. The writing center was a frequent choice among the children in this class. The teacher observed:

I believe their enthusiasm comes from both the pleasure of making marks on paper and

from the response they get. I recognize that the "writing" will take a number of different

forms that include scribbling, drawing, random letters, or invented spelling. All of it is

appropriate, and I accept it according to the levels of the children's literary experiences

and development. (p. 406)

The teacher responded with encouragement and support to the drawing or writing, making suggestions for additional details. With the understanding that preschoolers use a variety of 29 symbols for making and expressing meaning, the teacher’s goal was to help “students eventually gain control over these forms of expression so that they can use them most effectively” (Genishi et al., 2001, p. 410).

The creativity discourse of writing and learning to write is also evident in the Canadian study by Gunderson and Shapiro (1988). These researchers observed two grade one classrooms in order to provide support for whole language instruction. Students were provided many opportunities to write within a writing-rich environment and in response to theme-based units of study. The skills discourse was also apparent in instruction in phonics relationships and spelling.

Students showed “tremendous growth in writing ability” (Gunderson & Shapiro, 1988, p. 434); as evidenced by the production of a large volume of writing, increased vocabulary, and moving from producing “strings of letter forms….[to] writing fairly understandable text with many conventional forms of spelling, spacing, and punctuation” (p. 434) within the span of three months.

Another Canadian study by Juliebo and Edwards (1988) examined the effect of topic choice on narrative writing. Drawing on previous research they suspected that the opportunity for students to choose their topics would result in the production of higher quality compositions. The longitudinal study spanning grades one to three revealed, contrary to expectation, that when students chose their own topics they did not produce better texts than when given a topic.

Many children in the preschool-primary age range are just beginning to be able to articulate their language and literacy experiences through written tasks. Kendrick and McKay’s

(2004) study used drawings to investigate the ideas about reading and writing of Canadian children in grades one and two. Drawings are an early representation of experience and stimulate the impulse to create stories (Vygotsky, 1978). As observed by Newkirk (2000), “primary-school 30 children regularly break into print by making elaborate drawings with a label at the bottom – print literacy being pulled in the wake of the visual” (p. 297). Upon being shown the drawings created by their students, the teachers in Kendrick and Mckay’s (2004) study were

“overwhelmingly surprised that their students were able to express complex understanding of reading and writing, which were apparently not evident in classroom language arts activities” (p.

123). These unique texts created by the children in the study represented their creativity and topics which interested them which are characteristics of the creativity discourse of writing and learning to write.

Process Discourse

The process discourse of writing utilizes the writers’ mental processes during writing

(e.g., decision making) and combines them with the practical processes of planning, drafting, revising, and editing (i.e., the processes and procedures for the development of written composition). Ivanić (2004) claimed that the cognitive processes involved are learned implicitly, while the practical processes of composing text are responsive to explicit teaching and feedback.

Assessment of this aspect of writing is difficult as the cognitive processes involved in writing are really only a means to an end (i.e., a successful written product). This discourse is revealed in

“verbs and verbal nouns such as ‘plan’, ‘draft’, ‘revision’, ‘collaborate/ion’, ‘editing’, in other expressions referring to more sophisticated subtleties of the composing process” (Ivanić, 2004, p.

232).

The process approach to writing instruction has shown to be effective in the development of writing in multiple studies. Chase (2012) reported that kindergarten students effectively utilized the revision process during a study of birds. With the understanding that drawing is a part of emergent writing, the teacher had the students complete a minimum of four drafts; the 31 culminating projects resulted in detailed and sophisticated scientific drawings of owls. Drawings were used as a story-planning strategy in a class of grade two students who struggled with writing, as reported in a study by Dunn (2011). Growth in writing proficiency was observed as the process approach was utilized within the Ask, Reflect, Text (ART) strategy where students created visual story plans before writing and revising. Second-graders in a Lebanese school showed that as the result of writing, drafting, revising and editing in a Writing Workshop,

“writing skills improved as reflected in their progression of text, expansion of ideas, and development in conventional writing” (Hachem, Nabhani & Bahous, 2008, p.325). Hoewisch

(2001) reported that the enjoyment of writing as well as writing quality were enriched using process writing techniques as students in grade three created their own fairy tales. Studies have also found that with the addition of instruction in self-regulation strategies students with behavioural disorders can benefit from instructional practices within the process discourse

(Adkins & Gavins, 2012; Graham, Harris & Mason, 2005; Harris, Lane, Discoll, Graham,

Wilson, Sandmel, Brindle & Schatschneider, 2012).

A study conducted by Canadian researchers, Peterson and Portier (2014) focused on the effects of peer and teacher feedback on student writing in a grade one class. The predominant discourse utilized was the process discourse of writing where the teacher in the study “modelled and provided examples of effective feedback and good writing in whole-class and small-group lessons and in her own one-on-one verbal feedback on student writing” (Peterson & Portier,

2014, p. 237). Students engaged in formal peer-feedback sessions and, as a result of teacher modeling and feedback, provided useful suggestions for revision of each other’s work (with a focus on content rather than on writing conventions). Regardless of writing ability, all students were able to contribute useful feedback. Examination of initial drafts and subsequent revised 32 writing resulting from peer and teacher feedback revealed that students incorporated many of the suggestions from their peers in the revised product. Indeed, “students took advantage of the opportunity to learn through revising, as they revised their writing in response to 90% of teacher and peer feedback” (Peterson & Portier, 2014, p. 255).

Genre Discourse

The genre discourse of writing focuses not only on the product but also emphasizes attention to the specific purpose of the writing within a particular social context (i.e., the writing event). Good writing is not only correct but is also “linguistically appropriate to the purpose it is serving” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 233). Explicit instruction has shown to be useful in identifying the linguistic features of different types of text in order to effectively reproduce them (Graham &

Harris, 2005). In the genre approach, the “‘target’ text-types are modelled, linguistic terminology is taught in order to generalise about the nature of such texts, and learners are encouraged to use this information to construct (rather than ‘compose’) their own texts in the same genre” (Ivanić,

2004, p. 233). Student assessment within this discourse focuses on appropriacy, referring to the application of appropriate linguistic characteristics for their particular written product (i.e., to achieve the identified purpose in the specified social context). This discourse of writing is identified “by references to linguistics, names for text-types such as ‘Recount’, linguistic terminology such as ‘nominalisation’, ‘passive’, [and] references to ‘appropriacy’” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 234).

Aligned with the genre discourse, quality models of literature were read, examined for literary techniques, and used as inspiration for writing by a class of seven year-olds in a study by

Dix and Amoore (2010). It was found that “children were highly motivated by the literature.

They enjoyed listening and talking about the stories, becoming engrossed in elements of the 33 narrative structure as the plot was played out” (p. 147). Enhanced oral language vocabulary and sentence patterns, and the ability to describe and compare in greater depth was evident as the children engaged with the stories. The literature provided effective models for quality written work and the development of a metalanguage of writing techniques emerged within the classroom. The children borrowed from the literature and took ownership of appealing phrases, applying them appropriately to their own writing. “These young authors were excited and motivated to write, they were keen to apprentice themselves to expert writers” (Dix & Amoore,

2010, p. 148).

Pantaleo (2010) examined how the narrative competence of students in grades three and four in a Canadian classroom were developed through reading and writing metafictive texts

(metafiction involves writing about imaginary characters/events where the process of writing is explicitly discussed/described). In the course of the research the students individually read 10-12 contemporary picture books containing metafictive devices and completed a written response to each. They then participated in small group discussions (listened to and talked with others about the texts) and whole class activities (explicit instruction in metafictive devices) before creating their own written work with metafictive devices. Pantaleo (2010) reported that, “the students’ written responses to the picture books, their conversations throughout the research, their own books, and their interviews about the latter, revealed that the students had learned a great deal about literary and artistic codes and conventions by participating in the research” (p. 275). As characterized by the genre discourse to writing, this success resulted from explicitly learning the features of different types of writing and the purposes they served in specific social contexts.

Social Practices Discourse

Within the social practices discourse the writing event itself is important (as opposed to a focus on the writing processes or the linguistic features of the event as seen in the process and genre discourses respectively). Here, the text and the composition processes are inseparable from the social writing event and social purposes/context for the writing itself. Ivanić (2004) explained that within this discourse writing is considered,

as a set of social practices: patterns of participation, gender preferences, networks of

support and collaboration, patterns of use of time, space, tools, technology and resources,

the interaction of writing with reading and of written language with other semiotic

modes, the symbolic meanings of literacy, and the broader social goals which literacy

serves in the lives of people and institutions. (p. 234)

Purposeful participation in the social context of the writing event and meeting relevant/meaningful social goals via writing leads to the implicit learning of writing. A functional approach to writing instruction may be utilized within this discourse. Learners are provided with an authentic writing task (real-life or simulated, for example, preparing a resume, sending an email, cross-curricular learning) and taught explicitly how to create a written product to meet the requirements of the identified context. Within this discourse, good writing is determined by its effectiveness in achieving its specific social goal. This discourse is recognizable by references to “events, contexts, purposes and practices, to people, times, places, the technologies and material resources of writing, to the visual and physical characteristics of texts” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 237).

Andes and Clagget (2011) found that the written expression skills of second grade special education students were improved through the active engagement in meaningful reasons to write 35 as they corresponded with e-pals. Grade three students in Britsch’s (2005) study with e-pals,

“gained a sense of audience and choice, the kind of control that is essential for real writing” (p.

128). A study by Frank (2001) showed that teachers who are also writers/authors themselves often ground their practices in the social construction of what authors do, thus creating an environment where students can try on these social practices. In this study of second-grade students,

we observed Elliott discovering how to look like a writer when he sat on the author's

chair and was identified as an author. We saw how he acted as an author when he took

his book to Kinkos to publish and how he talked like an author when he explained how to

draw from the work of other authors. (Frank, 2001, p. 501)

These studies exemplify the social practices discourse as the writing was embedded within a real-life context with a genuine purpose.

Canadian researchers, McKee and Heydon (2014) orchestrated authentic writing tasks in their Intergenerational Digital Literacies Project. Elders from a local rest home were paired with kindergarten children to work on multimodal projects that included the use of art, singing, and digital technologies. The overarching goals were to meet literacy curricular objectives and to cultivate community connections. The results of the study indicated that “the modality of the projects and the reciprocal intergenerational relationships forged in and through text-making afforded children opportunities to improvise and refine their print literacy practices as part of multimodal ensembles” (McKee & Heydon, 2014, p. 1). As characterised by the social practices discourse,

writing or reading within the ensembles was thus not practising print literacy just to

satisfy the desires of the teacher or move up a level as can often be the case in school…; 36

rather, it was about satisfying the interests and ends of the child participants in relation to

others within a dialogic. (MeKee & Heydon, 2014, p. 25)

Sociopolitical Discourse

Closely aligned to the social practices discourse is the sociopolitical discourse of writing.

This discourse is also concerned with the writing context, but additionally claims that writing “is a sociopolitically constructed practice, has consequences for identity, and is open to contestation and change” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 225). Within this discourse, learning to write involves the development of awareness as to “why different types of writing are the way they are, and taking a position among alternatives” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 225). These beliefs about writing adopt approaches such as ‘Critical Literacy’, whereby learning to write involves explicit teaching of sociopolitical justifications and consequences. Within the sociopolitical discourse, “Teachers encourage students to create texts that challenge and subvert conventional ways of thinking about the relative status of particular groups; texts that construct more powerful identities for all members of society” (Peterson, 2012b, p. 268). Heffernan, Lewison, Tuyay, Yeager and Green

(2005) stated that, “Critical literacy is necessary because the literacy learned in school rarely leads to an understanding of how language and social systems work to empower or disempower people” (p. 108). This discourse is revealed in references to “politics, power, society, ideology, representation, identity, social action and social change” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 239).

An exemplary study within the sociopolitical discourse was conducted by McCloskey

(2012) who reported that growth in critical literacy can be nurtured even at the preschool level.

During interactive conversations and book making at the community writing center a group of preschoolers “reconceptualised jail from being a place where ‘bad’ people are taken to a place that people are sometimes placed because they perform acts of social justice” (McCloskey, 2012, 37 p. 369). As one of the preschoolers drew pictures of a classmate in jail for bad behavior an authentic and meaningful conversation occurred with another classmate where she exclaimed,

“Well guess what? My mom has gone to jail for um, for two times….because she was fighting for justice and they had to break up the row and the police put her in jail” (McCloskey, 2012, p.

375). The researcher continued to scaffold this perspective in order to support new learning. The result was preschoolers reframing their drawings of people in jail “as perhaps people who were standing up for issues of social justice” (McCloskey, 2012, p. 376). McCloskey (2012) suggested that an instructional approach for fostering critical literacy is simply allowing space for these discussions and practices to occur.

Lotherington (2005) set out to engage in ethnographic research exploring developing multiliteracies; examining how multilingualism, multiculturalism and multimodalism are incorporated into literacy development and practice. During her time reading stories to children in an elementary school in inner city Toronto, Canada (characterized by low income and high multiculturalism), Lotherington (2005) discovered that Goldilocks and the Three Bears was a class favorite. Grounded firmly in an ethnographer’s stance, she was curious about the appeal of this classic tale:

I started to wonder what made Goldilocks so attractive to these children. She was present

in the story as a rather naughty little girl with pretty blonde hair, a colour I noted to be

conspicuously absent in the gene pool of the children attending Main Street School. She

was walking alone in the woods, an absolute no-no for urban children, who are often

locked in their high rise apartments with the television on when parents are not available.

What did a lonely cottage in the woods look like to children who lived in high density, 38

publicly subsidized housing? They would not have seen a bear in Toronto, though the

city is plagued with urbanized raccoons. And what on earth is porridge?

I asked the teachers what the children might understand of Goldilocks and her life

in the woods, and the common link was thought to be the break-and-enter theme of the

traditional tale. Rather horrified, but unsure of whether this was ultimately good or bad, I

decided that it was time to digitally edit Goldilocks, to bring her into the 21st century of

contemporary urban Toronto. (p. 111)

In a school whose mandate it was to increase opportunities for social equity for its students, the retelling of a traditional tale was expected to produce exciting new literature that reflected the variety of cultural identities present within the class. As Wolf (2004) points out,

“The fairy tale has always been a critical site for shifting perceptions” (p. 180). Lotherington

(2005) and Lotherington and Chow (2006) describe the process of rewriting Goldilocks in a grade two classroom. The researchers wanted “the children to learn what a story is and to retell a traditional story from their perspectives grounded in contemporary reality, so that the story would become more inclusive of their worlds” (Lotherington & Chow, 2006, p. 242). Significant to the concepts of representation and identity (as characterized within the sociopolitical discourse) an ideological shift was found in “listening to a teacher remark on the courage of a young child to color the face outlined on his screen brown – something she would never have had the bravado to try when she was in school as a minority student” (Lotherington & Chow,

2006, p. 248). Contrary to the expectation that the culture reflected within the retellings of

Goldilocks would mirror the urban, multicultural reality of the children, most of the stories reflected the dominant culture of the students: digital and pop culture. “Culture for them was

YTV (a Canadian children’s television network), Pokemon, and Yu-Gi-Oh” (Lotherington & 39

Chow, 2006, p. 248). These researchers will however, persist: “We are looking to bring into the story line more of the reality of children’s lives to create culturally inclusive stories: turning

Goldilocks into Dreadlocks” (Lotherington, 2005, p. 118).

The sociopolitical discourse was also evident in a study by Taylor, Bernhard, Garg and

Cummins (2008). The authors call for a redefinition of the cultural and linguistic capital of

Canadian immigrant families from a deficit model to a model where the global, national and personal resources of these families are valued and hold power/knowledge within the curriculum.

They argue that,

…in the Eurocentric and Anglocentric discourses dominating even culturally tolerant or

celebratory schools, knowledge of languages other than English and non-western,

racialized cultural forms are positioned beyond the curricular pale, marked as occasional

imports from out-of-school spaces but irrelevant to core learning. Educational

empowerment, then, involves a process of shifting the Eurocentric, monolingual

epistemological economies anchoring the current literacy curriculum in order to centre

increasingly salient global flows of discursive, textual and semiotic systems. (p. 272)

The success of their research project, which consisted of kindergarten students (in conjunction with their teacher and families) creating and publishing Dual Language Identity Texts can be seen in the following excerpt from the study:

Within this English-only, Eurocentric Canadian curriculum, the place Zohreh [a student

whose parents were born in Pakistan] might be able to carve out for herself would be

defined in relations to who she is not or what she can not do. This deficient or belated

fractured identity is the familiar identity of ‘the kid who can’t speak English’, ‘the

immigrant kid’, the ‘New Canadian’ or ‘the ESL kids’….On the other hand, this project 40

allowed for the shift in the constellation of power/knowledge/authority/identity in the

curriculum: the composite identity defined by Zohreh’s mother as she helps her daughter

author her multi-layered autobiographical book is powerfully positioned in relation to a

global vision of all she is, all she can do, all the communities of her active memory,

belonging and participation. (Taylor et al., 2008, p. 286)

Comprehensive Approach

Ivanić (2004) suggested a comprehensive approach to writing pedagogy, incorporating all four layers of the multi-layered view of language (review Figure 1), and utilizing teaching practices from all six discourses. Realistically, Ivanić (2004) noted, specific teaching lessons/units might incorporate two or more approaches, while all six might be integrated within a whole curriculum.

Illustrative of a comprehensive approach is the Canadian work by Peterson and Portier

(2013). These researchers challenged the unpromising results of previous research on teacher feedback which focused on errors in writing conventions and language use rather than content and style. They argued that teacher feedback can be a powerful tool for teaching writing in elementary classrooms. Indeed, their study on feedback and student writing revision revealed

“remarkable improvements” (Peterson & Portier, 2013, p. 39) in the writing of grade two students. Investigation into the utilization of Ivanić’s (2004) discourses of learning to write showed an eclectic approach to instruction: skills discourse (e.g., mini-lessons on writing conventions), creativity discourse (e.g., many opportunities for writing), process discourse (e.g., revision after collaborative feedback on content and style), genre discourse (e.g., highlighted features of published writing), and social practices discourse (e.g., published student work for classroom library). The predominant discourse was the process discourse of writing with the 41 goal of explicit instruction (via regular teacher feedback within one-to-one conferences) being

“to encourage students to write more elaborate, descriptive stories, and to view revision as a natural part of their writing processes” (Peterson & Portier, 2013, p. 32). Within the process approach (Graves, 2004) used by the teacher, the teacher’s own love/knowledge of writing, the abundant amount of time spent writing, student topic choice, and a supportive/trusting writing environment proved significant in the improvement of student writing. Peterson (2012b) pointed out that:

Creating a more comprehensive writing curriculum that includes social practices and

sociopolitical discourses does not have to involve making extensive additions to, nor

deleting large portions of existing curricula. Instead, it might involve reframing the

objectives to combine the skills, creativity, process, and genre discourses with the more

socially oriented discourses. (p. 280)

Summary

Ivanić’s (2004) discourses of writing and learning to write provided an organizational framework to examine research on writing and learning to write. The research shows that writing can be encouraged and developed within school settings by providing enjoyable opportunities to engage in conversations about writing, and creating writing, symbols and drawings that reflect a variety of topics (e.g., Genishi et al., 2001; McClosky, 2012). All six of the discourses were represented within the research literature and each showed a positive impact on the writing development of the children observed. Characterized by the skills discourse, explicit instruction in spelling (Berninger et al., 2002) and syntax/grammar (Campell, 1994) showed positive improvement. The creativity discourse was observed to increase the meaning-making and enjoyment of writing as children chose their topics and symbols for written expression in a 42 preschool setting (Genishi et al., 2001). Within the process discourse, explicit teaching in the practical processes of pre-planning planning, drafting, revising, and editing resulted in higher quality writing (Adkins & Gavins, 2012; Chase, 2012; Dunn, 2011; Graham et al., 2005;

Hachem et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2012; Hoewisch, 2001). Dix and Amoore (2010) discovered that utilizing the genre discourse through the exposure and study of quality literature provided inspiration for writing and produced richer written products. Writing with an authentic purpose, as characterized by the social practices discourse, resulted in greater writing productivity and more highly motivated writers (Andes & Claggett, 2011, Britsch, 2005), as well as ownership of the identification of being authors (Frank, 2001). McClosky (2012) showed that even preschoolers can engage in the critical literacy of the sociopolitical discourse as scaffolded conversations, changing perceptions, and written products reframed an ingrained stereotypical concept. Due to the fact that writing is such a complex process, Ivanić (2004) recommends incorporating multiple discourses within an effective writing program, and that a high-quality program will at some point incorporate them all.

Examination of the Canadian studies on writing reveals an absence of research conducted within geographically rural areas and with Indigenous people. As mentioned previously, writing is a local, positioned social practice; children bring with them their “socio-cultural identity, political status [and] linguistic heritage” (Heskial & Wamba, 2013, p. 55) to every writing task.

The meanings attributed to literacy, the purpose and function that it serves, and the manner in which literacy is taught and learned is dependent upon the socio-cultural context (Anderson,

Anderson, Friedrich & Kim, 2010). It is imperative that we investigate writing development in

Indigenous contexts in order to improve instruction for these students. The following section of this literature review will thus explore culturally responsive writing pedagogy and privileges 43 materials written by Indigenous scholars that contributed to my understanding of Indigenous pedagogical philosophies and practices.

Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy

In an attempt to make a pedagogical change, Ladson-Billings (1995) set aside deficit- oriented thinking of the day and instead investigated educational success of African American learners. She coined the term culturally relevant pedagogy and suggested that it meet three criteria: “an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to nurture and support cultural competence, and the development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness” (Ladson-

Billings, 1995, p. 483). Culturally responsive education is often regarded as synonymous with culturally relevant education (Gay, 2010). Cynthia Nicol, Sto:lo scholar Jo-ann Archibald and

Métis educator Jeff Baker (2013) provide a useful etymological analysis of the Latin origins of responsive and relevant which reveals a philosophical difference:

The word relevant stems from “relevare” meaning “to lesson, lighten” and “congruity”

meaning “agreement.” It is associated with the words “relieve” and “appropriate.”

Responsive, on the other hand, is related to “respondre” meaning to “respond, answer to,

promise in return” and stems from re meaning “back” and spondere “to pledge.” Thus

culturally relevant education can be considered as an “appropriate relief” of an

educational problem prompting questions of whose problem, where it is located, what

should be done and who should be involved. Alternatively, culturally responsive

education emphasises the reciprocal relationship that exists among those who constitute

an educational community. (p. 75)

The importance of culturally responsive education lies in the emphasis on “the collective responsiveness to problems” making it difficult to simply be an “expedient way of acculturating 44 students to dominant social norms” (Nicol et al., 2013, p. 75). Rather than teaching about cultural heritage as a subject, culturally responsive teachers base their educational decisions and activities on local culture (Battiste, 2013; Gay, 2010; Smith, 2011).

Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy

Paris (2012) questioned whether or not the terms ‘relevant’ and ‘responsive’ go far enough in their orientation to ensure the valuing and maintenance of cultural practices of our multiethnic society; noting, “It is quite possible to be relevant to something or responsive to it without ensuring its continuing presence in a student’s repertoires of practice” (p. 95). In extending the concepts of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogies, Paris and Alim (2014) proposed that we work towards culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP). This stance requires that pedagogies are more than relevant/responsive to the cultural experiences of students; that pedagogies strive towards supporting students in sustaining the cultural competence of their communities while concurrently offering access to dominant cultural competence. In adopting this stance it is important to note that while it is crucial to work towards sustaining language and cultures in our pedagogies, we must acknowledge both the traditional and the dynamic ways that they are lived, used, and recombined by contemporary young people (i.e., students forge dexterous, fluid identities through transcultural participation; Alim & Paris, 2017).

CSP was inspired by, and founded upon, Ladson-Billing’s (1995) original formulation of culturally relevant pedagogy (Alim & Paris, 2017). In her more recent article, Culturally

Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix, Ladson-Billings (2014) identified that, “culturally sustaining pedagogy uses culturally relevant pedagogy as the place where the beat drops”3 (p.

76). She views CSP as a means to advance the goals of culturally relevant pedagogy of engaging

3 Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings is a pioneer educator in using hip-hop music in the classroom as a method of engaging students. A ‘drop’ is the moment in a music track when tension is released, and the beat begins. 45 critically in the cultural landscapes of the classroom. Those who have taken up the practice of

CSP note that their utilization is highly informed by Ladson-Billing’s original concept, and identify CSP as an extension of culturally relevant pedagogy that seeks to sustain the cultural practices of youth of color (Kinlock, 2017; Lee, 2017; Lee & McCarty, 2017). Lee and McCarty

(2017) offer another important extension, that of culturally revitalizing pedagogy. This concept is salient in teaching Indigenous students where the goal is to not only meet their academic needs through relevant/responsive/sustaining pedagogy, but also work towards reclaiming and restoring their cultures.

In examining the question of what are we seeking to sustain (and revitalize) through CSP,

Alim and Paris (2017) eloquently clarified:

We sustain what we love…CSP calls for sustaining and revitalizing that which has over

the centuries sustained us…as communities of color struggling to “make it” – to resist,

revitalize, and reimagine – under enduring colonial conditions that constantly work to

diminish our intellectual capacities, culture, languages, and yes, our very lives….[CSP is]

literally about sustaining our minds and bodies as communities of color within a

schooling system that has often had the exact opposite goals. (p. 12-13)

In order to develop culturally responsive writing pedagogy (and strive for culturally sustaining/revitalizing writing pedagogy), it is imperative to have an understanding of

Indigenous views on orality and writing.

Views on Orality and Writing

Indigenous cultures have powerful oral traditions (Kovach, 2009). Skill in telling stories is valued, and collective and experiential knowledge is shared through spoken language

(Archibald, 2008). Jeannette Armstrong (1998) explained that her Okanagan language is 46

“completely vocally rooted in that it has never been written down. It is a language devised solely for use by the human voice and the human body” (p. 187). Further,

To the Okanagan, speaking is a sacred act in that words contain spirit, a power waiting to

become activated and become physical. Words do so upon being spoken and create cause

and effect in human interaction. What we speak determines our interactions. Realization

of the power in speaking is in the realization that words can change the future and in the

realization that we each have that power. I am the word carrier, and I shape-change the

world. (Armstrong, 1998, p. 183)

In many Indigenous traditions, “language has a power to heal or transform the world….

[however, with] written literacy, language becomes descriptive/historic and begins to lose its unique power as creator of reality” (Dyc, 1994, p. 212).

There is conflict between Indigenous literacy knowledge valued within the traditional community and with the discourse associated with Western values and ideologies (Dyc, 1994).

Those differences between Western classroom expectations and traditional Indigenous literacy learning can affect engagement with the writing process in a variety of ways. For example:

[O]n-demand exercises often require students to dive into writing projects with minimal

planning time, despite the emphasis on extended practice present in many traditional

Native communities. Additionally, Native students who, from a young age, have been

encouraged to listen carefully and share their ideas only once they fully understand the

topic may feel uncomfortable when asked to share early drafts of written work with peers

or teachers. Additionally, since many Native communities traditionally focus on intimate

and relational awareness of audience, an expectation that students will be able to write

confidently and competently for strangers (e.g., standardized test evaluators, college 47

admissions boards, etc.) also potentially conflicts with cultural ways of knowing.

(Stanton & Sutton, 2012, p. 78)

Ball (2010) noted in any Indigenous community “people range across all stages between orality and literacy” (p. 4), and that “the importance they confer on these different forms of knowledge varies” (p. 4). Assumptions have been made that writing was “a technology that did not exist in Northern Indigenous places prior to contact with Europeans” (Catlin, 2013, p. 122).

However, Indigenous authors such as Thomas King (2003), Gregory Cajete (2000), Jo-ann

Archibald (2008), Daniel Heath Justice (2018), Marie Battiste (1986), Annie York et al. (1993) dispute this myth. As Battiste (1986) suggested, “through the use of pictographs, petroglyphs, notched sticks, and wampum, early North American Indians achieved a form of written communication and recording which served the social, political, cultural, and spiritual needs of the early period” (p. 25). Justice (2018) provided an example:

…we can read wampum belts as political documents, which in some ways they certainly

are, but they’re far more than that, as they also physically embody and articulate the deep

relationships of rights and responsibilities between peoples, and there are complex

protocols and rituals that accompany and enliven their social function. (p. 23)

Those early forms of Indigenous literacy were complementary to the oral tradition. King

(2003) examined the differences between contemporary Indigenous literature and oral

Indigenous storytelling and made the point that,

the advent of Native written literature did not, in any way, mark the passing of Native

oral literature. In fact, they occupy the same space, the same time. And, if you know

where to stand, you can hear the two of them talking to each other. (p. 101-102) 48

Archibald (2008) came to a similar conclusion. Rather than positioning literacy and orality in a dichotomous relationship she discovered that, “The mystery, magic, and truth/respect/trust relationship between the speaker/storyteller and listener/reader may be brought to life on the printed page if the principles of the oral tradition are used” (Archibald, 2008, p. 20). Navigating the use of the framework of written English language/structure to tell a story from an Indigenous worldview can be very problematic (Archibald, 2008). As other Indigenous authors have done,

Métis writer Maria Campbell (Campbell et al., 1992) learned to manoeuvre this relationship and use English writing as a tool to represent oral stories:

For a long time I couldn’t write anything, because I didn’t know how to use English. I’m

articulate in English. I know it well. But when I was writing I always found that English

manipulated me. Once I understood my own rhythms, the language of my people, the

history of storytelling, and the responsibility of storytelling, then I was able to manipulate

the language. And once I started to be able to manipulate English, I felt that was personal

liberation. (p. 9-10)

As explained by Justice (2018), “Indigenous writing offers us something different, a complementary but distinctive way of thinking about Indigenous belonging, identities, and relationship” (p. 27). Indigenous literatures can help us learn to be healthy humans, realize in meaningful ways how to behave as good relatives (to one another and to the other-than-human world), guide us in becoming good ancestors (create the kind of world and relationships that nurtures future generations), and provide helpful models of learning to live harmoniously together. King (2003) noted that, “The magic of Native literature…is not in the themes of the stories – identity, isolation, loss, ceremony, community, maturation, home – it is in the way 49 meaning is refracted by cosmology, the way understanding is shaped by cultural paradigms” (p.

112).

Writing Research in Indigenous Contexts

Both non-Indigenous researchers (Ball, 2010) and Indigenous scholars (Antone, 2003;

Hare, 2011; Toulouse, 2011) have documented that curriculum and pedagogy for Indigenous children in Canada must be decolonized in order to foster powerful Indigenous identity creation and the literacy skills required to successfully meet the demands of formal schooling. However, an extensive literature review of both published and informal reports conducted by Ball (2010) yielded “less than 50 directly relevant sources, many from outside of Canada” (p. 5) on the topic of literacy development among young Indigenous children. The in-depth search I conducted on writing pedagogy revealed only two studies, which I outline in the following paragraphs.

The Elder Interviews project described by Stanton and Sutton (2012) is an excellent example of a comprehensive (Ivanić, 2004) and culturally responsive approach to writing instruction. In the study occurring in the Intermountain Region, U.S., Indigenous high school students first explored “appropriate etiquette for place-based literacy in tribal contexts” (p. 81), discussing the principles of respect, reciprocity, and interrelatedness in relation to interacting with and listening to Elders, as well as responsible story sharing. After interviewing the community’s Elders, the parts of the recorded stories that the students found particularly interesting or perplexing were transcribed. These offered opportunities for discussion about perspective, structure, fluidity of oral sharing, and different ways to “authentically represent that dynamism in written storytelling in terms of punctuation and sentence…[and]…reading the written versions with an eye toward form and purpose” (p. 81). Topics in critical literacy were also explored “such as the ethical implications for “preserving” community narratives, including 50 tribal stories, through publication” (p. 81). This project allowed the students to connect the tribal community to the classroom community:

Students learned about the time and patience needed to share a story well, the importance

of developing a relationship between teller and hearer (or writer and reader), the potential

misuse of written expression, and the purpose of various approaches to organization – all

aspects central to Indigenous literacy. In addition, contextualizing the use of grammar

and structure as a dynamic process – a process dependent upon writer choice –

emphasized experiential relevance. As a result, discussion about purpose and audience

took on more concrete meaning. Students recognized that literacy involves decision-

making and power…. (Stanton & Sutton, 2012, p. 81)

A project by Scheuerman, Gritter, Schuster, and Fisher (2010) occurring in Palouse

County of the inland Pacific Northwest, U.S., reported similar findings. Indigenous middle school students interviewed, recorded, transcribed, and shared creation legends told by their family members and community elders. Reflecting on themes in the tribal storytelling they then composed stories of their own. Scheuerman et al. (2010) reported the importance of bringing the community into the classroom stating: “The objective of place-based literacy learning is to use local literacy artifacts to facilitate critical thinking about cultural, political economic, and environmental connections to promote community sustainability by relating local narratives to the wider world” (p. 49).

These studies are important in showing that the traditions of orality and literacy, rather than being competitive, can coexist in cooperative modes and result in empowering pedagogies

(Archibald, 2008; Dyc, 1994; King, 2003). Oral storytelling can serve as a springboard to success for an Indigenous writer, drawing on cultural strengths (Stanton & Sutton, 2012). 51

Teachers who incorporate Indigenous forms of literacy, such as oral storytelling and place-based literacy, can redefine writing and engage in culturally responsive teaching.

Summary

Effective educational activities are based upon, and responsive to, local culture. Skills in writing vary, as do views on its importance. The research on writing in Indigenous contexts shows that the incorporation of both orality and literacy can result in valuable learning experiences. It is essential to work collaboratively with Indigenous people in developing new methodologies for writing instruction that will meet their literary needs (this collaborative endeavor requires responsibilities which are discussed later in this thesis).

Theoretical Framework for Examining Indigenous Pedagogy

Theoretical perspectives on Indigenous pedagogy begin with an assumption that

Indigenous Peoples have their own particular values, philosophies, and customs. Furthermore, on an individual level, the inherent abilities and learning styles of Indigenous students are as varied as in any other group of students (Redwing-Saunders & Hill, 2007; Toulouse, 2011). However, some factors are ubiquitous among Indigenous learners (Battiste, 2002, 2013; Bergeson, Griffin

& Hurtado, 2000; Canadian Council on Learning, 2007; Goulet, 2001; Hilberg & Soleste-Tharp,

2002; Hughes & More, 1997; Ingalls et al., 2006; Jacobs, 2003; Pewewardy, 2002; Toulouse,

2008). Drawing on these factors, the 8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical Framework was created.

8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical Framework

Through extensive collaboration with Elders and community members, Indigenous educator and scholar Dr. Tyson Yunkaporta (along with James Cook University’s School of

Indigenous Studies, and the Western New South Wales Regional Aboriginal Education Team) 52 engaged in a two-year research project examining how Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers working in Indigenous communities and their schools across Western New South Wales in

Australia might authentically and productively use Indigenous knowledge in schools.

Yunkaporta (2009) contended that the “solution lay in the application of Aboriginal processes [of knowledge transmission] rather than Indigenised content” (p. 3). In examining Aboriginal processes Yunkaporta (2009), and the Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET), developed the 8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical Framework. He drew on Hughes’ and More’s

(1997) definition of ways of learning as “the mental processes and instructional settings which a student uses while learning”; and definition of learning style as “a way of learning in which the student has a strength” (p. 4). It was from identifying the patterns in the strengths that Indigenous students showed in their ways of learning and learning styles that effective teaching practices were identified and coined as the 8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical Framework

(Yunkaporta, 2009).This framework is expressed as eight interconnected pedagogies involving: narrative-driven learning (Story Sharing), visualised learning processes (Learning Maps), hands- on/reflective techniques (Non-Verbal), use of symbols and metaphors (Symbols & Images), land-based learning (Land Links), indirect/synergistic logic (Non-Linear), modelled/scaffolded genre mastery (Deconstruct/Reconstruct), and connectedness to community (Community Links).

This pedagogical framework guides teachers to embed Indigenous perspectives in their lessons by using Indigenous learning techniques, even when the focus is on core curriculum content

(RAET, 2019b). Figure 2 shows the visual representation of 8 Ways Aboriginal Pedagogy

Framework. 53

Figure 2. 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogy framework (RAET, 2019a - Public Domain Mark 1.0, No

When using the 8 Ways framework, the focus is on incorporating Indigenous perspectives within teaching methods, rather than only teaching content. This, however, does not mean that cultural content is eliminated. Currently, much Indigenous content incorporated within educational settings is “tokenistic, separated from the core content and treated as an interesting or fun activity” (RAET, 2019c, paragraph 1). This has been referred to as the 3-D approach, incorporating mainly dance, dress, and dining (Sensoy et al., 2010). Sensoy et al. (2010) noted that this response to diversity is “a superficial, additive study of culture and culturally rooted differences and inequities…[and] that this is the most basic form of inclusion of minoritized ethnic and racial voices in the school curriculum” (p. 2). Essentially, Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy are viewed as little more than a celebration rather than a complex way of knowing that is rooted in tradition, connectedness, and facts. While it is encouraging that Indigenous cultures 54 are being discussed and celebrated, this superficial view may add to the erroneous assumption that Indigenous ways of knowing do not have the depth and rigor that is found in Eurocentric epistemology (Sensoy et al., 2010). Instead, it is important to seek relevance and advanced applications of Indigenous knowledge underpinning cultural items brought into the classroom

(The Regional Aboriginal Education Team, 2019c).

Yunkaporta (2009) acknowledged that every place and People have their own unique pedagogies, and that 8 Ways is not intended to constitute an entire Indigenous program for schools. These eight ways are merely a “culturally safe point of entry for teachers to begin engaging with Aboriginal knowledge and cross-cultural dialogue in the community” (RAET,

2019b, paragraph 9). This section will review each of the 8 Ways and includes Indigenous authored scholarship from North America providing support for a more localized context. Cree scholar Margaret Kovach (2009) noted that Indigenous people “share a worldview that holds common, enduring beliefs about the world” (p. 37); and that “there is enough similarity…to apply concepts generally” (Little Bear, 2000, p. 79).

Story Sharing

A key pedagogy in the 8 Ways framework is the narrative-based one of story sharing

(RAET, 2019b; Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). Storytelling forms the foundation for much traditional Indigenous teaching and learning (Bell & Brant, 2015; Cajete, 1999). Indigenous novelist, Thomas King (2003), affirmed that stories are “the cornerstones of our culture” (p. 95).

Stories shape who we are as individuals and how we understand and interact with other people; indeed, “the truth about stories is that that’s all we are” (King, 2003, p. 92). As the cornerstone to

Indigenous culture, story sharing is of the utmost importance to pass along teachings, lessons, 55 skills, cultural norms and social values of an entire culture. Nishnaabeg scholar Leanne Simpson

(2014) indicated that within Nishnaabeg pedagogy stories are used as theoretical anchors.

Storytelling as an instructional technique helps to develop skills in listening, critical thinking, creativity and imaging (Cajete, 1999). Stories teach the importance of proper relationships to plants, animals and nature, as well as demonstrate what happens when these important relationships are not nurtured. Archibald (2008) attests, “a good story can reach into your heart, mind, and soul, and really make you think hard about yourself in relationship to the world” (p. 404). McLeod (2007) reminds us of the importance of story sharing and drawing upon the teachings of the “Old Ones” (p. 38); through narrative “the past comes alive through stories, and through our connections to the people who are telling the stories” (p. 39).

Stories are not told with the goal of delivering direct information, but for the listeners to develop their own interpretation of the story and have their life be influenced by their interpretations. It is a method of self-educating that gives the listeners space to think and feel, as well as allowing the listeners to use their imagination and create their own self-understanding

(Archibald, 2008). Tom McCallum (as cited in National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2008) shared:

Each of us interprets and understand what we hear or are taught based upon our life

experiences, understanding and knowledge we each have. If we sit in a circle and listen to

a story, each of us will interpret and understand the story in a way that is both the same

and different as the person sitting next to us. We can talk to everyone in the circle and

each person will have a different point of view. It is up to the listener to make sense of

what is being said, to be guided and assisted in their development toward wholeness. (p.

16) 56

Thus, after the story is shared by the teacher, the listeners are responsible for creating their own learning through the use of their imagination, analysis of the connections and relatability of the story to their own lives, and the understanding and implementation of morals, beliefs, and values that serve to benefit the greater good of all people (Archibald, 2008).

It must be noted that there are certain stories that can only be told by certain individuals at particular times of the year, and protocol must be followed (Archibald, 2008). However, for the purpose of this discussion the goal of Indigenizing education through story sharing is to reintroduce oral traditions into school contexts with educational intentions that emphasize using imagination, addressing emotions, extending thinking beyond basic reading comprehension, and practicing concepts of social justice learned from stories.

Learning Maps

Learning maps involves explicitly mapping/visualizing learning processes and pathways of knowledge (RAET, 2019b; Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). Mapping out the learning journey

(whether it be a single activity, lesson, unit, or the scope and sequence for the year) allows students to see where they are and where they are going (Kanu, 2011; Toulouse, 2011;

Yunkaporta, 2009b). As with any journey, learning journeys do not take a linear path. This pedagogy involves making the learning tasks visually explicit in order to serve as a reference point (e.g., anchor chart).

Non-Verbal

Indigenous pedagogy is kinaesthetic, hands-on, experiential learning with a strong emphasis on applying reflective intra-personal skills to thinking and learning (RAET, 2019b;

Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). Experiential learning is seen as learning-by-doing and is connected to lived experience (Bell & Brant, 2015; Snively & Williams, 2016). Through experiencing the 57 world directly, and testing the knowledge gained through introspection and practice, Indigenous learners develop independence and critical thinking skills.

Symbols and Images

With respect to learning orientations, Indigenous students show strength as visual learners (e.g., visual discrimination, use of imagery) (Bergeson et al., 2000; Pewewardy, 2002;

Yunkaporta, 2009b). Peat (2005) noted of the Blackfoot people that,

Traditional practices and teachings revolve around symbols, numbers, geometric shapes,

special objects, etc., that evoke the flavor of a mental model. As an example, the circle of

the tepee and the sacred hoop becomes a model for the earth, for the life of person, and

for the movement of time. Other symbols, or “models” deal with the heavens and with

various forces of nature. (p. 257)

Peat goes on to provide examples of Indigenous symbols of the Americas (e.g., the tree, four sacred directions, bear, fire, sacred plants, etc.) that are shared by Indigenous peoples across the globe).

Indigenous pedagogy uses images and metaphors to understand content and concepts

(RAET, 2019b; Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). The symbols/images contain knowledge coded within (i.e., each symbol correlates with whole groups of practices or experiences) and are therefore tools for learning and understanding complex knowledge. Yunkaporta and Kirby

(2011) noted that the pedagogies of learning maps and symbols/images are naturally linked: “one provides the structure of memory while the other provides the language of memory” (p. 208).

Land Links

Land links refers to the instructional technique of relating learning to local land and place

(RAET, 2019b; Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). The strong Indigenous connection between land and 58 knowledge/learning has been widely documented (e.g., Alfred, 2014; Battiste, 2002; Bell &

Brant, 2015; Cajete, 1999; Irlbacher-Fox, 2014; Little Bear, 2009; Simpson, 2014; Styres &

Zinga, 2013b; Wildcat, McDonald, Irlbacher-Fox & Coulthard, 2014). These connections are embedded in the language. For example, landscape is not simply a view to be seen, but a holistic part of a human experience with which to be engaged. Within an Indigenous perspective,

“viewers are as much a part of the landscape as the boulders they stand on” (Silko, 1996, p. 2).

As such, humans must understand that in being part of an over-arching landscape, that they are part of a delicate balance and complex environment to which they also have responsibilities. This

Indigenous cultural understanding shapes Indigenous pedagogies. Land-based education is

“rooted in the Aboriginal belief that the land is our First Teacher, and that by observing, listening, experiencing and valuing all the earth has to offer, we can learn that which is necessary to sustain our lives” (Wildcat et al., 2014, p. 19). Little Bear (2009) noted that place must be an integral part of any curriculum; for “just as a person would suffer from absences from friends, parents, and other relatives, Aboriginal people suffer when absent from the land” (p. 21).

Non-Linear

A non-linear way of learning, Indigenous pedagogy creates spaces for innovation and understanding. Lateral thinking, combining systems, and making connections with existing knowledge are part of the non-linear way of teaching and learning (RAET, 2019b; Yunkaporta,

2009a; 2009b). Concepts of overlap and synergy guide complex learning cycles composed of multiple processes occurring continuously. These concepts are elaborated by Yunkaporta in the following: (2009)

In Aboriginal worldviews opposites meet to create something new, with symmetry and

balance concepts valued above oppositional thinking…In this way we can also see that 59

learning doesn’t go straight from one side to the other. It bends out to the side, bringing

in knowledge that might seem to be off topic, but that creates deeper understandings and

richer learnings. (p. 6)

Cycles and circles, the journey towards balance and harmony in Indigenous education, reflects the interconnectedness and interrelationships of all life with all beings viewed as interdependent and part of the greater whole (Bell & Brant, 2015; Little Bear, 2009; Snively &

Williams, 2016). Learning in cyclic and indirect ways creates synergy, where the construction of a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Kasha Pomo Nation Greg Sarris (1993) explained how learning through synergistic interaction can be seen, for example, between a story, the story teller, and the reader/listener’s life experience:

Mabel once said: “Don’t ask me what it means, the story. Life will teach you about it, the

way it teaches you about life.” It is important that I remember my life, my presence and

history, as I attempt to understand Mabel. As I learn more about Mabel, I learn more

about myself. In this way, using much of what Mabel has taught me, I show in these

essays myself and others learning, seeing beyond what things seem to be. I chart

dialogues that open and explore interpersonal and intercultural territories. (p. 5)

Deconstruct/Reconstruct

Indigenous teachers and students “readily see the overall picture before they concern themselves with the details” (Pewewardy, 2002, p.38), taking a holistic, global orientation to learning. With modeling and observation, the overall meaning, purpose, or structure is explored before breaking it down into manageable chunks (Yunkaporta & Kirby, 2011). In this pedagogy, often called “watch, then do”, modeling and scaffolding by the more knowledgeable other occurs before the learner tries it independently (Bell & Brant, 2015; Bergeson et al., 2000; Goulet, 60

2001; Hughes & More, 1997; Toulouse, 2011). This practice gives meaning to important

Indigenous cultural knowledge (Cajete, 1999). This pedagogy is exemplified in Charnley’s

(2006) account of Jicarilla Apache writer/philosopher, Viola Cordova:

As Cordova recalled about her own childhood, she was not told what or how to be a

writer…Her tendencies were noticed and she was taken to visit a great-aunt who was a

writer. By spending time with this relative in a warm intimate friendship Cordova

‘watched’ how the great-aunt conducted herself over time. Cordova’s intelligence was a

given, she did not need to be told, rather the choice to take in what mattered to her was

her own. In this way we become leaders of ourselves, we become self-guided individuals

with a sense of intellectual integrity and contributive community members. Later

Cordova took up writing herself with her observations of her great-aunt, and the

knowledge therein, informing her practice. (p. 70).

Community Links

The idea of community links draws from research describing Indigenous pedagogy as group-oriented, centered on local viewpoints, and connected to real-life purposes/contexts.

Learning is applied for community benefit and returned in useful ways to the community, such as performances, displays, and community development and awareness projects (RAET, 2019b;

Yunkaporta, 2009a; 2009b). Because Indigenous ways of understanding the world center on relationships, community involvement is fundamental to the education of Indigenous learners

(Little Bear, 2009). Inclusion in the community is the motivation for learning (Yunkaporta,

2009a); and learning itself is a community activity where family, Elders and the community at large all have a role and responsibility (Cappon, 2008; Snively & Williams, 2016). 61

Yunkaporta (2009a; 2009b) stressed that the 8 Ways are interrelated with one another.

The lines joining the pedagogies are as important as the pedagogies themselves and are further nested within values, systems, processes, and protocols (see Figure 3). “Values, protocols, systems and processes refer to the ways of valuing (axiology), ways of being (ontology – protocol are rules for how to be), ways of knowing (epistemology) and ways of doing

(methodology)” (RAET, 2019b, paragraph 16).

Figure 3. Interrelationships amongst the 8 Ways (RAET, 2019b - Public Domain Mark 1.0, No Copyright).

This figure models a kinship system of dynamic and interactive processes, as “Story sharing is the husband to Non-Linear, the son of Learning Maps and Land Links, the in-law of

Deconstruct/Reconstruct, and the maternal Grandfather of Community Links” (Yunkaporta,

2009c, p. 47). The important principles of the 8 Ways of Aboriginal Learning and Pedagogical framework guided my research into culturally responsive writing pedagogy.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology and to detail the research design and procedures used in this study. The first section of this chapter will outline the theoretical underpinnings and rationale for the choice of case study methodology for this study.

Next, my positioning as a non-Indigenous researcher conducting research within an Indigenous context is briefly explored. I then describe the research study, setting and participants. Finally, I delineate the data collection and analysis procedures used within this research.

Research Paradigm

A paradigm, or worldview, determines assumptions about reality, epistemology, and methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). The interpretivist paradigm (adopted by many qualitative investigators) maintains a subjectivist approach and is grounded in nominalism (there is no real structure to the social world), anti-positivism (the social world can only be understood from the perspectives of the individuals involved), voluntarism (individuals are autonomous and free- willed), and utilizes an ideographic research methodology (analysis of subjective accounts such as interviews, observations, etc.) (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Often combined with interpretivism is social constructivism (Creswell, 2007), which maintains that an individual’s subjective meanings of the world are the result of their social interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). In understanding the sociocultural influence on literacy learning (i.e., development is embedded within social and cultural contexts; Vygotsky, 1978), the qualitative case study “is an ideal design for understanding and interpreting observations of educational phenomena” (Merriam,

1988, p. 2). Accordingly, I utilized qualitative case study methodology in my research.

Research Design

In present-day societies, “schools serve children who are breathtakingly diverse in sociocultural heritage and geographic location” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 1). It is this complexity of human experience that leads qualitative researchers to use case studies to understand literacy learning. As Dyson (2008a) noted, “In mass, children – and the challenges they present – are faceless, nameless, and overwhelming” (p. 7). However, in studying an individual case, details of specific experience afford insight into broader phenomenon related to literacy development. Research that is focused on “discovery, insight, and understanding from the perspectives of those being studied offers the greatest promise of making a difference in people’s lives” (Merriam, 2009, p. 1). The following section will define the case study and outline the characteristics of this qualitative research tradition.

Case Study Defined

Merriam (2009) defined a case study as “an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p. 40). This author noted that confusion surrounds case study research in that the procedure for conducting this type of study “is conflated with both the unit of study (the case) and the product of this type of investigation” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40). For example, Yin’s

(2003) definition relates to research process: “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 8). Stake’s (2005) focus is on the unit of study: “case study is defined by interest in an individual case, not by the methods of inquiry used” (p. 443). Creswell (2007) incorporated process, the case itself, and the end product in his definition:

...case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a

bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, 64

in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations,

interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case

description and case-based themes. (p. 73, emphasis in original)

Characteristics of the Case Study

Within case study research the case (i.e., the unit of analysis) may be complex or simple; it “can be an individual, a program, an institution, a group, an event, a concept” (Merriam, 1988, p. 44). The unit of analysis is determined by deciding “what it is you want to be able to say something about at the end of the study” (Patton, as cited in Merriam, 1988, p. 44, emphasis in original). In this study, multiple views, meaning and events will be explored from a sociocultural, constructivist perspective. Therefore, this research will be grounded within qualitative methodology in the format of an instrumental case study. Stake (2005) noted that the case in an instrumental case study is of secondary interest and plays a supportive role in facilitating understanding of an external interest; the case study is used to “provide insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization” (Stake, 2005, p. 445).

As noted in the definition, the case is a bounded system. Boundedness delimits the study and determines what is included or excluded (e.g., a single school, or a phenomenon of some sort). Miles and Huberman (1994) graphically represented the case as a heart within a circle; the heart signifies the focus of the study, and the circle “defines the edge of the case: what will not be studied” (p. 25). Beyond the issue of boundedness, Merriam (1988) described three additional features of case studies: (1) particularistic, in that the case focuses on a particular subject, event, situation, or phenomenon; (2) descriptive, in that the researcher gathers rich, or “thick” (p. 43), description of what is being studied; and (3) heuristic, as the study illuminates the reader’s understanding of what is being explored. It is through the thick description that readers are able 65 to contextualize to their own situations and meaningfully interpret the study’s findings alongside the researcher (Cousin, 2006). In my research, the focus was culturally responsive writing pedagogy explored within one rural First Nations school through the perspective of an

Indigenous educator. Although an instrumental case study is a mainstream research method it can be culturally relevant and responsive to working in Indigenous research contexts. In her work on Indigenous methodologies Cree scholar Margaret Kovach (2009) explained that:

“Qualitative research offers space for Indigenous ways of researching” (p. 24), “where inclusivity of voices in research practice is possible” (p. 27); and “Given the range and possibilities evident in the qualitative research tradition, contextualized knowledge (such as an

Indigenous one) can find an ally with these paradigms” (p. 27).

Despite limitations, qualitative case study research can provide rich descriptions of participants, processes and the dynamics of educational practice, providing considerable value for inquiry in literacies education. As such, the intention of this research study is to produce knowledge about the educational practice of enhancing the writing skills of young Indigenous students living in a rural locale. Mellor and Corrigan (2004) noted that there has been “a relative silencing of Indigenous voice in the research literature [and that] case study research is a methodology that can access, and provide opportunities to express, voice” (p. 49). The intent of the dissemination of the findings of this study is to “‘stand behind’ [Indigenous people], so that

[their] voices can be heard” (Kaomea, 2005, p. 40) with regard to their perspectives of culturally responsive writing pedagogy.

Recognition of My Positioning as I Conducted My Research Study

As a non-Indigenous researcher conducting research within an Indigenous context it is extremely important to be aware of how my own cultural positioning influenced my data 66 collection and analysis. After a considerable amount of reading of Indigenous scholars (coupled with years of experience working with Indigenous teachers and students in a variety of educational contexts), I am aware of how I am implicated in colonial relations and the privileges afforded to me by the dominant Western society with which I am affiliated. Thus, before describing the setting and participants of my study I explore considerations of conducting research within an Indigenous context. Additionally, within my discussion (Chapter 5) I discuss the exploration of my research journey with regard to core principles (i.e., respect, relationships, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991; Styres & Zinga, 2013b).

Gregory Younging’s (2018; Opaskwayak Cree Nation) book, Elements of Indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about Indigenous Peoples, was also consulted during the writing of this dissertation.

Research Within an Indigenous Context

Mi’kmaq scholar, Battiste (2007) noted that a critical aspect of research with Indigenous people is maintaining a high level of ethical responsibility in ensuring that Indigenous knowledges and people are not exploited. The Aboriginal Capacity and Research Development

Environment programs established within many Canadian provinces proposed the incorporation of Kirkness and Barnhardt’s (1991) four ‘R’s – Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and

Responsibility – for developing academic initiatives in educational contexts with Indigenous people (Ball & Janyst, 2008). The emphasis is on the need for research that, “respects them for who they are, that is relevant to their view of the world, that offers reciprocity in their relationships with others, and that helps them exercise responsibility over their own lives”

(Kirkness & Barhardt, 1991, p. 1). Adapting these principles for research contexts, Styres and

Zinga (2013b) included an additional ‘R’, that of ‘Relationship’; “Relationships are fundamental 67 because respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility are grounded in an understanding and acknowledgment of interconnected relationships and are expressed through those relationships”

(p. 293).

Additionally, Styres (2008) advocated exploring one’s own research intentions using

Bishop and Glynn’s (1999) power-sharing model which examines the research/er on five points:

• initiation (e.g., whose interests is the research promoting?);

• benefits (e.g., who gains directly from the research?);

• representation (e.g., whose reality/stories are privileged in the research?);

• legitimization (e.g., whose reality/experiences/stories are legitimized by the research?);

• accountability (e.g., to whom is the researcher accountable?)

This research will also be informed by the community-first Land-centred theoretical framework (Styres & Zinga, 2013b). Here, from a strengths-based approach the community is placed first and the concept of Land extends beyond geography, being recognized as “a spiritually infused place grounded in interconnected and interdependent relationships, cultural positioning, and is highly contextualized” (Styres & Zinga, 2013b, p. 301). Styres and Zinga

(2013b) noted:

Collaborators who choose to use our community-first Land-centred theoretical

framework to inform their research should meet certain core criteria but do not have to

apply the principles of the theoretical framework throughout the entire research

process…In practical terms, this means that in establishing and nurturing the

collaboration, the core principles of the five R’s (Relationships, Respect, Relevance,

Reciprocity, and Responsibility) together with the interconnected components of

community-first and Land-centred, inform and guide the collaboration to promote 68

transformation and lead to decolonizing approaches to research collaboration. (p. 303-

304)

Via their tri-council research policy, the Government of Canada (2015; Chapter 9:

Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada) outlined the ethics framework for work within Indigenous contexts. The policy indicated that research should be relevant to the needs and priorities of the community, and potentially produce valued outcomes.

Within the Key Concepts for the Merit Review of Aboriginal Research the policy further delineated the importance of:

• reciprocity (mutuality of knowledge giving and receiving, emphasis placed on a

co-creation model);

• community (places, land-based communities, thematic communities, communities

of practice), and

• respect/relevance/contribution (identify/respect relevant community research

protocol/goals/contributions) (Government of Canada, 2016)

This study sought to embody these principles. The participating Tipiyimisiw4 First Nation’s recent Community Development Plan (2015) indicated that school program support and cultural education (incorporation of cultural teachings/ways of learning) were key areas for improvement.

In addressing the needs and priorities identified via community feedback the results of this study would hopefully provide valuable information for program enhancement. As well, the intent was that the knowledge relevant to the community would be co-created through the respectful work with the participating Indigenous teacher.

4 Pseudonym used to maintain anonymity. 69

Cree researcher, Kovach (2005) noted that research involves a collective responsibility and accountability: “we can only go so far before we see a face – our Elder cleaning fish, our sister living on the edge in East Vancouver…our little ones in foster care - and hear a voice whispering, ‘Are you helping us?’” (p. 31). In focusing on collaboration between both

Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing we can move towards

“finding an equitable balance and braiding together the knowledges” (Styres & Zinga, 2013b, p.

290) in order to find strength-based solutions. The overarching goal of this study was to engage in ethical research with respect and integrity.

Research Methods

Throughout this instrumental case study, I sought understanding of culturally responsive writing pedagogy in a rural First Nations school. In order to increase confidence in the interpretation of data, I employed triangulation through the gathering of a variety of different sources of information. Analysis and interpretation of the data were deductive in nature, with conclusions based on observation and the application of the discourses of writing (Ivanić, 2004) and 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies (Yunkaporta, 2009) frameworks to the interview and observational data. I begin by describing the setting and participants and then outline the data collection process and procedures for data analysis.

Setting and Participants

Selecting the research site and teacher-participant. For my research study I sought a rural, locally run First Nation elementary school. In November 2017, I phoned the principal of

Tipiyimisiw School (a member of the local Indigenous community) and gave him an overview of my research study. I had met him previously through my husband who is also an administrator in a First Nation school in the same treaty territory. The principal asked that I send him a brief 70 written overview (see Appendix A) and that he would inquire to see if any of his teaching staff were interested. The following day he phoned me to let me know that he did indeed have a teacher who was interested in participating. In addition, he had taken the written overview and explained the project to the Band Manager and Education Portfolio Holder, who had both given verbal consent to proceed. He invited me to meet the teachers and attend/participate in an in- school professional development (PD) activity with the literacy catalyst from the Treaty Six

Education Council (an organization whose mission “is to provide second level support services to member Nations that enhances the education systems at the First Nation level” (TSEC, n.d.a, paragraph 1) scheduled for December.

In December 2017 I traveled the 180 kilometers from my house to the school with a plate full of baking, excited to meet everyone. Unfortunately, due to illness of the instructor the PD session was cancelled. However, I was able to meet the teacher I would be working with and we spent some time getting to know each other and discussing the project with the principal. The teacher then took me on a tour of the school and introduced me to the other teachers and staff members (e.g., Elders, educational associates, kitchen staff, janitor). She explained to her colleagues that I would be working with her in her classroom for two months after the Christmas break, telling them, “so you will see her face around here a lot!” She also explained that I was there to learn about their culture and ways of teaching. She encouraged everyone to make me feel welcome and to share freely with me. The principal indicated to the staff that he had discussed my research with the Chief and Council and that I had “a complete go-ahead.” I shared a little about myself, gave out baking, and let everyone know how excited I was to learn about their culture and that I appreciated them having me. I left the school at the end of the school day feeling warmly welcomed. 71

Classroom observations occurred from January 8 to March 8. On January 8 I introduced myself to the class and sent home letters of consent to participate in educational research (see

Appendices B-E). From Monday to Thursday I observed during English Language Arts. This was structured as writing time from 8:55-9:45 a.m.; followed by the use of a reading series,

Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008), from 9:45-10:25 a.m. I assisted the students during Math

(10:40-11:20 a.m.) and Physical Education (11:20-12:00), and either ate lunch with the teacher/students or assisted with their classroom canteen (12:00-12:45). Every Tuesday the student day was condensed with an early dismissal in order to facilitate weekly professional development (PD) activities for the teachers from 2:30 until 4:00 p.m. On these days I stayed and assisted the teacher/students after lunch in either Science or Social Studies and attended the PD sessions with the teachers. I did not attend the school on Fridays as the students had morning swimming lessons in the nearby city. During two of the days I was at the school I was the substitute teacher for the Grade 6 class, and one other day I subbed for the Grade 2/3 teacher

(leading her group for Culture Day). On March 15 and 16 my participating teacher and I presented at the University of Saskatchewan’s Think Indigenous Conference on the work that we had done together. On March 29 I returned to the school for the annual Round Dance. See Figure

4 for timeline.

November December Jan.8-Mar.8 Mar.15-16 March 29 o Admin contact o School visit o Student/parent o Co-presentation o School Round o Band approval o Meet staff consent at Think Dance o Teacher consent o Classroom Indigenous observations Conference (Total: 31 days) o Participation in school community o Semi-structured interview (Feb.8) Figure 4. Timeline of research activities and school-community participation.

Setting.

Community. Located in northern Saskatchewan, the Tipiyimisiw First Nation is 40 kilometers5 north of a small city (population approximately 14,000). According to the

Tipiyimisiw website, they are part of the Treaty 6 territory and have 1,260 registered members

(680 of which live on-reserve, while 580 live off of the main reserve). Culturally, the core of their First Nation is of Anishinaabe/Ojibwe decent but many members have intermarried with

Cree and people of other ethnic origins. Members of Tipiyimisiw First Nation speak the Cree language. Traditional activities (such as hunting, fishing, and traditional ceremonies) are practiced, and there is considerable involvement in recreation and sporting activities.

School. Tipiyimisiw School is a Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 8 school situated in the core area of the Tipiyimisiw First Nation. There are approximately 126 students enrolled with a professional staff of eight teachers, two Elders, one Senior Administrator, one

Librarian/Guidance, and nine Educational Assistants. All of the staff are either from the community or a neighboring First Nation community. It was noted by my participating teacher that most of the staff, and many of the students, are related: “so, we’re just a big family here at this school”. The school was built in 1982 and includes an industrial arts lab, science lab, library, kitchen server and multi-purpose room. The school grounds are equipped with an outdoor play center, swings, football/soccer pitch, and basketball courts. The school is also located right next to the community arena, band office, health centre, and day care/Aboriginal Head Start.

Aboriginal Head Start is a community-based, early childhood development program for

Indigenous preschool children (Government of Canada, 2010). The mandate of Tipiyimisiw

School is to maintain high academic standards and develop with pride the cultural uniqueness of

5 All statistical information presented in this section are approximate values. 73 each student (physical, mental, emotional, social), returning to “their most precious values based on traditional learnings” (Tipiyimisiw School website).

Participants.

Teacher. The teacher I worked with is an amazing educator who is full of energy and wonderful ideas. She is a known “knowledge keeper” in her community, and a passionate advocate for honoring and preserving her First Nations culture. When I informed her that I needed to use a pseudonym for the sake of anonymity she requested that I use her Cree name,

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, which translates into White Stone Woman:

I was about 9 years old when I got my Cree name. The year I Sundanced. I was a very

curious child so my parents let me Sundance with them at such a young age. I’ll have to

ask my mom why they let me. If I remember correctly my late aunt may have had

influence. At the Sundance the Elders do a naming ceremony as well as throughout the

span of the Sundance. Parents/guardians bring in cloth, tobacco and gifts to have their

child named. In our culture your Cree name has more significance to the spirit world. It is

also known that when your child is sick once you get them named their spirit is

strengthened. All about the interconnectedness with Mother Earth and her contents (earth,

air, fire, water). (personal communication via text, May 31, 2018)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew grew up, and was educated, in the community where she now teaches. Before becoming a teacher, she worked for a few years as an Educational Assistant “to try out working in a school”. She completed her undergraduate degree in Education from the

Indian Teacher Education Program (ITEP) through the University of Saskatchewan and has been teaching in her community since graduating five years ago. In addition to teaching the Grade 6 class I had the honor of taking part in, she has also taught Grade 5; and recently switched 74 positions in the school to become the Math Catalyst and Treaty/Language/Culture Teacher.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew is a positive thinker. She noted that she was really inspired by one of her professors who went to Africa and “came back and talked about don’t make excuses that you can’t teach because you don’t have the resources. Get creative and use what you have! In Africa they teach reading and writing from pages out of a Bible!” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew is very committed to her students’ learning, as well as her school and community. She noted on social media: “My mind runs at a million miles per hour…My children are grown so I have all the time in the world to put effort into my work. That is why you will get 150%, instead of 100%” (May

31, 2018).

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s father (who passed away in 2015) was a well-known round dance singer and political leader (holding the position of Education Portfolio Holder, amongst other titles). It was noted that he “was a very cultural man, often participating in ceremonial and cultural practices all over Turtle Island, following the lead of his parents. He shared these customs and traditions with his wife and children…He has inspired many with his humbleness and wisdom” (Obituary, 2015). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew has followed in her father’s footsteps and enthusiastically shares her cultural knowledge in whatever format she is able. For example, she takes to social media and shares information about treaties, protocols, etc. and is not afraid to tackle difficult topics such as political controversy (e.g., Stanley/Boushie trial) and issues such as racism, suicide, and mental health. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted:

Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all the information I know about First Nation people.

Although it is overwhelming I will continue to advocate for our people as much as I can.

Please teach your children about their identity. Language is a very important aspect in a 75

part of who we are as nehiyaw people. Hiy hiy...Thanks for reading! Ahkahmeymok!

(May 25, 2018)

Students. The Grade 6 classroom consisted of 14 students (10 girls, 4 boys). All of the students were from the First Nation that the school is situated within. All but one of the students resided within Tipiyimisiw First Nation; living arrangements were varied (e.g., living at home with both parents or grandparents, living with mom or aunty). The one student residing off- reserve lived in the nearby city and rode to the school with the teacher every morning. The students residing in the community took the bus to school. The students’ families ranged in size from one sibling to 15 siblings (children of step-mothers/step-fathers and current partners included). English was the first language, with Cree being taught as a subject in the school. The teacher indicated that this year academically and behaviorally she had “a very strong class”.

Researcher as participant-observer. In order to contextualize the study, I included information about myself and explained why my research questions were important to me, and what knowledge I could bring to this research. As a non-Indigenous researcher working in an

Indigenous context I acknowledge(d) that I am outside of the Indigenous colonized experience.

As recommended by Styres and Zinga (2013b), I willingly and humbly placed myself in the role of non-expert and recognized/valued the community as the experts. I operationalized this by telling the staff and students at the school that I was there to learn about their culture and about

Indigenous knowledge systems; and by engaging in observation and listening. This was in accordance with Battiste (2000) who noted that, “no person from another worldview can learn about other cultures except by being there and listening” (p. 205). My hope is that I have reported my observations as fully and appropriately as possible.

Data Collection

A revealing quote from Māori scholar Tuhiwai Smith (1999) guided my choice of methods of data collection: “the word itself, ‘research,’ is probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). In response I sought approaches that would be respectful of Indigenous people, knowledge, and contexts (Kovach, 2009, 2010). This allowed for exploration of the resources, processes, and dynamics of culturally responsive writing instruction; and resulted in rich description intended to enhance my understanding of the phenomenon.

Interviews. Patton (2002) noted that, “researchers interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe…feelings, thoughts and intentions…The purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective” (p. 340–

341). Thus, utilizing interviews allowed me to address my research question regarding what discourses of writing are reflected within the beliefs of the teacher (i.e., perspectives, attitudes and beliefs). Two forms of interviews were employed in order to gather data: 1) a semi- structured individual interview; and 2) ongoing informal interviews. Where possible, the participating teacher was recorded in order “to really get the essence of…voice” (Indigenous scholar, Laara Fitznor, as cited in Kovach, 2009, p. 137).

Semi-structured interview. A semi-structured interview (using guiding questions) was conducted once with the participating teacher in order to gain an understanding of her views/attitudes about writing, curriculum/resources use(d), and teaching strategies employed.

This interview employed a conversational method (Kovach, 2009; 2010). This method “aligns with an Indigenous worldview that honours orality as means of transmitting knowledge and upholds the relational which is necessary to maintain a collectivist tradition” (Kovach, 2010, p. 77

42). The interview was informal and open ended (see Appendix F for semi-structured interview question protocol).

Informal interviews. Engaging in ongoing informal interviews throughout the observational period in the classroom furthered my understanding of observations and clarified my interpretation of the data gathered. Kovach (2009) noted that the act of sharing through general conversation is an effective method of transmitting knowledge. In addition to brief conversations during breaks or between classes, the participating teacher and I sat together at lunch once a week where I asked questions to clarify my understanding of my observations.

These informal interviews served as an ongoing member check with the participating teacher as I restated/summarized information and asked clarifying questions in order to ensure an accurate representation of her views/practices. (The transcriptions of lessons and interviews, and notes on my interpretation, were also given to the participating teacher regularly throughout the data gathering and analysis stages in order to check authenticity and representation. A member check was also provided at the completion of the study via a request for feedback on the final report).

Observations. Classroom observations provided an opportunity to have firsthand experiences with the teacher and her students in the context where writing instruction was naturally occurring (Merriam, 2009). In order to observe patterns (as opposed to singular events)

I visited the classroom daily (except Fridays) for two months. The purpose of these observational periods was not to evaluate the teacher or students, but to understand how the teacher’s philosophy of writing is implemented in the classroom context. Classroom observations included descriptions of the physical settings, the participants, instructional activities, interactions (peer- peer, student-teacher, class-teacher), as well as how the students interacted/engaged with writing practices. In order to maintain a naturalistic environment, descriptive field notes were utilized 78

(with recording devices employed during some lessons). I approached my observations with a constructivist view which “assumes the relativism of multiple social realities, recognizes the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer and the viewed, and aims for interpretive understanding of subjects’ meanings” (Bainbridge et al., 2013, p. 278). Finally, in order to explore culturally responsive pedagogy, the 8 Ways Aboriginal learning and pedagogy framework (Lowe & Yunkaporta, 2013) was utilized as a means to identify Indigenous perspectives and processes within the classroom (see Appendix G). I completed this template after reflection upon the day’s instruction and review/compilation of field notes.

Reflective journal. As I was a non-Indigenous researcher in an Indigenous context I am conscious that I hold preconceptions about the workings of the world, which may have unintentionally influenced what I focused on and how I might have made sense of the data

(Charmaz, 2006). O’Neil Green, Creswell, Shope and Plano Clarke (2007) suggested that in gaining awareness of our personal values, assumptions, and biases regarding diverse populations or issues pertinent to the study we can improve our cultural competency. Peshkin (1988) noted,

“one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed” (p. 17). He recommended actively seeking out our own subjectivity as the data are being gathered; to be “aware of it in process, mindful of its enabling and disabling potential” (p. 18). Therefore, throughout the study I kept a reflective journal in order to explore how my personal subjectivity might be shaping my research inquiry and its outcomes. Peshkin (1988) provided guidance:

How do I know when my subjectivity was engaged? I looked for the warm and the cool

spots, the emergence of positive and negative feelings, the experiences I wanted more of

or wanted to avoid, and when I felt moved to act in roles beyond those necessary to fulfill 79

my research needs. In short, I felt that to identify my subjectivity, I had to monitor myself

to sense how I was feeling. (p. 18)

This systematic monitoring of self was an attempt to “avoid the trap of perceiving just that which my own untamed sentiments have sought out and served up as data” (Peshkin, 1988, p. 20); and to ensure that “the analysis [was] immersed in participants’ lived experiences” (Bainbridge et al.,

2013, p. 285). The overall intent of this critical reflection was to “incorporate an underlying practice of ethics that aligns with decolonizing visions and alternate productions of knowledge”

(Bainbridge et al., 2013, p. 286).

Artifacts. Physical artifacts consisted of “physical objects found within the study setting…which include the tools, implements, utensils, and instruments of everyday living”

(Merriam, 2009, p. 146). For my study, the main artifacts included the curriculum and resources used for writing instruction. They were important to my understanding of the influential texts and perspectives on the teacher’s practice. Some samples of students’ written work were also collected as a source of qualitative data that enabled me to illustrate the writing produced in response to instruction; however, the main focus of the research was on the teacher’s practice.

Other artifacts collected included: students’ artwork, photos of the classroom and students engaged in activities, and screen shots of the Smartboard (e.g., displaying writing prompts).

Data Analysis

Kovach (2009) indicated that, “given the newness of Indigenous methodologies to the academy” (p. 35), a strategic concession for researchers utilizing methods of Indigenous inquiry would be to use a mixed-method approach (i.e., combined with Western approaches to analyzing and organizing the data). She recommended that the “data can be coded, emergent themes grouped and bracketed, and so forth, while transparently indicating that it is not an Indigenous 80 epistemological approach to data analysis” (Kovach, 2009, p. 35). Tuhiwai Smith’s (1999) writing on decolonizing methodologies reiterated this point, maintaining that decolonization

“does not mean and has not meant a total rejection of all theory or research or Western knowledge” (p. 39). Rather, “decolonizing methodologies draw from existing knowledge, working the cultural interface between Western and Aboriginal knowledges” (Bainbridge et al.,

2013, p. 276). In the following, I describe how I used Western methodologies to analyze the data

(i.e., thematic analysis) gathered via methods reflective of Indigenous inquiry (i.e., interviews, observation).

Thematic analysis. After years of research in theories of language/literacy and reviewing evidence of pedagogic practices and beliefs Ivanić (2004) developed her framework for discourses of writing and learning to write. She proposed that the framework be used “as a research tool to identify distinct discourses” (p. 226). In analyzing data such as “actual text, actual curricula, people writing or talking about literacy, and observable pedagogic practices”

(Ivanić, 2004, p. 240) it is possible to identify the main discourse (as well as hybrid instantiations) of teachers’ writing instruction. Each discourse of writing contains beliefs about writing, beliefs about learning to write, approaches to the teaching of writing, and assessment criteria associated with the discourse. Examination of these discourses offers insight into the various assumptions/beliefs which underpin and drive practices in teaching writing.

Collection and analysis of data occurred simultaneously throughout the study (Merriam,

2009). Available audio recordings, interviews and conversations were transcribed weekly. The data were analyzed using a deductive process (Braun & Clarke, 2006). All instances of data related to writing were highlighted as a unit and categorized thematically via coding. These key units were compared with Ivanić’s identifying terms/concepts and categorized according to the 81 six discourses of writing. The data grouped within each discourse were then analyzed further for sub-themes. A similar process was undertaken when analyzing data for indication of 8 Ways

Aboriginal pedagogy.

Cree scholar Margaret Kovach (2009) explained that:

Researchers wishing to use Indigenous inquiry may use it alongside a Western approach

that organizes data differently…thereby using a mixed-method approach. The data can be

coded, emergent themes grouped and bracketed, and so forth, while transparently

indicating that it is not an Indigenous epistemological approach to data analysis.

Further, “Indigenous methods do not flow from Western philosophy; they flow from tribal epistemologies…[and are] a legitimate knowledge system guiding the Indigenous methods and protocols within the research process” (Kovach, 2009, p. 36). Since I am a settler researcher/educator my methodology flowed from Western philosophy; I cannot presume to be able to effectively utilize Indigenous methodology. I respectfully strove to employ Kovach’s

(2010) conversational method in Indigenous research contexts during the discussions surrounding my classroom observations and during the open-ended, semi-structured interview. In describing her work as an Indigenous researcher working with non-Indigenous academics

Kovach (2010) explained that, “Dialogue was an effective method to co-create knowledge in a relational context of a conversation” (p. 45). Thus, the data gathered and analyzed within my study were grounded within conversations that were dialogic, relational and reflective (Kovach,

2010).

Strengths and Limitations of Case Study Research

The merits of a particular research design are dependent upon the rationale for selecting it as the most appropriate design for addressing the research problem (Merriam, 2009). Strengths 82 and limitations are present in all research designs and were considered within the planning process of this proposed research project.

Strengths. The strengths of case study research lie in the in-depth, multi-sided approach which illuminates the subjective dimension and holistic nature of thinking and behavior. This method aligns well with Indigenous knowledges which are about “honoring the primacy of direct experience, interconnectedness, relationship, holism, quality, and value” (Cajete, 2004, p. 66).

Adaptability. My proposed study capitalizes on one of the greatest strengths of case study research: adaptability, which offers the means to investigate complex social units involving multiple variables (Merriam, 2009). Within a case study, researchers see the value in discussing evolving concerns and often make “‘virtue of necessity’ by actually trying to take advantage of serendipities and emerging problems” (Gibbert & Ruigorook, 2010, p. 730). In traversing the challenging waters of combining Western research scholarship with Indigenous methodologies to co-construct knowledge, adaptability will indeed be embraced and the lessons learned valued.

Van der Wey (2001) noted that seemingly serendipitous experiences (occurring for her in a First

Nations setting) “can become events with meaning and provide the impetus for further learning”

(p. 51).

Rich description situated in context. This case study research was anchored within real- life situations allowing detailed, holistic study of culturally responsive writing pedagogy.

Research grounded in the practice of an Indigenous teacher allowed for the investigation and dissemination of information that is useful for other educators and researchers (Ladson-Billings,

2014). In addition, “Contextually responsive research allows power to reside more equitably with

Aboriginal populations” (Bainbridge et al., 2013, p. 277). The insights gained can be interpreted 83 as tentative hypotheses that help guide future research; therefore, this study will play a significant role in advancing the knowledge base of the field (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 2005).

Triangulation (data collection/analysis). Another strength of the proposed case study is the collection of many different sources of evidence (Yin, 2003). This process of triangulation will provide rich/reliable information and will assist me in verifying the findings within the data

(Stake, 2005).

Wide readership. Case study research “provides a unique example of real people in real situations, enabling readers to understand ideas more clearly than simply by presenting them with abstract theories or principles” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, p. 181). Through the contextual accounts of the research, this study can help the reader to construct new knowledge that is relevant to their own lives and understandings (Merriam, 2009). In honoring an

Indigenous framework, the presentation of findings from this study necessitates a considerable narrative component (Kovach, 2009). Through “a co-creative, interpretive tradition, Indigenous story offers knowledge relevant to one’s life in a personal, particular way” (Kovach, 2009, p.

100). Much research has explored the ‘why’ of working at the cultural interface of local

Indigenous knowledge and mainstream curriculum/pedagogy (Yunkaporta & McGinty, 2009), this research sought to understand and share the ‘how’.

Limitations. In order to have confidence in the insights drawn from the research the researcher must consider issues regarding reliability, external validity, and internal validity; what qualitative researchers identify as consistency/dependability, transferability, credibility (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009).

Reliability, the extent to which research findings can be replicated, is problematic within the social sciences as human behavior is dynamic, multifaceted and highly contextual (Merriam, 84

2009). This study endeavoured to show that the results are consistent with the data collected and are therefore dependable (Merriam, 2009). External validity refers to the degree to which inferences from a study can be generalized to other situations or to other people (Vellutino &

Schatschneider, 2011). Although the results from a case study cannot validly be generalized (as might be in an experimental study) they can “at least in part shed light on a larger class of cases”

(Gerring, 2007, p. 20); and are performed with the purpose of “drawing lessons in the form of conclusions that apply beyond the single case and explain other outcomes in addition to the one studied directly” (Ruzzene, 2012, p. 99). Strategies for enhancing transferability include using rich description so that the reader can assess the similarity between their own situation and that of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This study provided valuable information from which lessons can be drawn by those seeking to make application elsewhere. Internal validity refers to the extent to which the findings of the study are a true representation of reality as opposed to being the effects of extraneous variables (Vellutino & Schatschneider, 2011). In order to establish credibility, the interviews of the participating teacher will be recorded, transcribed, and reviewed by her for accuracy. The development of protocols (i.e., rules that govern administration and implementation of the interviews) assisted in establishing consistency and reliability. A clear chain of evidence is presented to bring the reader from the initial research questions to the conclusions drawn at the end (Gibbert & Rigrok, 2010).

As the researcher, I may have introduced bias from my very presence, changing the social behaviors in others by creating reactive effects (e.g., participants may present atypical behavior, withhold information, or show themselves in the best possible light) (Angrosino &

Rosenberg, 2011). Being a researcher from outside of the community may have affected the information that was obtained (e.g., information may be withheld) (Angrosino & Rosenberg, 85

2011). Researcher bias may also have been introduced via selective observation and subjective interpretation of findings in light of my own values and expectations (Angrosino & Rosenberg,

2011). Credibility (as well as consistency/dependability) of the study was strengthened via triangulation, and recognition of researcher bias explored within the reflective journal. Since the investigator is the primary means of data collection and analysis, the case study is dependent upon the integrity of the researcher (Merriam, 1988). Heeding the words of Stake (2005), I acknowledged the importance of understanding that researchers are “guests in the private spaces of the world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics strict” (Stake, 2005, p. 459).

As previously noted, historically research in Indigenous contexts has been unethical using inappropriate extractive methods and practices perpetuating harm on Indigenous Peoples and their communities (e.g., Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). The ethics review board (tri-council research policy, Government of Canada, 2015; Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and

Métis Peoples of Canada) provides useful guidelines in ethical research conduct within

Indigenous contexts to guard against the use of culturally insensitive research designs and methodologies. However, limitations of a non-Indigenous researcher conducting research in

Indigenous contexts still exist. Since I am a non-Indigenous settler Canadian approaching this research from a standpoint grounded in Western ways of knowing I will inherently interpret the data and results from a Western framework. Bernal (1998) explained that there is a distinction between methodology and epistemology (the understanding of knowledge that we adopt and the philosophy with which we approach research). This issue cannot be untangled from colonial history or from the position I hold within society as a result of that history (Bernal, 1998;

Cochran et al., 2008). Thus, I endeavored to work in close consultation with the participating

Indigenous teacher in discussing my interpretations and conclusions that were drawn. 86

To conclude, as Dyson and Genishi (2005) noted, “Everyday teaching and learning are complex social happenings, and understanding them as such is the grand purpose of qualitative case studies” (p. 9). Despite limitations, qualitative case study research can provide rich descriptions of participants, processes and the dynamics of educational practice, providing considerable value for inquiry in literacies education. “Research is, after all, producing knowledge about the world – in our case, the world of educational practice” (Merriam, 1998, p.

3). This research study produced knowledge about the educational practice of enhancing the writing skills of young Indigenous students living in a rural locale. As noted by Styres and Zinga

(2013a), “We are not interested in perpetuating pan-Indianism or didactic pedagogies that continue to centre dominant western approaches within Indigenous education…[rather, research must] offer highly contextualized explorations of the myriad of ways that centre and privilege

Indigenous thought within educational contexts” (p. 1).

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The Classroom

The Grade 6 classroom was located in the senior wing of this Pre-K to Grade 8 school.

The senior wing consisted of three classrooms: a Grade 4/5 split, Grade 6, and a Grade 7/8 split.

There was an educational assistant (EA) who worked in the Grade 6 classroom in the morning during English Language Arts and Math.

As I entered the room, to the left was a small desk with a microwave and a large cupboard. On the countertop of the cupboard were bins of leveled literature. The drawers/shelves contained teaching resources behind their closed doors. A bulletin board above the microwave hosted colorful posters of a variety of literary genres (informational, poetry, science fiction, traditional literature, fantasy, biography, realistic fiction, mystery, autobiography, historical fiction) with descriptions and examples of each. Just past the cupboard was a door leading to a smaller room where Wapiskisew-asiniskwew kept the canteen items her class sold during the lunch hour to raise funds for their end-of-year fieldtrip. The remaining wall space was occupied by a bookshelf which contained a variety of sets of textbooks (Nelson Literacy, Math Makes

Sense, dictionaries).

To the right, upon entering the room, was a small table where breakfast and lunch were delivered every day by a kitchen staff member. Past that there was a display bookshelf (with high interest books and graphic novels) making a corner with another bookshelf full of a variety of children’s literature. The corner was made cozy with a carpet that had a brightly colored map of

Canada, and a chair that was deemed the “author’s chair”. A large whiteboard running the length of the wall displayed the daily class schedule (see Figure 5), monthly calendar of events, a place holder poster for math, the “Classroom Expectations” poster, chart paper with math examples, 88 and a large area where math problems were often worked out with dry erase markers. Running along the wall above the whiteboard was a long, First Nation-themed poster displaying the alphabet in handwriting.

8:55-9:45 English Language Arts 9:45-10:25 English Language Arts 10:25-10:40 Recess 10:40-11:20 Math 11:20-12:00 Phys Ed 12:00-12:45 Lunch 12:45-1:25 [Blank - usually Science or Social Studies] 1:25-2:05 [Blank - usually Science or Social Studies] 2:05-2:10 Recess 2:10-2:50 Cree 2:50-3:30 Guided Reading

Figure 5. Daily schedule.

The far wall included two large windows in addition to a bulletin board and another bookshelf. The bulletin board displayed posters: a prayer in Cree, fraction examples, order of mathematical operations (BEDMAS), and “Questions We Should Ask About What We Are

Reading”. Above the bulletin board were beautifully illustrated First Nation-themed punctuation posters with examples of how to use:

• a period (Look at that eagle.)

• question mark (Will you teach me to dance?)

• exclamation point (I love to dance!)

• apostrophe (She’s such a happy baby.)

• comma (This is my friend, Mr. Turtle.)

• quotation marks (“Did you want one braid or two braids?” asked her mother.) 89

• colon (He enjoyed watching three dances: the Hoop Dance, the Chicken Dance, and the

Jingle Dance.)

• semicolon (It was time to go; it was getting late.)

• parenthesis [The tipi (commonly made from buffalo hides) was the home for tribes of the

Great Plains.]

• hyphen (That totem pole has been standing for about forty-five years.)

The bookshelf contained teaching resources, including the teacher’s guide and blackline masters for the Nelson Literacy program and Pearson Science, binders containing Developmental

Reading Assessment (DRA) and Grade 6 common math assessments, and a Grade 6

Saskatchewan Curriculum Guide. The bookshelf made a corner area with wall shelves

(containing the teacher’s personal items) and a filing cabinet (filled with files and school supplies). In this corner was the teacher’s desk (rarely occupied by the teacher) containing her lesson plan book open to the current day’s lesson and her well-used hand lotion. Next to the desk was a kidney-shaped conference table which held the teacher’s laptop and a small bin of pencils, pens, and sticky notes. It was at this conference table where the teacher was usually found, conferring with individual, or groups, of students.

Four rows of four desks faced the remaining wall which hosted an interactive smartboard.

A small table by the smartboard held the laptop that the board was connected to. When providing instruction, the teacher often sat at the laptop (or used the interactive pen on the screen) and worked through assignments while the students followed along on the smartboard. The teacher used this smartboard often to search the internet for examples of various concepts, model techniques, and display assignment expectations. Next to the smartboard was a stand holding a variety of bins (marked: Wild Mind, ELA, Nelson Lit, Handwrite, Math) with students’ 90 notebooks in them. A set of store-bought posters exhibited the Writing Process (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, publishing). Teacher-made posters presented a Story Retelling Rope

(see Figure 6), and her expectations for Wild Mind Write (see Figure 7).

Figure 6. Story retelling rope. Figure 7. Wild Mind Write anchor chart.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Integration of Community Culture in the Classroom

A book published in 2017 by the Tipiyimisiw First Nation outlined current and historical traditional use of lands, as well as rich cultural traditions shared by community Elders. This book proved an invaluable resource as I delved into the history and traditions of this community. The book described the Tipiyimisiw First Nation history: the fur trade, wars, westward movement, forced removal from land, the numbered treaties and the creation of the Tipiyimisiw reserve6, seasonal activities, language, ceremonies, sacred sites and burial grounds, big and small game

6 “Reserve: Defined by the Indian Act as ‘…the tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band.’” (as cited in Indigenous Corporate Training Inc., 2019, p. 26). 91 hunting, trapping, fishing, harvesting berries/plants/medicines, traditional diet and other traditional activities, environmental changes, cultural concerns and Elder advice to the youth.

This reading provided me with a context for my attempts to understand the culture.

When further discussing the local culture with Wapiskisew-asiniskwew she directed me to a poster showing her worldview grounded within Traditional Knowledge (see Figure 8).

Bound together by land and language, Traditional Knowledge consists of dances, traditions, ceremonies, arts and crafts, story-telling, medicines, and ideologies.

Figure 8. Worldview grounded within Traditional Knowledge (poster’s creator unknown).

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew also spoke often of the importance of the Medicine Wheel to her culture. Aspects of the Medicine Wheel were explicitly taught to the students during Cree class.

For example, the Medicine Wheel represents four aspects of life (emotional, spiritual, mental, physical), stages of life (childhood, youth, adulthood, Elder), seasons (winter, spring, summer, fall), elements (air, water, fire, earth), directions (north, east, south, west), time of day (morning, noon, evening, night), and colors (yellow, red, black, white). 92

Of significance to Tipiyimisiw First Nation were the goodlife teachings of the Seven

Grandfathers. Anishinabek scholar/educator Pamela Rose Toulouse (2011) explained that:

The 500 Nations across Turtle Island (North America) all have teachings that guide their

community members in how to live a “good life.” The values and principles have been

modelled and adapted throughout the generations. It is important for educators to find out

the core goodlife teachings of the Aboriginal group in their area….

“Goodlife” refers to the behaviors and actions that a person engages in on a daily

basis. This is an Anishinabek teaching, also called the “Red Road,” whereby the

individual is encouraged to walk with kindness in everything that he or she does. (p. 28)

Following cultural protocol, I approached one of the school Elders with an offering of tobacco to further inquire into these teachings. She showed me the book, Seven Grandfather

Teachings (Native Reflections, 2009). This book provides the history of the seven teachings:

According to an oral traditional story, the Seven Teachings were given to the

Anishinaabe early in their history. When the Seven Grandfathers sent their Messenger to

learn about the current state of the Anishinaabe people, they were told that the people

were not living in harmony with each other, nor with the rest of creation. In a vision

quest, the Messenger found a child worthy of the teachings, and the Seven Grandfathers

tutored the child in the “good way of life”. Each Grandfather instructed the child with one

teaching, which collectively became known as the Seven Teachings. Each teaching is

represented by an animal spirit. When someone follows the Seven Teachings, they will

lead a well-balanced lifestyle and live in harmony with all creation. (p. 2)

Influential Discourses of Writing in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Writing Class

My deductive process involved identifying the discourses from Ivanić’s (2004) framework underlying Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s beliefs about writing/learning to write and her approaches to the teaching of writing. There were two types of instructional focus for the English

Language Arts (ELA) periods of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom practice: a period of “free writing” that she called Wild Mind writing and the use of a commercial program, Nelson Literacy

(MacKenzie, 2008). The data from classroom observations (including resources used and choice of writing-related classroom décor), interview questions and informal discussions regarding

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy were analyzed and the results are presented below.

As exemplified in previous research (e.g., Peterson, 2012b; Peterson, Parr, Lindgren & Kaufman,

2018), calculating percentages that fit within each discourse category provided a profile of underlying influential beliefs and values. Table 1 shows that multiple discourses were influential to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy. The Genre Discourse and the Skills Discourse were most influential. Evidence of each of the discourses within the Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s beliefs and practices is discussed in greater detail by discourse category.

Table 1 Percentage (%) of Types of Analysis Units Observed within Discourses Nelson Wild Mind Literacy Interview Informal Classroom Discourse Observations Observations Questions Discussions Resources Decor Total

Genre 6.8 9.8 1.7 0.4 1.7 0.8 21.3

Skills 9.8 4.7 2.6 1.7 0.8 0.8 20.4

Process 15.3 0.0 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 19.1

Creativity 7.7 1.3 7.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 18.7

Sociopolitical 14.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 15.7

Social 0.4 3.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 Practices

Ivanić (2004) noted that, “An important caveat about the framework is that actual texts and events may be heterogenous, drawing on two or more discourses in complex interanimation with one another” (p. 227). In alignment with Ivanić’s (2004) multi-layered view of language

(see Figure 1), the discourses are embedded within and inseparably linked with one another. For example, the Skills Discourse (which focuses on the linguistic elements of text) can be described in a more stand-alone manner but is embedded within all other discourses. It is “possible to recognize a dominant discourse at work by the way in which particular beliefs and practices are foregrounded at the expense of others” (Ivanic, 2004, p. 227). For example, elements of the

Genre and Social Practices Discourses overlap as the social functions of written texts are emphasized. Using Ivanić’s (2004) identifying terms I categorised units as representative of the

Genre Discourse when there were explicit references to working with organizational structures and stylistic features of genres, and as Social Practices when the main focus was to write for a social purpose with the intention of communicating something to someone. To illustrate, I categorized the creation of a poster to fundraise for a fieldtrip as predominantly Social Practices 95

Discourse. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew identified the social context first (i.e., the need to fundraise in the community) and then the genre was identified (i.e., a poster would suit the purpose). In keeping with Ivanić’s (2004) view of embeddedness, the students then engaged in composing the poster (Process Discourse) using creative self-expression within their poster designs (Creativity

Discourse), and by identifying the accuracy of the poster’s spelling/grammar (Skills Discourse).

Consistent with Ivanić’s (2004) view of embeddedness, the discourses are discussed here in the order as presented in her original framework.

Skills Discourse

The emphasis on grammar/mechanics and vocabulary illustrated in the examples I describe below exemplify the influence of the Skills Discourse on Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom practice.

Grammar and mechanics. The Skills Discourse of writing instruction emphasizes the learning, and correct usage, of the rules and patterns of writing conventions. Within Wild Mind writing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s feedback and focus of student revision during teacher-student conferences tended to concentrate on surface features of language reflective of the Skills

Discourse (e.g., grammar, spelling, and punctuation). For example, to encourage independent use of classroom resources Wapiskisew-asiniskwew referred her students to the punctuation posters hanging in her classroom:

Teacher: So, what do we need when somebody is talking? Look at the punctuation

posters.

Student: Quotation marks?

Teacher: Yes, quotation marks. Is she excited? What punctuation would you use to

show that?” 96

Student: Exclamation mark.

Teacher: Yes, good!

During teacher-student conferences Wapiskisew-asiniskwew also directed her students to the

Scholastic Traits Writing folder (Figure 9 below) which contains editing marks her students are to use. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew has indicated that she explicitly taught both punctuation and editing marks at the beginning of the school year.

Figure 9. Excerpt from the Scholastic Traits writing folder.

Figure 10 below shows an example of student work incorporating the use of editing marks.

Figure 10. Excerpt from student example using editing marks.

Consistent with the Skills Discourse, these examples illustrate Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s explicit and prescriptive teaching of writing conventions. Her students were directed towards identifying spelling patterns and taught rules for grammatically correct and accurately punctuated written sentences. Her instruction reflects the underlying belief that the correct use of skills (e.g., punctuation, sentence structure) constitutes good writing, and that student knowledge about the patterns and rules of written language are best learned explicitly. 97

Vocabulary. During the second daily English Language Arts period Wapiskisew- asiniskwew used a commercial program called Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008). This is a comprehensive, evidence-based resource designed to support literacy learning within Language

Arts. Based on Canadian provincial content curricula, the program involves a variety of direct and indirect instruction, a balance of whole-class/small-group/individual activities, and differentiated instruction strategies for students in need. The foundations and goals based on curriculum strands include oral communication (speaking and listening), reading (literature, content-area selections of various genres, forms, patterns), fluency (oral language and reading), text patterns and features (e.g., content-area textbooks, Internet information, magazine articles, informational reports), word study (e.g., high-frequency words, vocabulary development, punctuation, grammar), writing (writing traits, writing process), and media literacy (print, oral, multimedia, mass media) (MacKenzie, 2008).

The Skills Discourse is manifested within the Word Study component of Nelson Literacy which addresses “word choice, sentence fluency, reading and spelling high-frequency and unfamiliar words, vocabulary development, punctuation, and grammar” (MacKenzie, 2008, p.

18). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had her students do a considerable amount of vocabulary activities where they discussed as a class the root words, definitions, examples, and then they created sentences using the words. For example:

Teacher: …counselling, what is the root word, what does it mean to counsel

someone? Does it mean like the band counselor at the band office?

Student: No.

Teacher: What does it mean then? Do we have any counsellors in our school?

Student: Yes. 98

Teacher: Who are they?

Student: [Gives names]

Teacher: …A counsellor can be in different areas, but they help people work

through problems or they listen to people.

This example illustrates the underlying belief inherent within the Skills Discourse that learning to write involves learning (and applying knowledge of) linguistic patterns and rules of sound- symbol relationships which produce not only well-formed sentences and paragraphs, but well- formed words. In examining the meaning-bearing units of words (i.e., prefixes, root roots, suffixes) Wapiskisew-asiniskwew facilitated her students’ understanding of the meaning of the vocabulary. Consistent with the Skills Discourse is the idea that exploring the patterns and rules of semantics creates greater understanding and enables the use of words more effectively to depict nuances in meaning within their own writing.

Student confidence in writing skills. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew mentioned building confidence in her students as a significant factor to their writing success; stating, “In order for me to create good writers I need to build that confidence with them.” Skills, writing stamina, and independence during the writing process were noted by Wapiskisew-asiniskwew as the foundation of student confidence.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew revealed underlying beliefs in the Skills Discourse when she stressed the development of student confidence via skill development as significant. She noted that, “the main goal for students that enter and leave my classroom is that they feel confident as writers.” This involves the students taking ownership of their writing by becoming independent in the use of writing skills. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew further noted that: 99

And you have to build all these skills…Because it’s done in steps. It’s not just like,

‘Here’s your writing, this is what you’re going to do’. It’s done over time…they need to

learn how to take ownership of their writing. So, I have an anchor chart that has basic

rules like if you don’t know how to spell it, circle it…On the back of the [Scholastic

Traits Writing] folder there’s editing marks right on there. So, they can just take out their

folder and say, ‘Okay, look, this is for capitalization’, so they know where they’re going

to edit. So, them taking ownership of their writing? Like phenomenal.

Confidence in their skills was reflected in the Grade 6 students’ attitudes about writing. Those who wrote little during the free writing time made comments like, “I don’t like writing at all! I hate it! It’s hard!”, or “I don’t have ideas. It’s boring.” With a focus on teaching a set of linguistic skills and her belief that successful writers independently apply their knowledge of these skills during text construction, the Skills Discourse was revealed in Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s approaches to teaching writing and her beliefs about learning to write.

Creativity Discourse

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew said that creativity was an important component of her writing program. She felt that choice and creative self-expression on inspiring or personally relevant topics would lead students to write more freely and develop their writing stamina (i.e., ability to write for extended periods of time).

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew implemented free writing to a writing prompt first thing every morning. She called this morning writing session Wild Mind writing explaining that, “They get to write about whatever they want, for a certain amount of time.” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew described a typical lesson: 100

We begin our day by responding to writing prompts…While the students are writing it is

a ‘free write’ they can respond to the prompt how they interpret it. What ever comes to

their mind. There are no ‘rules’ to their response at this time; except for use of vulgar or

profane language. Students are required to write in pen. Editing and revising is done at a

later date.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew said that the freedom of their Wild Mind morning sessions gets the students writing, and that through this daily practice the students have developed their writing stamina. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew expressed: “They’ve built stamina…[In] September five minutes of just writing, no erasing, no nothing, no revising, no editing. And then they build it. So, now they’re at 15 minutes and they can just write and write and write and write.” Students who wrote multiple pages in their Wild Mind notebooks said that they enjoyed the opportunity for self-expression and stated: “I like writing because it’s entertaining”, “…you get to tell stuff”,

“I like to write. I like to tell stories.”

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s views and practices reflect many tenets of the Creativity

Discourse. Her focus on developing writing stamina during Wild Mind aligns with the belief that children learn to write by writing, and therefore they should write as much as possible. To further illustrate this discourse, examples are provided of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s practices of providing choice, her facilitation of developing self-expression and voice, and the opportunities she provided to write on inspiring and/or personally relevant topics.

Choice. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew mentioned student choice of writing materials as an ingredient to make writing “fun” (e.g., colored pens and pencils, special paper, fancy notecards and envelopes, etc.): “As an educator, I try to make writing as fun as possible.” She noted that, 101

…when kids see that writing can be fun then they’re all for it. Like with Wild Mind they

get to choose what kind of [note]book they want, they get to choose their colored pen,

and then they’re like ‘ooooo, this is mine’.

According to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, choice of material in combination with periods of free writing where “they get to write about whatever it is that comes to their mind, yeah, they just take off with it.” This approach to teaching writing is inherent in the Creativity Discourse and involves treating the students as ‘authors’, setting them the task of writing (with no specific purpose or context for writing), and encouraging them to write at length on their chosen topic with their chosen materials.

Developing self-expression and voice. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted that her students’ favorite type of writing was “narrative/descriptive” and that this type of writing showed their strengths: “When my students are asked to use their imagination in writing a story their writing comes to life in the descriptions they use, the dialogue that takes place between characters and in their creativity.” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew encouraged her students to address the five senses

(sight, smell, touch, sound, taste) when writing descriptively, and to put voice into flat writing:

What do you think flat means? Booooring. Right? Another word for flat writing is boring.

So, remember how I said to use ‘descriptive words’?...It makes people want to read your

writing, right? It makes it more appealing. And it makes it more interesting.

One student wrote, for example:

When I go to roundances I see kids running around and men drumming. Sometimes I

smell sweetgrass. I hear a very loud drum and people talking. I taste chip, pop,

sandwiches and candy I buy at the canteen. I feel people hold my hands and cold weather

outside. 102

Reflective of the Creativity Discourse, it is the students’ own experiences which provide most of the content (i.e., personal narrative, descriptions of places/events within the students’ experience, fiction based on learners’ experiences, discussion of topics about which students have knowledge/opinions). Aligning with the Creativity Discourse, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew champions the writing itself as it has value in its own right.

Inspiring topics/personal relevance. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew said she began the school year with an inspiring writing prompt: “If I had a million dollars…” She encouraged her students to free write while the song of the same name (by the musical group Barenaked Ladies) played in the background; “I start off with this because the students are willing to share their own knowledge.” Interesting and personally relevant topics were identified by Wapiskisew- asiniskwew as topics which prompt student writing:

Every year to immerse students into writing I start off with an autobiography unit. This

allows any student of any caliber to participate because they are able to write a story

about themselves. The unit requires them to have real conversations with their family

members and learn more about their identity. I include their photo on the published piece

She then drew her writing prompts from the resource Writing Prompts from Weekly Reader

Cover Stories (Guidone, 2006). Although this resource contains a variety of writing genres the students were free to respond in any way to the daily writing prompt. For example, Wapiskisew- asiniskwew would say: “So, what does this mean to you?...Okay, see there is stuff you can write about. It doesn’t have to just be about that [referring to prompt], just whatever comes to your mind.”

Later in the school year (i.e., towards the end of January) the writing prompts during Wild

Mind Writing were inspired by a book by Algonquin Métis artist Diana Frost (2016) titled, 103

Coloring it Forward: Discover Blackfoot Nation Art and Wisdom. This “Aboriginal art colouring book” (Frost, 2016, front cover) also contains Elder teachings in the form of journal prompts.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explained the shift in writing prompts:

So, we’ve done all our Western writing prompts and now we’re into First Nations writing

prompts. And with the First Nation writing prompts it’s a deeper level of thinking…It

requires them to talk about their emotions, and how they seek support, where um, what

does this mean to you? And they have to bring in their own cultural knowledge and

explain that in their writing.

For example, one writing prompt was titled Moonlight Spirits, with Frost’s (2016) journal prompt: “At night, the moon takes over for her husband the sun. We ask for her to talk to the sun for us when we are asking for help” (p. 18). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew added to the prompt:

“What does this mean to you? Who do you turn to when you need help/support?” This prompted student writing on parents, siblings, or “a person who keeps you, a person who looks after you…It could be somebody else like your aunt or your uncle or your Kokum or Mooshum.” In keeping with the Creativity Discourse students were given the opportunity to choose many of their own topics and write about what was important to them.

Another example, Life Cycle, required the students to write freely about their childhood memories, prompted by Frost (2016):

Above the fish is Ko’komiki’somma, the Moon and Naato’si, the Sun, ruler of the Sky

People. Naato’si is married to Ko’komiki’somma and their son is lipisowaahs, the

Morning Star. They take turns caring for all Creation. Below the fish is Mother Earth and

Bear. As with all Creation, the fish goes through many changes during its cycle of life.

Embrace your changes. (p. 90) 104

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew added, “Describe your memories as a baby, a smaller child and now as a youth.” Many writings of family members passing away, or moving away, emerged from this prompt. Another writing prompt, titled Butterflies Dream, asked students to design their own tipi: “In the back of tipis, a butterfly is painted to give the tipi owner good dreams to chase and catch. Butterflies enable us to practice being quick and then we release them” (Frost, 2016, p.

28). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s addition, “If you painted the back of your tipi what would you choose? Why?” resulted in drawings as well as descriptive writing in their Wild Mind notebooks.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew commented that, “Our writing program is designed to allow students to use prior knowledge, personal experiences or bring their imagination to life. Something that is more meaningful to them and it belongs to them, not the teacher.”

The belief that writing is a product of the students’ creativity underpins the Creativity

Discourse and is reflected within these examples. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew provided the students with inspiring and personally relevant topics and gave them the opportunity to respond imaginatively to the prompts. By writing on topics of interest, her belief is that the students wrote more and therefore furthered their development as writers. Of significance is the additional influence of the Sociopolitical Discourse. Through encouraging writing from students’ personal and cultural experiences Wapiskisew-asiniskwew has supported the value of writing which represents the experience, perspectives and voices of student writers from an Indigenous background, challenging Eurocentric ideas of what counts as interesting/important narratives or topics.

Process Discourse

The Process Discourse was Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s main discourse during Wild Mind writing but was not evident at all within observations of instruction utilizing the Nelson Literacy 105

(MacKenzie, 2008) program. As illustrated in the examples below, this discourse was exemplified within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s use of a Writer’s Workshop format of writing instruction and her belief that student-teacher relationships are foundational to supporting students throughout the writing process.

Writer’s Workshop. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew used a Writer’s Workshop format within her classroom. The Writer’s Workshop is a conceptual framework for providing writing experiences within the classroom organized around mini-lessons, writing/conferring, sharing, and publication. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday mornings consisted of free writing in response to a writing prompt during Wild Mind writing. Thursday mornings were reserved for choosing one piece from their writing notebooks to revise/edit and prepare for reading aloud during Friday morning Author’s Chair.

Mini-lessons. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew indicated that she used mini-lessons to teach the mechanics of writing based upon the specific needs exhibited within the student’s own writing;

…with Wild Mind writing you get to see what these kids are capable of producing. Like

so if they’re just going to write and write and write with no punctuation then you

obviously have to have a mini lesson on punctuation. So that’s when you get to bring in

the period, ‘When am I asking a question?’, ‘When should I use a question mark?’ You

know like all those mini-lessons take place…So, that’s where the fun part of the

mechanics is.

For example, after reviewing a morning writing prompt Wapiskisew-asiniskwew provided a mini-lesson on transitions:

Okay, so here’s a writing tip. When you write your essay, use transitions to help move

your reader from one paragraph to the next….Transition means sequence, like first, 106

second, third. Or the beginning, the middle, end. Those are all transitions…So, move

your reader from one paragraph to the next to organize ideas. Transition words or phrases

help link ideas in paragraphs. ‘Also’, ‘because’, and ‘as a result’, are examples of

transition words and phrases. So, you can start off here, by saying ‘first’, or ‘once upon a

time’. Your next paragraph, ‘next’ or ‘secondly’. It’s up to you the way you want to

transition.

Writing/conferring. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew conferred with her students while writing was taking place. She made herself available at a small table where students were encouraged to bring their work to show her. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew indicated that:

I like to have one-on-one conferences with each student about their writing pieces for

Wild Mind. Before we have these conferences, students are asked to edit/revise on their

own. When they have completed this process they come and see me. I will review their

editing and revision. I will look for anything they may have overlooked. I try to give

them full ownership of their writing. If I notice a commonality in their writing, I will

have a mini lesson on that technique. For example, use of homonyms. I will teach the

whole class instead of one-on-one conferencing.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted of peer conferring that, “This is not a common practice in my classroom. I have just started implementing paired activities and a more structured small group approach. Where the students have to share their ideas and explain their work/answers.”

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had not utilized peer conferring as of yet within her writing instruction therefore I did not observe this practice.

Sharing. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew described the main opportunity to share student writing is during ‘Author’s Chair’. She explained, “Students are asked to present their published 107 piece during ‘Author’s Chair’. I allow time for students to ask their peers any questions they may have at this time. For the most part students seem shy.” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew reviewed her expectations for Author’s Chair with her students:

When you’re presenting, your book is held in front of you. You’re making eye contact.

And you’re speaking to your audience. If you are still going to go sit at the Author’s

Chair I want the chair to be facing forward, no more turning it around [previously

allowed to gain practice while nervous]. These are things I’m looking for now. And then

your voice needs to be loud and clear…

The students took out their writing that they had edited the day before. The order in which they were chosen to read their work was determined by the teacher randomly pulling their names out of a container. One student read aloud her list of 100 random things: “Elijah is using white-out. Darnell is wearing a hoodie. It is 9:12 right now…” This resulted in giggles from the audience. Another student stood at the front of the class with her sweatshirt hood hiding her face, head down, hands shaking slightly and spoke quietly while reading a short piece of writing.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew was adept at reading the moods of her students. She encouraged some students to read again and celebrated those who quietly finish reading aloud a piece in the face of obvious discomfort. Understanding “a bad day”, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew gave students a few times to refuse to do Author’s Chair but expected a certain number of readings. The majority of the students appeared to be very uncomfortable sharing during Author’s Chair. Only two students indicated that they liked reading aloud and sharing their stories during this time.

Another student indicated that she didn’t mind reading aloud, but “hates” reading aloud her own stories. The remainder of the students did not like Author’s Chair. 108

Publication. On a regular basis, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew provided various opportunities for her students to publish and share their finished work. For example, student writing was displayed on the bulletin board in the hallway. The students also created posters for class fundraising activities that they posted around the school and community (e.g., band office, health centre). During my time at the school the students submitted their writing to two outside organizations; one being a writing competition on the topic of ‘sahkihtowin - love’ (sponsored through the Treaty Six Education Council) and the other to the National Centre for Truth and

Reconciliation (NCTR, 2018) for a project called Imagine a Canada Through the Lens of

Reconciliation (which will be discussed later in this thesis).

The Process Discourse is manifested in activities such as drafting, editing, and publishing which were demonstrated within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Writer’s Workshop format. These examples demonstrate that Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explicitly taught the writing process indicative of this discourse during Wild Mind writing.

Teacher/student relationships. According to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew the foundation for effective writing pedagogy, and indeed for all teaching/learning, is a good relationship between the teacher and students. She said that, “I think the biggest thing with teaching, and it doesn’t matter what subject, is you have to have a sense of humor [and] you have to have a relationship…If you don’t have that, no one can learn.” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew conveyed that it helps to be from the community and that she has existing relationships with the students and their families outside of school. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew indicated that if good relationships exist teachers can support students at all stages of the writing process. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew helped students believe in themselves as writers through humor, encouragement and support. For 109 example, she was encouraging in her teacher-student conferences, guiding students to identify their corrections:

Teacher: See how you transitioned from one idea to the next? That was really good.

What’s missing here?

Student: A thingy. [Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and Student laugh]

Teacher: An apostrophe it’s called.

One student in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s class who struggled with getting started felt comfortable in coming to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew for a pre-writing/planning conference. They brainstormed ideas together and Wapiskisew-asiniskwew wrote notes for him on a sticky note, which he took back to his desk and then began to write. For example, the students were given the following prompt from Frost’s (2016) book:

Spirit of the Spider

A man had the power of the Spider. He had a piece of leather tied in his hair. A boy was

sick so the man took the leather out, put it on the ground and put grass on it. He said if it

comes alive, the boy will live.

He sang his song. The piece of leather turned into a Spider and ran to the boy. Then it

crawled under the grass again and turned back into the leather. The boy lived and was

given the name Spider. He became a great dancer. (p. 86)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew added, “Imagine you were the child (boy/girl). How do you think it felt to go through this experience?” In a prewriting conference Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the student brainstormed ideas regarding the importance of “spirituality of First Nations” and also what it felt like to be sick (e.g., “Use your imagination. Think of the five senses. Connect it to your personal experience”). They went on to have a conversation about dancing: 110

Teacher: Do you dance?

Student: Grass dancer.

Teacher: Grass dancer hey? Who showed you how to dance?

Student: [gives a Name]

Teacher: [Name]’s your uncle hey? How old were you?

Student: Nine.

Teacher: Nine? Okay, start with that and then come see me.

The student took the sticky note shown in Figure 11 and went from being stuck for ideas and staring at a blank page, to writing two double-spaced pages in his Wild Mind notebook.

Figure 11. Preconference sticky note with brainstormed ideas.

Genre Discourse

The Genre Discourse was most influential to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom practice. I describe practices influenced by the Genre Discourse in terms of content (text patterns and features) and practices (use of organizational tools).

Text patterns and features. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew provided examples, explicit instruction, and integrated content from the Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) program. Nelson

Literacy incorporates identification and study of different genres as one of the main strands: Text 111

Patterns and Features; “Understanding and learning to identify various text patterns and features enable students not only to become more effective readers, but also to become more effective writers who know how to use text patterns and features to help communicate information”

(MacKenzie, 2008, p. 17). Observations of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Grade 6 Nelson Literacy activities revealed identification of characteristics of a variety of genres. These included public service announcements, poetry, modified Likert scales, an assortment of advertisements such as movies, items for purchase, inspirational posters, and awareness building campaigns (e.g., health effects of smoking, the importance of recycling).

Another genre-based activity observed through Nelson Literacy observations was reading like a writer (focus on identifying how each paragraph in an article is organized); with

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew asking, for example, “Where can I find the lead? The very first sentence is usually my lead. And the conclusion, where am I going to find that? At the very end of the paragraph.”

Different genres were often explored within the daily Wild Mind writing. Although students were encouraged to write freely in response to the prompts, a variety of genres were presented via the resource Writing Prompts from Weekly Reader Cover Stories (Guidone, 2006), and discussed by the teacher. Guidone’s (2006) book includes prompts in a variety of writing genres: journal and letter writing, nonfiction narrative, poetry, fiction, expository and persuasive writing. For example, students were prompted to carry on a written conversation with a character in a favorite book, create a job description, write opinions, create a campaign slogan and radio ad, and write an editorial. For each prompt given, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew looked up examples with the students on the Smartboard. For example, she introduced editorial features by saying: 112

So, this is an editorial [reads it aloud]. Okay, so, how does a writer support his or her

argument? What kinds of points did Andrew [author of editorial] make? If you look at

these three paragraphs, what are some of the points he used to back up his argument?

The students were encouraged to write within the genre, but the main goal was to write freely for the entire time period.

Text features were explored through the examination of readings with the Nelson

Literacy student readers. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the students identified titles, headings, subheadings and the different fonts used for each; Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explained to her students that, “Fonts are the different kinds of text we can use, the style and size…Readers can use fonts to help them identify titles, headings, and subheadings.”

The above examples of explicit instruction in identifying the linguistic features of different types of texts according to their purpose and context illustrate Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s approaches to writing instruction situated within the Genre Discourse.

Tools: Graphic organizers. Graphic organizers are pedagogical tools used to visualize and organize concepts and their relationships; they can assist in examining and/or structuring writing according to different text-types. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew said that she uses graphic organizers “very frequently when I am teaching the writing process.” One of her favorite resources is the Encyclopedia of Language Arts Blackline Masters (Learning Resources, 2008) which is a book devoted to graphic organizers for an assortment of tasks and genres.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted that, the graphic organizers assist in showing a variety of writing styles which will ultimately “allow the students to develop their own sense of writing style.” For example, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had the students use a cluster web to assist them in organizing their ideas before writing longer paragraphs (topics: about myself, my hobbies/interests, what 113 makes me different/unique/special, my goals) (see Figure 12). She explained to her students that,

“using this style of teaching and learning, it helps you become a better writer.”

Figure 12. Cluster web graphic organizer.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s instructional practices and use of resources with an emphasis on the Genre Discourse has made this discourse the primary discourse of Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy. In alignment with the Genre Discourse Wapiskisew-asiniskwew exposed her students to a variety of different types of writing; together they examined the examples for literary techniques and used them as inspiration for their own writing.

Social Practices Discourse

The Social Practices Discourse was articulated by Wapiskisew-asiniskwew in her understanding that, “Writing is essential in everyday life whether you are writing a letter to a 114 friend or to a professional, writing a grocery list, writing a post on social media, filling out a survey, etc.” She expressed: “I want students to know that writing is not only for academia. We talk about different reasons of why we write.” Examples revealing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s incorporation of the Social Practices Discourse within her writing pedagogy included: providing opportunities for students to engage in authentic writing tasks, making explicit the contextual factors of writing events, and using writing as a tool for learning.

Authentic writing tasks. Writing within a real-life context, with an authentic purpose was observed in the creation of posters for fundraising events for the end of year fieldtrip.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew showed examples of different posters and the class brainstormed what made the advertisements appealing and effective, and what kinds of information they would need to include (e.g., cost, when draws happen, how much to win, who is selling, why selling, where proceeds going, contact people, etc.). The posters were put up in the school and around the community with the purpose of raising funds which directly benefited the students. This example illustrates the Social Practices Discourse in that the students participated in a socially situated literacy event which fulfilled a personally relevant and meaningful goal.

Contextual factors of writing events. Paying attention to the contextual factors of writing events (e.g., times/places for writing, who will be reading the writing, materials/technology to be used, etc.) aligns with the Social Practices Discourse. For example:

Teacher: So, reading like a writer. In this text, who is the writer?

Student: Ann Douglas.

Teacher: Ann Douglas and Julie Douglas. Okay, as you read this article, figure out

the writers’ purpose and audience. So, when a writer is writing do they

always have the same audience? 115

Student: No.

Teacher: Nope, it changes right? So, in some articles it will keep the same audience

but in different articles it may change right?....There’s always a voice, a

purpose, an audience, right? So, we’re changing our style of writing.

This example demonstrates how Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explicitly drew the students’ attention to the contextual factors of the audience and purpose of written texts. In taking up the Social

Practices Discourse Wapiskisew-asiniskwew identified how particular features of writing were appropriate for different social contexts.

Writing as a tool for learning. The social purposes of writing include writing for a range of cross-curricular purposes. This type of writing was observed as students engaged in writing activities to learn about other subjects. For example, the Grade 6 students created posters with images and written content for their experiments for the upcoming Science Fair. In alignment with the Social Practices Discourse, the use of writing as a tool for learning to show learning across the curriculum is a socially situated activity encompassing multiple factors of social practices.

The belief that writing is purpose-driven communication in social contexts underlies the

Social Practices Discourse and is reflected within these examples. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew provided opportunities for her students to write in real-life contexts with authentic purposes for their writing. In addition to making explicit the contextual factors of writing events, the students engaged in purposeful participation in writing activities to meet relevant goals.

Sociopolitical Discourse

Although Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did not specifically articulate within her interview or informal discussions her ideological views regarding aspects of critical literacy per se (e.g., 116 learning to write includes understanding why different types of writing are the way they are, etc.) the Sociopolitical Discourse was instantiated within her classroom discussions and practice.

Specifically, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew incorporated activities exploring the students’ Indigenous identity and working towards social change via writing about reconciliation, and she utilized 8

Ways Aboriginal pedagogies within her writing instruction thereby integrating Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into her classroom.

Indigenous identity and social change. Wild Mind writing provided a venue for

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s advocacy for Indigenous heritage and commitment to socio-political justice. For example, on February 9, 2018 Gerald Stanley was acquitted of 2nd-degree murder in the death of an Indigenous youth, Colton Boushie. This verdict rocked all of Canada and was said to “set back reconciliation efforts” (Regina Mayor, Michael Fougere as cited in CBC News,

2018, paragraph 1); and possibly even to “kiss reconciliation goodbye” (Cuthand, 2018, paragraph 2). Shortly after the Stanley verdict a jury found Raymond Cormier not guilty in the death of 15-year-old Tina Fontaine (MacLean, 2018). Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National

Chief, Perry Bellegarde shared, “This verdict is another severe setback for justice and reconciliation in this country. Reconciliation cannot be simply about words – it has to be about action, about valuing the lives of Indigenous people, and keeping Indigenous women and girls safe” (AFN, 2018, paragraph 2). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew discussed these cases with her students:

Teacher: Tina Fontaine, another Indigenous woman or girl actually, she was only

15 years old. And her murderer was let go again with no charges. And so

since this has been happening with the Colten Boushie case and now Tina

Fontaine, there’s so many others, if you look in history that a lot of people 117

that had murdered Indigenous people have not been charged. So, it really,

really opens your eyes as an Indigenous person. And remember the

conversation we had about racism? And I told you one day you are going

to have to face racism? How did I tell you to react? Did I tell you to react?

Nope. What did I tell you to do? Who can remember what I said?

Student: Walk away.

Teacher: Yep, walk away. You don’t need to be a part of that. And it’s probably

going to be one of the biggest, toughest things that you will face as an

Indigenous person, is to not take part in racism.

In order to take action against racism (and advocate for reconciliation), Wapiskisew- asiniskwew went on to discuss the project that she would like her students to take part in; it was called Imagine a Canada Through the Lens of Reconciliation (National Centre for Truth and

Reconciliation; NCTR, 2018). According to the NCTR (2018) this project was “an invitation for all young people, from across the country…to share their own vision of what Reconciliation can be. It can be a poem, a song, a painting, a sculpture, a rap, a drawing, an essay, anything!”

(paragraph 2). The goal was,

…to explore both the past and our shared journey into the future. Collectively, we want

to be looking into the future of Reconciliation…Imagine a Canada is a great way for

young people to see themselves not just as concerned citizens, but as transformative

citizens; to empower them to be the change they want to see in the world.

(NCTR, 2018, paragraph 3) 118

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew played the Imagine a Canada 2018 Promo video from the website (NCTR, 2018) and then engaged in a discussion of reconciliation before setting the task of student writing:

So, imagine a Canada through the lens of reconciliation. So that’s the word that has been

out in the public ever since they made the public apology to First Nations people and the

residential schools…Okay, so here is the definition of reconciliation, ‘the restoration of

friendly relations’. Because as you know the relationship between Canada and First

Nations, how has it been lately? Has it been a good one?... Reconciliation goes back to

restoring relationships. So, it’s never been a good one. It’s never been a good relationship

with First Nation people and Canada. And just when you think it’s going, going, going

good, and everything is all fine and dandy with First Nation people and Canada, boom,

something like this happens. And then we’re reminded of all the past hurts and

everything else that happened….This project is looking at Canada through a lens of

reconciliation. So, what does that even mean, right? So, a lens, like these are different

ways of viewing things. So, you put on your lens and you look at Canada as if you’re

dreaming of a future where there is peace and justice and friendly relationships between

all people of Canada…Okay, so what would your Canada look like?... So, this requires a

really, really deep level of thinking. I want you to keep in mind anything about your

culture. Because our culture is so pure. And when you follow your culture, there’s no

room for hate, there’s no room for anger, there’s no room for greed, there’s so many

beautiful things.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had the students brainstorm words that would reflect this vision of imagining a Canada: peace, hope, harmony, unison, opportunity, friendship, forgiveness, 119 stronger together, healing, reconciliation, relationship, restoration, health, jobs, love. She then spent time with them looking up the words in an online Cree dictionary, stating:

Here’s some Cree words that you can use in your writing. And these are very strong

words. To help one another. To live in harmony and unison. So, when Elders talk these

are some of the words that they bring up in their teachings.

The students completed their drafts in their Wild Mind writing notebooks. They edited their writing piece and then took it to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew to read over:

Teacher: Okay so now [Student’s name], this is really good. Okay, using all of these

different values, because these are values, right? These things mean a lot

to us, helping others that’s a good value to have. Living in harmony that’s

living in peace that’s another good value to have. Being honest, that’s

another good value. And hope. How can you put all of those together and

make that a better Canada?...Helping, living in harmony, honesty, and

hope… Think of all four of those, and then imagine a Canada, what it

would look like with all of those…Just write the ending part of it…Can I

just expect the world to change if I’m only talking to you? So, I, myself as

an individual person [pauses]

Student: Has to speak out.

Teacher: Yes! See. You know what you’re doing.

After final editing had taken place, they typed up their submissions on the school

Chromebooks and emailed them to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew to print on special paper. Their next task was to sketch a draft of a visual to accompany their writing which they would paint on a canvas. Students sketched intently as music played. Once their drawing drafts were complete, 120 they copied the drawing onto an 8x11 canvas, which they then painted with acrylic paints. On the

Smartboard Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had written: “Who would like to be voice recorded and part of our presentation? **type your name here:…” Four students (three girls, one boy) volunteered.

I took each one individually to a quiet area in the library and audio recorded as they read their written piece. These recordings of visions of reconciliation were added to a three-minute video presentation of the students’ artwork. Images of the students with one or two of the brainstormed words representing reconciliation written on their hand(s) with a black marker were also included in the video. Music recorded from Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s father was added and the finished video was not only submitted to the NCTR project but (with parental/guardian approval) was also shown at the Think Indigenous Education Conference (University of Saskatchewan,

2018) Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I had been invited to present at.

Reflective of the Sociopolitical Discourse, in discussing the issues of social injustice regarding the Fontaine and Boushie cases Wapiskisew-asiniskwew engaged the students in questioning the status quo of power relations within the justice system. The purpose of the

Imagine a Canada project was for students to create their own vision of reconciliation and in the process empower them to see themselves as social change agents (able to change the world by sharing their vision and speaking out), demonstrating the beliefs in social action/change underpinning this discourse. Significant to the Sociopolitical Discourse’s concepts of representation and identity, in facilitating the use of Cree words (based upon Elder teachings of important values) within their vision of a future of reconciliation Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had the students use alternative wordings to make a change in how social reality was represented.

This had consequences for their identity in that the students constructed more powerful

Indigenous identities. 121

8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies. In utilizing 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies within her writing instruction Wapiskisew-asiniskwew integrated Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into her classroom (one of the goals of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of

Canada, 2015d). Using Indigenous pedagogy both explicitly and implicitly addressed issues of social justice and impacted student identity through representation of powerful Indigenous teaching methodologies. Regardless of Indigenous or non-Indigenous content within the lesson,

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s use of 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies provided a model where the cultural capital of Indigenous teaching methods was valued and held power within the classroom.

The examples provided below illustrate these pedagogies as used within Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s writing classroom. Of note, some of the examples demonstrating 8 Ways pedagogies reflect various discourses of writing. This overlap will be discussed in the next chapter.

Story sharing. The 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogy of story sharing was demonstrated in the classroom as Wapiskisew-asiniskwew included stories from her personal history. The cultural importance of listening was observed in student response to her narratives.

Teacher narratives. Often Wapiskisew-asiniskwew began the day with a personal account of an experience. One snowy morning, for example, she began with: “When I was a kid, we had snow piled up way higher than you do now…” Many stories connected to the lesson she was teaching. For example, in one lesson she focused on a text pattern of cause and effect.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew discussed hunger as an example:

What is going to happen if you’re very hungry and you come to school?...Breakfast is the

most important meal of the day, especially for young kids, they can’t concentrate at

school. That’s why they developed the breakfast programs…so you are not hungry and 122

thinking about food…When I went to school there wasn’t a breakfast program…you

can’t think if you are too far gone, make sure you are filling up stomachs. Over the

weekend my brother went ice fishing. My brother’s friend is diabetic, so he packed a lot

of food. They were laughing at him for packing so much, but they ate all his food

(laughs).

After exploring a type of Likert-scale on hunger in the Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) text, the assignment that followed was to write in response to the question: “What did you learn that can help you support a friend or family member who is worried about eating too much or too little?” In approaching learning through story sharing, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew connected with the students through the personal narratives she shared. She effectively discussed cause (hunger) and effect (hungry, can’t concentrate, development of breakfast programs), shared that the option of a breakfast program was not available to her younger self (shared a vulnerable comment of understanding that it is hard to think if you are hungry), and then provided a humorous anecdote to lighten the tone of the serious topic of the reality of hunger. The students were able to respond by writing from their own experiences. Through sharing personal narratives Wapiskisew- asiniskwew built a relationship with her students.

Cultural importance of listening. The students rarely verbally shared their own stories during class discussions; however, they often approached Wapiskisew-asiniskwew during breaks to share their experiences. The lack of class dialogue during instruction may have been impacted by Tipiyimisiw First Nation’s cultural beliefs. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had expressed that an important cultural teaching is that of “Obedience”. According to a “Virtue of the month” sign

(see Figure 13) on the wall in the school this cultural concept of obedience largely involves listening: 123

Figure 13. Virtue of the month.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew relayed a story to me of her own anxiety when she wanted to interject and ask the question of ‘why?’ when her father was giving her a traditional teaching. “It was so hard to ask because I just wanted to comply and be obedient and not ask. But I really wanted to know ‘why’, so I asked.”

Students were given the opportunity to share their stories within their Wild Mind writing

(e.g., “Share whatever comes to your mind”) and via the weekly Author’s Chair. As noted previously, Author’s Chair was not a favored activity with most students being very nervous, shy, and quiet.

Learning maps. Explicitly visualizing learning processes and pathways of knowledge, as characterized within the 8 Ways pedagogy learning maps, was observed within Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s classroom through the use of anchor charts and graphic organizers.

Anchor charts. At the beginning of the year Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the students created a poster together of the tasks and rules of Wild Mind writing (see earlier Figure 7, Wild

Mind Write anchor chart). She also had anchor charts outlining the writing process (i.e., prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing), and posters with punctuation examples 124

(as previously described). Consistent with this pedagogy, these anchor charts served as concrete reference points for the Wild Mind and writing processes during the students’ writing sessions.

Graphic organizers. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew also advocated the use of graphic organizers and used them both in Wild Mind writing and Nelson Literacy. For example, during

Wild Mind writing the students were given the task of writing facts and opinions:

Polar Peril

Polar bears live in the cold, icy Arctic. I think they’re the most amazing animals! Do you

recognize the differences between those two sentences? The first is a fact. A fact is

information that is true and can be proven. The second is an opinion. An opinion refers to

what someone thinks or feels. Phrases such as “I think” or “I feel” are often clues that

something is an opinion. However, opinions are sometimes expressed without those

clues.

After discussing the difference between the two (and being assigned to write ten of each)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted, “You can make a chart if you find it helpful or use what works for you. I like charts.” Wapiskisew-asiniskwew proceeded to create the following chart on the smartboard which all students transferred to their notebooks:

Fact Opinion I feel… I think… Figure 14. Chart used as a graphic organizer.

This learning map assisted students in organizing their ideas regarding facts and opinions and, in alignment with the ideology behind this pedagogy, supported students in picturing their pathway of knowledge. 125

Within a Nelson Literacy lesson the students were asked, for example, to use the graphic organizer in Figure 15 below to record information from a section of an article that follows the cause-and-effect text pattern.

Figure 15. Graphic organizer for cause-and-effect text pattern (MacKenzie, 2008, p. 83).

Although intended to make the content explicit Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did not model the use of this unfamiliar graphic organizer and a student commented, “I still don’t get this. Even though you told us everything, I still don’t get it.” This highlighted the importance of demonstrating the task and use of this graphic organizer in mapping out the learning journey with the students in order to allow them to see where they are going.

Non-verbal. Non-verbal learning is demonstrated in an understanding that is acquired without words. This pedagogy is exemplified in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s incorporation of hands-on, experiential learning with writing within her routine of the morning Wild Mind writing sessions, and her encouragement to connect writing to lived experiences.

Experiential learning. The predictable and simple routine of Wild Mind writing (a handful of rules developed together and presented on the anchor chart; see previously discussed

Figure 7) created an environment for students to engage with writing that supported the 126 complexities of the writing process. The intra-personal skills (intrinsic to non-verbal learning) required for writing (e.g., self-discipline, self-confidence, being able to work independently, being a self-starter, being aware of one’s own thinking, etc.) were developed as Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s students tested their knowledge of the writing process through writing experiences/events, introspection (e.g., examination of their work through personal editing and then teacher conferences), and daily practice.

In addition to engaging in the practice of daily writing, one day a week the students were required to select a piece from their Wild Mind notebooks to edit. They were asked to read it over, work through the revision process independently (using the previously discussed editing marks), and then bring it to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s conference table for discussion. The students were then guided by Wapiskisew-asiniskwew to further identify areas for revision; for example, as she read the writing pieces with the students she commented:

• “Do we start sentences with the word ‘because’?”

• “Take your dictionary and look that word up to see if it fits with what you’re trying to

say.”

• “How would you answer that in a full sentence?”

• “Ok! And then what? Add more. Why do we need the vending machines?”

• “I ‘ask’ her? Or, I ‘asked’ her?”

• “What would you use instead of ‘cause’?”

A consistent writing routine, personal reflection on their work, and teacher feedback (as shown in these examples) demonstrate the process of experiential learning as students engage in learning-by-doing and develop their independence as writers. 127

Lived experiences. Additionally, in encouraging her students to address the five senses

(their own personal experience with sight, smell, touch, sound, taste) when writing descriptively

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew facilitated “that sense of personal spiritual connection where non-verbal learning comes from land, ancestors, Dreaming and even our own bodies” (Yunkaporta, 2009b, p. 5). Returning to the example given previously of the boy who was sick in the writing prompt,

Spirit of the Spider (Frost, 2016) and Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s addition (“Imagine you were the child (boy/girl). How do you think it felt to go through this experience?”) the students were guided in using personal reflection within their writing:

Teacher: So, feel, would be what? Touch, right? Smell. Hear. Sight, right? And

what’s the last one?

Student: Taste.

Teacher: Yes, taste. So, can you use all five senses when you’re writing?...So, use

that to help you write. Use your imagination….Who has been sick in this

classroom? Is it a good experience?

Student: No.

Teacher: Okay, so think about that when you’re writing. This little boy is sick, or if

you’re a girl pretend that it’s a girl you are talking about in this story. So,

I’m sure that everybody has been sick. Use your own personal experience.

This example aligns with non-verbal learning as students connect their writing to the experiences of their own bodies.

Symbols and images. Using images and metaphors to understand concepts and content,

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew incorporated the instructional technique of symbols and images within several of her learning activities. 128

Imagery. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had her students use imagery to represent abstract concepts. For example, she had her students draw and paint their interpretations of imagining a

Canada through the lens of reconciliation (see Figure 16); and make statements through photo images created for the Imagine a Canada video to be presented at the Think Indigenous conference (see Figure 17).

Figure 16. Example of Imagine a Canada student painting.

Figure 17. Example of photo image for Imagine a Canada video.

In Figure 16 the student painted a pair of glasses (representing her interpretation of viewing

Canada through a literal lens) with each individual lens presenting a construal of her written 129 message (i.e., friendship, forgiveness). Figure 17 shows an example of the product of an activity where students chose words to represent their messages of reconciliation. Writing the words on open, outstretched hands represented their willingness to take steps in engaging in reconciliation with open hearts and willing hands. The Indigenous pedagogy of using symbols and images is illustrated in these examples as the student creations used imagery to represent the more abstract concept of reconciliation.

Exploring symbols that represent a larger concept was also observed during a period of instruction utilizing the Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) resource. Discussing the concept of recycling, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explored with the students the symbol of the three R’s:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Symbol for reduce, reuse, recycle (free for commercial use; no attribution required).

She also discussed the energy star symbol (see Figure 19):

I was in the staff room the other day and I noticed an energy star. So that’s how you

know it’s efficient in saving energy… It’s mostly on all appliances now [finds and

displays picture of symbol on smartboard]. You’ll probably know it to see it. …So, this

means its energy efficient. They are doing the best they can to save power and energy.

Figure 19. Energy star symbol (Natural Resources Canada, 2018).

130

These examples are reflective of symbols/images pedagogy with students exploring the symbols as representations of larger concepts and understandings and then creating their own posters reflecting the concept of recycling.

Metaphors. The instructional technique of symbols/images was also utilized by

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew in having her students use metaphors to understand concepts. For example, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew displayed the following writing prompt adapted from Frost’s

(2016) book:

Cultural Pride

Be thankful and proud of your heritage (First Nation). Set a good foundation so that when

you fall you don’t fall far and you are resilient, to dance the dance of life, the best that

you can. What is the “dance of life?”

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the students examined the metaphor of the dance of life:

So, set a good foundation so that when you fall you don’t fall far, and you are resilient.

Who knows what the word ‘resilient’ means? It means that when you fall you get right

back up. That if someone were to bully you, instead of sulking and pouting and

everything else you’re going to get back up. And you’re going to stand tall and proud and

say, “Nope. No bully’s going to get to me.” Like that. You are resilient, you fall and you

get right back up. So, to dance the dance of life the best that you can. So, they’re

encouraging you to be the best that you can. And so, what is the dance of life?...Think of

life in general. Are we given a recipe card that says this is how you’re going to live your

life? Nope. Who is it up to? Yourself, right? Yourself, and what kind of decisions you are

going to make…The kind of person you are going to be. What you are going to do

everyday. How you are going to behave. If you are going to use your manners. All of that 131

is part of the dance of life. How you are going to treat your parents, your guardians, your

friends, your neighbors. All of that is part of the dance of life.

This exemplifies symbols/images pedagogy by illustrating the use of metaphors as a tool for learning and understanding more complex knowledge.

The Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET; 2019b) noted that since the 2009 initial reporting of the 8 Ways research many people “have reached a more nuanced understanding of both the philosophy and the eight elements themselves” (para. 15). They clarified that the “element of ‘Symbol/Image’ is now understood by more practitioners as a visual metalanguage, the building blocks for memory and the making of meaning, which is cross-cultural and dynamic” (para. 20). Text layout and font are components of design and layout within the metalanguage for visual literacy (e.g., What choices have been made with regard to font and color for text elements?) (Coutts, 2015). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew often highlighted key words and phrases using text features (e.g., underlining, italicizing, adding color) which is consistent with strength in the visual modality. For example, a writing prompt Wapiskisew- asiniskwew displayed on the smartboard showed a variety of text features:

Harry’s Magical Spell

In one of Harry Potter’s adventures, he came upon a spooky journal. It allowed him to

carry on a written conversation with the character who owned the journal. Imagine that

you could chat with a character in your favorite book. Which character would you talk

to? Write a paragraph or two describing the conversation.

132

Writing Tip: When you write your essay, use transitions to help move your reader from

one paragraph to the next to organize ideas. Transition words or phrases help link ideas in

paragraphs.

Also, because, and as a result are examples of transition words and phrases.

First, Once upon a time…

Next,

Then,

This example illustrates the visual metalanguage utilizing text emphasis (i.e., underlining, bold, italics) and color-codes that address the visual modality of learning consistent with symbol/image pedagogy.

Land links. In clarifying the more nuanced contemporary understanding of land links pedagogy RAET (2019b) stated:

The element of “Land Links” is now understood by more practitioners in terms of

Aboriginal concepts of place and country – a dynamic set of relationships containing vast

schematics, knowledge systems and intellectual processes that can guide and enrich

school systems and curricula. (para. 21)

Relating learning to local land and place is foundational to land-links pedagogy. When instruction is place-based it means not only going outside on the physical land but also honoring the students’ homeplace through making connections to students’ geographical place, culture, people, lives, and making the content and learning objectives relevant. Effective land-links pedagogy occurs in making the connections explicit and using examples that prioritize authenticity. Thus, the data included here included not only the physical act of going outside (or 133 talking about land/place), but also Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s pedagogy which explicitly made the content/process relevant to the students’ lives and place.

Personal relevance. Within the Wild Mind writing sessions, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew often made an explicit personal connection to the students’ lives. This was especially evident when the writing prompts switched to the prompts inspired by Frost’s (2016) book, Colouring it

Forward: Discover Blackfoot Nation Art and Wisdom. As previously described, personal stories were shared within the writing prompts and students were asked to respond with personal reflection (e.g., Who do you turn to when you need help/support? What does sahkihtowin – love

– mean to you? Describe your memories as a baby, a smaller child and now as a youth, etc.).

Events belong to the place and to tell the story of events is to let the place speak through the telling (Little Bear, 2018). For example, this student shared about her memories exploring the

“sundance trail”:

Sun Dancer

At a sun dance there are many singers and dancers. The sun dance is a ceremony. Some

of the dancers and the singers fast inside of the sundance lodge. The people who fast are

making a sacrifice so their prayers could be heard and answered.

In the past my moshum had a sundance. At this sundance me and my cousins would

walk around the hole sundance trail. The last day of the sundance my cousins would say,

“Let’s go get some give aways!” Everyone else would say, “Ok!”

In describing childhood memories and sharing written stories of family and community the students authentically shared events from their land/place. 134

Explicit connections to local community and culture. In discussing vocabulary from the

Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) textbook Wapiskisew-asiniskwew made connections to the students’ place, lives, and to popular media culture. For example:

Teacher: The vocabulary word is ‘sparks’. Who came to the cultural day in [nearest

city]? They made fire, right? Out of sparks. They used the flint … and the

energy from the spark created a fire. And it was pretty neat. They used

petroleum jelly, or some sort of substance…And cotton balls. And it

stayed on fire for a long time. It was pretty cool…The next word is

‘transform’. What does it mean to transform?

Student: To change.

Teacher: To change, good. Think of the Transformers. How do they transform?

Student: Cars into robots.

Teacher: Cars into robots, right. So, they’re changing from one thing to another.

Can they change back? Yep. So, they can definitely transform.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew often tied examples to local community and culture. For example, when discussing what public service announcements were, and the various text formats for sharing community announcements, she discussed:

Teacher: Remember when we had the water lines break? Last November, I believe?

So, how did we get information out to the community? What did we do?

Student: A guy went all over.

Teacher: So, one, they had a person go all over the place and visit different homes.

What else did they do? What did we do here?

Student: We gave a note. 135

Teacher: Yes, we gave notices. Where else did we post it? On Facebook. So, there’s

different mediums of getting information out there. So that’s what a public

service announcement is. The public needs to know it. Especially our

community, right? Because people didn’t know where to get their drinking

water from for the first couple hours. And a lot of people didn’t even

know there was a boil water advisory. So, very important to get

information out there.

After looking at an example of a public service announcement in the Nelson Literacy

(MacKenzie, 2008) textbook (with an image of a stormy sky, a cartoon man being hit by lightening, and a caption warning the public to be weather-wise) Wapiskisew-asiniskwew incorporated personal and cultural experience: “My Dad used to always say don’t be afraid of storms. It’s nature’s way of cleansing Mother Earth. The Thunderbird is important in our culture.

One of the greatest spirits, pray to the Thunderbird to keep you safe and comforted.” Land-links learning was demonstrated as Wapiskisew-asiniskwew made the connection clear between the lesson’s content (i.e., public service announcements) and the students’ local community and culture.

Another example of making land links was during a Nelson Literacy lesson. The objective was to look at text features, such as fonts, headings, and subheadings. The topic of the passage they were exploring was on where electricity comes from (hydro dam, nuclear energy, natural gas, oil, coal). In addition to exploring text features (e.g., “Fonts are the different kinds of text we can use, the style and size…Readers can use fonts to help them identify titles, headings, and subheadings”) Wapiskisew-asiniskwew wove in a discussion about being good stewards of the environment: 136

It’s very, very important to respect Mother Earth. And whatever you take from her use it

wisely, and always respect our planet and not polluting. The less we have to use her for

natural resources, the less pollution we create.

The next day Wapiskisew-asiniskwew reviewed the text features of the passage and returned to the topic of the environment. In discussing hydro dams, she used the smartboard to show pictures of a nearby dam and also the Hoover dam. In discussing the destructive effect on the environment Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted: “When we do stuff like that there’s always consequences.” Although her reference to the environment was not specifically connected to learning about text features it built upon the topic of the passage within Nelson Literacy and highlighted the Indigenous cultural understanding of relationship to, and responsibility for, the land/environment.

Non-linear. Non-linear pedagogy aims at producing innovations (i.e., new ideas, creative thoughts, new imaginings, etc.) and understandings by putting different ideas together and creating new knowledge. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew incorporated this in a variety of ways: through brainstorming, cyclic learning, and the facilitation of critical thinking.

Brainstorming. One example of this pedagogy was demonstrated in Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s acknowledgement and catering to different paths of learning and understanding.

This was exemplified when she would work individually with the student who required an individualized preconference session before he began his writing (previously discussed), capitalizing on the synergistic power of brainstorming.

Cyclic learning. Another aspect of non-linear pedagogy is repetition and returning to concepts for deeper understanding. This is reflective of the writing process itself. The procedure that students work through in creating a written piece is essentially plan, write a rough draft, 137 edit/revise (individually or in peer/teacher conferences), create the final copy, and publish.

Although this sounds like a linear progression with identifiable steps, the reality is that writers cycle repeatedly through these components, traveling in and out of several stages numerous times and in various orders (Graves, 2004). Thus, as Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s students wrote then edited and revised their selected pieces of writing they were revisiting, rethinking, and refining their work. The two samples of student work shown in Figure 20 below provide an example of the incorporation of feedback provided within student/teacher conferencing into one student’s writing.

Figure 20. Student writing before and after student/teacher conferencing.

Although feedback focused mainly on grammar and mechanics the revised writing reflects the non-linear process of learning in cyclic ways (revisiting and incorporating new ideas). 138

Critical thinking. The development of critical thinking is also a component of non-linear pedagogy (e.g., analyzing, making inferences, evaluating, problem-solving, etc.). Applying this to the subject of English Language Arts, the development of critical literacy involves “teaching students to understand and embrace diverse viewpoints and to consider underlying messages…[it] is an effective vehicle for teaching students how to analyze social issues and unequal power relationships” (Roberge, 2013, p. 1). In addition to discussions on Idle No More

(“a peaceful revolution to honour Indigenous sovereignty and to protect the land & water”; Idle

No More, n.d., para. 1), #noDAPL (No Dakota Access Pipeline, protestation against a proposed and partially built pipeline; #NoDAPL Archive, n.d.), and WE Schools (local campaigns against hunger, poverty and access to education; WE Charity, 2019), Wapiskisew-asiniskwew utilized critical literacy within her Wild Mind writing by having students reflect upon, and write about, reconciliation (i.e., Imagine a Canada assignment; see Figure 21).

139

Student Name

Figure 21. Example of a completed Imagine a Canada writing assignment.

Reflective of non-linear learning this example illustrates the end product of a student who engaged in the writing process to identify her solutions to social issues and power relationships, visualizing a world of peace.

Deconstruct/reconstruct. Deconstruct/reconstruct pedagogy involves watching (e.g., observation, modeling by a more knowledgeable person) and then doing (i.e., independent attempt, with scaffolding if needed). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew sometimes utilized this technique as a whole (i.e., required students to reconstruct a particular genre after deconstructing its parts).

This occurred, for instance, after exploring examples of fundraising posters, discussing what information/content was needed to make them effective, and then creating posters for their own fundraising activities (previously discussed). However, often the writing prompt was used to inspire free writing and was not a requirement for text construction (i.e., reconstruction did not 140 occur). For example, at the commencement of daily Wild Mind writing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew would explore with her class examples of completed texts in a variety of genres (e.g., expository writing, editorial, job description, etc.) before the students would delve into their own writing.

The students were encouraged to write about whatever inspired them from the examples and were not required to reconstruct the genre discussed.

Community links. The element of community links (i.e., sharing learning with others, learning applied for community benefit) was evident in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy and is illustrated in the examples below.

Sharing learning with others. Via Author’s Chair the students’ writing was shared within their classroom community (an authentic audience). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew highlighted the traditional teaching of courage:

…what do we do after each reader? Clap, give them a round of applause. Because it takes

bravery and courage to get up in front of an audience but this way we get practice in our

own classroom, we know one another.

In sharing their writing, the students’ learning was returned to the classroom community benefiting the development of relationships, confidence and presentation skills.

Community benefit. The posters created for their fundraising events to finance the Grade

6 fieldtrip (previously discussed) not only taught the students about this type of text construction but had an authentic purpose and benefitted the local community (i.e., no money towards the trip was required from parents/guardians). Additionally, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew often included a focus on cultural awareness and Indigenous identity development (benefitting the community through valuing and sustaining local culture). For example, she used the following writing prompt by Frost (2016): 141

Sacred Healing

We purify ourselves and ask for healing by going to healing ceremonies such as a sweat

lodge, which symbolizes Mother Earth. When we enter the lodge, it is as if we re-enter

the womb. It is dark and warm and we can reconnect with Mother Earth and with our

grandfathers and grandmothers. We offer five stones in the first round to call the

grandfather and grandmother spirits into the lodge to be with us. In the second round, we

pray for ourselves, our families and we ask the grandfathers and grandmothers to help us.

In the third round, we heal and ask for others to be healed. In the fourth round, we give

thanks to the Creator and to the grandmothers and grandfathers for everything we have,

for our five senses, for the good and the bad. At the end, we smoke ceremonial pipes to

carry our prayers to the Creator. The sweat lodge helps us to heal the physical, emotional,

mental and spiritual parts of our wheel. (p. 70)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew added, “What have you learned about our culture so far this school year? What was your best learning experience? What do you share with your family about what you have learned?” Students wrote about, for example:

• sharing the Cree language with younger siblings at home after school (“Sometimes I talk

to her about what Cree words we learned in Cree. I say the words to her”)

• telling their families about culture day (where they rode horses and “got to shoot a bow

and arrow at the targets”)

• going to a sweat (“I learned that when you go to sweats you pray for people and yourself

and it is really hot”)

• smudging (“I share that they should smudge the house once in awhile and smudging

makes you feel good”) 142

• feasts (“my best experience is when I told my family we had a feast at the school”; “I

learned that when we have a feast the boys have to sit on one side and the girls have to sit

on one side too”).

Similarly, on another day the students were given the writing prompt: “What does being First

Nation mean to you? How important is culture to you?” Students struggled to answer this question, finding it hard to articulate (one student wrote at the top of his page in large letters, “I don’t know”). However, one student wrote: “To be First Nation it means to be myself and to help other people.” Another student free-wrote the following:

My culture means a lot to me! I love my culture because First Nations are connected to

Mother Earth and are connected to spirits. Culture day is always so fun! I love to play all

the games at culture day! I like this school because this school is trying to restore culture

ways! Cree is going away and that’s really bad, but this school is trying to restore the

speaking of First Nations. Being a First Nation is fun because I know what I’m connected

to and I know that every thing has a spirit. I love to be a First Nation!

Consistent with the ideology of community links being centered on local viewpoints, in examining their own culture (and advocating sharing with family members) Wapiskisew- asiniskwew created space for dialogue into students’ worldviews, perspectives, self-awareness, and identity. Through her many discussions and learning activities related to culture, racism, and social injustice Wapiskisew-asiniskwew promoted “peace and justice and friendly relationships between all people of Canada”, even amidst the pain and turmoil of the current events (i.e.,

Colten Boushie case). Her message to the students (and indeed to her community at large via her social media posts) was, “when you follow your culture, there’s no room for hate, there’s no room for anger, there’s no room for greed, there’s so many beautiful things.” 143

Students’ representation and sharing of the 8 Ways pedagogy. The 8 Ways framework requires that local Indigenous values, systems, protocols, and processes are identified and integrated into the mainstream schooling system (RAET, 2019b). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I were inspired by RAET’s (2019d) example of Orange Public School and their adaptation of the 8

Ways to meet their local needs. The school utilized much of the original framework but made several adaptations to make it locally relevant. I showed Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and she followed their example and had a group of students draw pictures of the 8 Ways grounded within the Seven Grandfather Teachings (the ‘good life’ teachings discussed previously) and the animals that represent these teachings. Digital images were then made of the students’ drawings and placed within the existing interconnected framework (see Figure 22 below).

Figure 22. 8 Ways grounded within the Seven Grandfather Teachings (adapted with permission from T. Yunkaporta, personal communication, March 10, 2018).

144

Exploring the descriptions of the Grandfather Teachings in a book loaned from the school

Elder (Seven Grandfather Teachings, Native Reflections, 2009) and reflecting upon how they might apply to 8 Ways and writing, the students’ choices/ideas were developed during a collaborative group discussion and are summarized below.

Truth (Turtle)/Story Sharing: Truth is represented by the Turtle because “it is one of the oldest animals on our planet and is said to have witnessed the laws of creation…The turtle is grounded, careful and attentive to details – important qualities for those who speak the truth” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 16). We speak our truths when sharing from our own lives and in responding in writing from our own experiences.

Respect (Buffalo)/Learning Maps: “The Buffalo represents Respect because for as long as we have been here, we have sustained our lives through the Buffalo in terms of clothing, food, shelter, medicine and art” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 8). Buffalo herds led the way via seasonal migration, just as learning maps (e.g., graphic organizers) provide a map for making a plan for writing.

Wisdom (Beaver)/Non-Verbal: It is through knowledge and experience that Wisdom is gained; “To have wisdom is to know the difference between right and wrong and to apply these qualities to your daily life” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 4). The Beaver represents wisdom because it uses its gifts (large teeth and knowledge of how to build) in ways that promote wellness for its family and itself. Telling a story through, for example, dance or drumming allows us to use our many gifts to share our knowledge without words (like the Beaver).

Honesty (Sabe)/Symbols & Images: Honesty is represented by the Sabe “because it is closer to the Creator than to humans. It is believed that the Sabe used to walk amongst humans to remind us of the Creator’s wish for us to remain true to our natural forms” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 12). Symbols and images can represent more than a written statement. For example, the student’s inclusion of an artificial leg on the artist represented her desire to show that we should all love our natural forms, love ourselves as we are created.

145

Humility (Wolf)/Land Links: Humility is represented by the Wolf due to its “giving nature and devotion to protecting and working for the good of its family…Wolves mate for life and are generous and loving parents, setting an example of what our communities and family systems should be” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 14). By nature, wolves are often territorial; they are linked to the land and roam free upon it. We can write about our land, place, community, homes, and schools. We can even go outside to write!

Courage (Bear)/Non-Linear: Courage is represented by the Bear because of “its strength and natural ability to overcome challenges…The Bear shows us how to live a balanced life where there is time for playfulness and time to be assertive and courageous” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 10). Writing can be fun (e.g., “when you get to tell stuff”) and it can also be scary (e.g., when you have to share it during Author’s Chair). We learn different ways of writing when we are shown new ideas and different kinds of writing.

Love (Eagle)/Deconstruct-Reconstruct: The Eagle represents Love because it has the “ability and strength to fly higher than any other animal, thereby placing it closest to the Creator than all others. Eagles are loving parents and teachers to their offspring, protecting and guiding them” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 6). When looking at a writing example, like the Eagle from above we can see the whole thing; then we need to swoop in and be guided in being able to see the different parts of it before we can create our own version.

Harmony (Tipi)/Community Links: The students represented Community Links with a group of tipis to represent the idea of ‘community’ and ‘the good way of life’. “When someone follows the Seven Teachings, they will lead a well-balanced lifestyle and live in harmony with all creation” (Native Reflections, 2009, p. 2). We can write to help out our community (e.g., to share information like public service announcements and upcoming fundraisers, share stories that have a teaching, or just for fun!). This local adaptation of the 8 Ways pedagogy was shared with the school for community use. It was also shared with teachers at the Think Indigenous Education Conference whose formal theme was: “Inspiring change through Indigenous knowledges & education…we hope to inspire educators to incorporate Indigenous Knowledges into everyday practices of teaching”

(University of Saskatchewan, 2018, para. 1). Implicit within community links is this idea of 146 reciprocity (i.e., mutuality of knowledge giving and receiving with emphasis placed on a co- creation model).

Influences on Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Writing Instruction

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew identified a variety of resources and experiences as being influential to her writing practice. These included curricula (both provincial and a locally developed curriculum framework), the use of the mandated Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) program, the impact of an earlier professional development workshop, and her personal experiences of writing and writing instruction.

Curricula.

Provincial curriculum. Peterson’s (2012b) analysis of the Saskatchewan curriculum for

English Language Arts 6 (Ministry of Education, 2008b; the most current version of the curriculum) found that the Genre Discourse was particularly influential and was the primary discourse of the curriculum. Reflecting the Genre Discourse the Saskatchewan curriculum contains the expectation that students will “create and present a variety of representations that communicate ideas and information to inform or persuade and to entertain an audience, including illustrations, diagrams, posters, displays, and cartoons” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 11).

With a primary discourse of Genre within her instructional approaches, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew was consistent with the main discourse of the Saskatchewan curriculum, suggesting a significant influence. Although Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s predominant philosophical belief reflected the

Creativity Discourse regarding learning to write, none of the specific outcomes in the

Saskatchewan curriculum contain elements of this discourse (Peterson, 2012b).

Of interest, Peterson’s (2012b) analysis found that with the exception of the Northwest

Territories and Saskatchewan there was no evidence of the Sociopolitical Discourse within the 147 objectives in the writing curricula across Canada’s other provinces and territories. In

Saskatchewan, students are required to “create various visual, multimedia, oral, and written texts that explore identity…, social responsibility…, and efficacy…” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p.

11). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s inclusion of this discourse not only aligns with the Saskatchewan curriculum but is a testament to her advocacy of her Indigenous heritage and her dedication to socio-political justice.

Indigenous curriculum framework. The curriculum at Tipiyimisiw School is based on a combination of the Saskatchewan Curriculum (Ministry of Education, n.d.) and the locally developed Treaty Language and Culture (TLC) Program set within an Indigenous Curriculum

Framework (ICF) (Treaty Six Education Council; TSEC, n.d.b). TSEC (n.d.b) calls this the

Niswayak Nistohtamowin Model “Both Ways of Understanding” (see Figure 23). With this model, student “success” is grounded within a strong First Nations foundation (shown in green) and develops from a “cultural year plan” which results from “continuous cultural infusion”

(shown in yellow) in combination with the provincial Saskatchewan Curriculum (shown in blue).

The stated goal is: “Giving our children the BEST of BOTH WORLDS” (TSEC, n.d.b, slide 16). 148

Figure 23. Niswayak Nistohtamowin Model (Both Ways of Understanding) (TSEC, n.d.b, slide 7).

Mandated resource. Along with the other teachers in the upper elementary end (i.e., grades 4/5, 6, 7/8), Wapiskisew-asiniskwew was required to use the commercialized ELA program, Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008). In all of the observed lessons from the second daily period of ELA, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew used materials directly from the Nelson Literacy program. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted, “I really love the Nelson Literacy, it’s pretty well all laid out for you.”

The instructional framework of Nelson Literacy for the writing strand claims to provide

“explicit instruction in all of the ‘6 + 1’ writing traits and all stages of the writing process”

(MacKenzie, 2008, p. 18). The 6 + 1 Trait Writing Model of instruction and assessment consists 149 of key traits of quality writing: ideas (main message), sentence fluency (flow/rhythm of the language), organization (internal structure), word choice (vocabulary chosen to convey meaning), voice (personal tone and flavor), conventions (grammar and mechanics), presentation

(form and layout) (Culham, 2003). The Instructional Framework for Grade 6, for example, has as it’s writing focus to be developed over 12 units:

Writing Traits:

• Ideas: Clarify ideas, plan for concise writing;

• Organization: Use strong transitions, write an organized paragraph;

• Voice: Identify and define voice, put voice into flat writing;

• Word Choice: Use strong words to make write clear and interesting, use correct

terminology to establish authority;

• Fluency: Eliminate run-on sentences, use elements of fluency,

• Conventions: Distinguish between revising and editing;

• Publishing: Use charts for effective presentation

Writing Process:

• Planning: Using graphic organizers, identifying reliable research sources, warm-

ups for writing

• Drafting: Imagining key questions, adding drama to writing, writing fluent

sentences

• Revising: Using appropriate ethnocultural terminology, avoiding clichés and

overworked language 150

• Editing: Correcting punctuation errors and omissions, troubleshooting common

problems in writing

• Publishing: Writing and presenting a polished report

(MacKenzie, 2008; Nelson Literacy 6, n.d.)

According to MacKenzie (2008), “As students move sequentially through the units, they develop an understanding of the elements/traits of writing, while mastering the stages of the writing process” (p. 41). Nelson Literacy also advocates for a Writer’s Workshop format and recommends the following daily schedule:

• Read-Aloud (10-15 min) (Text with specific focus)

• Modelled Writing (10-20 min) (Focus: writing element/trait, writing process,

word study)

• Shared Writing (20 min) (Facilitate understanding) OR

• Guided Writing/Independent Writing (30 min) (Apply understanding)

• Reflection (5 min) (How did the strategy help you to be a better writer? Where

else can you use this strategy?)

(adapted from MacKenzie, 2008, p. 44)

Overall, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew supported the use of this program; however, she chose to select the lessons from a variety of activities that she felt met the needs of her students. For example, she felt her current students needed more exposure to vocabulary which was reflected in her selection of a considerable number of Word Study exercises. In alignment with Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s comment regarding peer conferring, classroom observations did not reveal the presence of the Shared Writing component of this schedule. Read-Alouds, Modelled Writing (in 151 the form of viewing examples), Independent Writing, and Reflection were the main activities used daily by Wapiskisew-asiniskwew during the ELA periods utilizing this program.

Professional development. The Wild Mind writing sessions were first initiated within the classroom when Wapiskisew-asiniskwew was impacted by a professional development (PD) workshop she attended during her first year of teaching on a program called Wild Mind Writing

(presented by Dr. Carol Fulton, Assistant Professor, University of Regina). This program combined Goldberg’s (2011) rules of writing practice (Creativity Discourse) within a Process

Discourse Writer’s Workshop format. The premise of Wild Mind Writing is based upon

Goldberg’s (2011) book, Wild Mind: Living the Writer’s Life. Goldberg notes that her seven rules of writing practice “are the bottom line, the beginning of all writing, the foundation of learning to trust your own mind. Trusting your own mind is essential for writing. Words come out of the mind” (p. 14). Her rules are:

1. Keep your hand moving. When you sit down to write, whether it’s for ten minutes or

an hour, once you begin, don’t stop….

2. Lose control. Say what you want to say. Don’t worry if it’s correct, polite,

appropriate. Just let it rip….

3. Be specific. Not car, but Cadillac. Not fruit, but apple. Not bird, but wren….

4. Don’t think. We usually live in the realm of second or third thoughts, thoughts on

thoughts, rather than in the realm of first thoughts, the real way we flash on

something. Stay with the first flash….

5. Don’t worry about punctuation, spelling, grammar.

6. You are free to write the worst junk in America. 152

7. Go for the jugular. If something scary comes up, go for it. That’s where the energy

is… (Goldberg, 2011, p. 14-17)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew identified that this PD significantly influenced her writing instruction.

Her underlying philosophy that, “Writing to me is being able to express your thoughts and understandings on paper” reflects Goldberg’s (2011) fundamental rules of writing practice.

PD opportunities were also provided by the Treaty Six Education Council (TSEC). PD in

ELA was to be provided by the organization’s literacy catalyst once a month. The role of

TSEC’s literacy catalyst was to travel to the 15 schools supported by TSEC and support classroom practice by providing PD for teachers in best practices in literacy (activities included workshops, modeling, coaching, and distribution of resources). I had hoped to observe one of these in-school workshops; however, the December session was cancelled due to illness, and adverse driving conditions resulting from extreme cold warnings or snow fall prevented both the

January and February sessions. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did describe a session she found useful when all teachers reviewed writing samples and discussed how they would grade them

(consistent with a Skills Discourse). Each grade was also provided with samples of writing in various genres reflecting a variety of quality.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew expressed that as a writing teacher she would like to learn more about:

Transferring thoughts on paper without or minimal teacher guidance. I have encountered

many students (low and high ability) who are knowledgeable about a particular topic, but

they do not transfer that on to paper until I ask them questions. I would like them to be

more independent and less concerned with getting things right. 153

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew commented that a barrier to supporting her professional learning was that “with TSEC we have professional development that is scheduled for us so we do not get to choose what we would like to take.”

Personal experiences. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s noted that her favorite part of teaching writing is working through the writing process with her students. She remembers her own positive experiences as a student of writing and how it impacted her:

I would like to say that I had very strong teachers in my elementary and university years

that helped me with my writing from childhood until now. Without feedback I would not

realize how much more I was capable of doing in my writing. It allows me to use my own

personal experiences and share them in my classroom. I remember as young as grade one

using an outline to write a simple paragraph. That is how my past teachers impacted me, I

still remember!

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew claimed that she often writes outside of school. She considers herself a writer, and enjoys it:

To me writing is a form of expression that allows me to use it for many things. Since I

was a little girl it was my outlet for expressing my thoughts, writing out my dreams or a

note to myself. As an adult, I learned to love it even more because I was able to decipher

text and interpret it into my own words. Being able to do this lead to very powerful

discussions because not everyone has the same perspective and it enhanced my learning

in many different ways.

She uses her own writing as a tool on her social media to advocate for her people and culture, to share traditional teachings and protocols, for writing/sharing curricular units (shared on the 154

Treaty Six Education Council’s webpage), and has recently been flown to Ottawa for curriculum writing.

155

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The aim of this dissertation was to explore culturally responsive writing pedagogy.

Lacking the ability to write well has long-term negative consequences for both academic and occupational success. Pre-service and in-service educators have identified significant challenges in the teaching of writing; feeling unprepared and lacking confidence to teach this essential skill.

Additionally, many non-Indigenous teachers feel uncomfortable and/or ill-equipped to incorporate Indigenous content and perspectives into their classrooms (Canadian Teachers’

Federation, 2015; Freeman, McDonald & Morcom, 2018; Kanu, 2011; Milne, 2017). Resulting from generations of on-going colonial oppression, educational differences in literacy development have been identified between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. Along with a focus on traditional language and cultural revitalization, Indigenous families in Canada have advocated education for their children in the dominant literacy practices of schooling. With a growing Indigenous population in both urban and rural schools, educators are seeking ways to respectfully and successfully integrate cultural perspectives, content, and traditional ways of knowing/learning into their classrooms. This study addressed the paucity of research on writing development in Canada conducted within rural areas and with Indigenous Peoples.

As mentioned in the literature review, Ivanić (2004) argued for a comprehensive approach to writing pedagogy utilizing all six discourses of writing and learning to write: skills, creativity, process, genre, social practices, and sociopolitical. Effective writing teachers successfully navigate the tensions and contradictions among the discourses. Kanu (2011) advocated for an integration of Indigenous perspectives into the school curriculum through a layering at five levels of classroom practice, one being integration at the level of instructional methods/strategies. In addition to teaching cultural content, the 8 Ways Aboriginal Learning and 156

Pedagogical framework (Yunkaporta, 2009) places emphasis on incorporating Indigenous perspectives within teaching methods/strategies. In using the overlap of the dual knowledge systems (Indigenous/Western) as an entry point, non-Indigenous teachers can more successfully integrate Indigenous knowledge authentically and productively in schools by utilizing the application of Indigenous processes of learning.

An initial objective of this study was to identify which discourses of writing (Ivanić,

2004) were employed in an Indigenous teacher’s instructional approaches and beliefs about writing instruction. In my research, I found that the Indigenous teacher, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, utilized all six discourses of writing at varying times over the course of the classroom observations, reflecting a comprehensive approach to teaching writing. As will be explored within the upcoming discussion, tensions were revealed between conflicting discourses, some remained unresolved while others were successfully negotiated.

The second question in this study sought to determine which of the 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies (Yunkaporta, 2009) the Indigenous teacher utilized in her writing instruction. In addition to incorporating local cultural content Wapiskisew-asiniskwew utilized all instructional methods identified through the 8 Ways framework. Examination of classroom practices revealed an overlap between Western discourse theory and the Indigenous 8 Ways pedagogy framework

(i.e., evidence of Ivanić’s discourses were reflected within Yunkaporta’s 8 Ways practice).

Utilization of Indigenous instructional strategies directly address the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada’s (2015d) call to action regarding the integration of Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms. This call to action aligns with the goal of the

Sociopolitical Discourse; that of teaching for social justice. As will be elaborated upon in this 157 chapter, the 8 Ways pedagogy framework utilized in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing classroom was a meaningful embodiment of the Sociopolitical discourse.

Ladson-Billings (1995) asked that culturally relevant pedagogy meet three criteria: develop students academically, nurture and support cultural competence, and develop sociopolitical/critical consciousness. The findings of this study reveal that Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy met these criteria.

Academic Development

The development of proficiency in reading and writing are skills needed “to ‘survive’ in the modern world” (Anishinaabe scholar Nicole Bell, 2014, p. 14) and allow one to “participate fully in Canadian society” (Mi'kmaq educator Marie Battiste, 2000, p. 192). The complementary use of the discourses of writing and the 8 Ways instructional strategies, as well as the negotiated tensions between discourses, resulted in effective culturally relevant writing pedagogy and facilitated students’ academic development.

Overlap Between Western Discourses of Writing and 8 Ways Aboriginal Pedagogies

Tewa professor Gregory Cajete (1999) recommended recognizing Western and

Indigenous knowledge “differences as complementary” (p. 34). A strong common-ground link between Ivanić’s (2004) discourses of writing pedagogy and 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies was evident in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing instruction. Examples include:

• The Process Discourse reflects the experiential learning inherent in non-verbal pedagogy

(i.e., acquiring an implicit understanding of the writing process via engaging with writing

within a predictable routine), and the cyclic nature of writing reflected within non-linear

pedagogy. The incorporation of Author’s Chair integrates the narrative storytelling aspect

of story sharing pedagogy. 158

• The Genre Discourse can be identified when engaging in deconstruct/reconstruct

pedagogy as specific forms of writing are examined for text patterns and features; in

examining visual metalanguage such as underlining, italicizing, and adding color of

symbols/images pedagogy; and using graphic organizers as tools to map out a variety of

writing styles, which is also indicative of learning maps pedagogy.

• The Creativity Discourse is revealed in the personal relevance of land-links pedagogy

where explicit personal connections are made to students’ lives and place.

• The Social Practices Discourse is exemplified through writing for a real-life purpose; for

example, creating fundraising posters to share knowledge for community benefit

(reflective of community links pedagogy).

These findings reveal that the 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogies work in a complementary way with Western teaching methods. According to Yunkaporta (2009), at the surface levels of academic knowledge there are only differences across cultures; however, common ground and innovation are found at higher levels of knowledge (i.e., not the content but the process of learning). Upon closer examination of the 8 Ways Aboriginal pedagogy a great deal of overlap can be seen with Western pedagogy. Table 2 below provides examples. 159

Table 2 Examples of Similarities Between Indigenous and Western Pedagogy

8 Ways Aboriginal Pedagogy Western Pedagogy

Story Sharing: Approaching learning Storytelling-as-pedagogy: “the story, then, is not just some casual through narrative. We connect through the entertainment; it reflects a basic and powerful form in which we stories we share. make sense of the world and experience” (Egan, 1988, p. 2)

Learning Maps: Explicitly Graphic organizers: pedagogical tools that use visual symbols to mapping/visualising processes. We picture convey information, concepts, ideas, etc. and the relationships our pathways of knowledge. between them (Hall & Strangman, 2008)

Non-Verbal: Applying intra-personal and Multiple intelligences: logical-mathematical, verbal-linguistic, kinaesthetic skills to thinking and learning. musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, We see, think, act, make and share without intrapersonal, naturalistic (Gardner, 1983) words.

Symbols & Images: Using images and Visual/graphic representation (non-text presentation of content): to metaphors to understand concepts and develop visual literacy, the “ability to find meaning in imagery. It content. We keep and share knowledge involves a set of skills ranging from simple identification (naming with art and objects. what one sees) to complex interpretation on contextual, metaphoric and philosophical levels” (Yenawine, 1997, p. 846)

Land Links: Place-based learning, linking Place-based education: uses students’ local landscapes, culture, content to local land and place. We work opportunities and experiences as a foundation for learning with lessons from land and nature. (Gruenewald, 2003a,b)

Non-Linear: Producing innovations and Spiral curriculum: students revisit a topic/theme/subject multiple understanding by thinking laterally or times throughout their school career, with each revisit the combining systems. We put different ideas complexity of the topic/theme increases, new learning occurs together and create new knowledge. within the context of previous learning/information (Bruner, 1960) Lateral thinking: problem solving using a creative/indirect approach (de Bono, 1992)

Deconstruct/Reconstruct: Modelling and Gradual release of responsibility instructional framework: scaffolding, working from wholes to parts “purposefully shifts the cognitive load from teacher-as-model, to (watch then do). We work from wholes to joint responsibility of teacher and learner, to independent practice parts, watching and then doing. and application by the learner” (Fisher & Frey, 2013, para. 4)

Community Links: Centring local Social pedagogies: “design approaches for teaching and learning viewpoints, applying learning for that engage students with what we might call an ‘authentic community benefit. We bring new audience’ (other than the teacher), where the representation of knowledge home to help our mob. knowledge for an audience is absolutely central to the construction of knowledge in a course” (Bass & Elmendorf, n.d., para. 3)

Indigenous scholar Sandra Styres (2019) noted that, “the point is not to replace dominant

Western thought, but that the two can coexist in mutually egalitarian and sovereign relationships” (p. 40). 160

There are a multitude of factors that influence instructional practice (e.g., teacher’s personal history/beliefs, curriculum, previous professional development, etc.). Tensions may arise between the juxtaposition of, for example beliefs and mandates at the division/school level.

Examining how Wapiskisew-asiniskwew negotiated these tensions was useful in understanding her writing pedagogy.

Tensions and Negotiations

Utilizing a comprehensive approach to the teaching of writing inherently necessitates integrating elements of various discourses that would inevitably face some tensions and contradictions. For example, as noted by Ivanić (2004), “the skills discourse of writing is in contradiction with the process discourse of writing, since the former focuses on the product and the latter on the processes of writing”; and “the social practices and sociopolitical discourses of writing actively set themselves in opposition to the discourses based on asocial views of writing”

(p. 226). Many teachers are eclectic in their approach to teaching writing. The discourses instantiated within a single lesson or a series of lessons may draw on two or more discourses in complex inter-animation with one another (Ivanić, 2004). In addition to exploring the discourses utilized, examination of the findings of this study provided insight into Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s eclectic use of the six discourses and the ways in which she negotiated and resolved (or not) the tensions and contradictions among them.

Classroom practice: Tensions between discourses. Consistent with other studies (e.g.,

Lundgren, 2013; McCarthey et al., 2014; Wohlwend, 2009), Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s instructional approaches reflect a combination of Ivanić’s (2004) discourses and revealed tensions among them. Many lessons showed different discourses without reflecting an underlying coherence. For example, within Wild Mind writing, while each lesson focused on a 161 different genre (Genre), Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did not always explicitly teach aspects of the genre. Although examples were often reviewed (and components of each genre explored) the genre-specific writing prompt was given only to inspire writing (Creativity); reconstruction of the genre was not required. Lundgren’s (2013) study revealed that in order for students to internalize the building blocks of a specific genre they must engage in both deconstruction and reconstruction of a text in that genre.

Within Wild Mind writing, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew consistently implemented a Writer’s

Workshop format (Process). However, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s individual teacher-student conferences did not look for inclusion of aspects of the genre or subject of a mini lesson (e.g., transition words/phrases) but focused only on grammar, mechanics, and spelling (Skills). In drawing from different discourses without connecting them, unresolved tensions in her practices were created. These contradictions were also seen in Lundgren’s (2013) study where the teacher’s feedback during a lesson on writing letters to the editor (Genre) was “first and foremost focused on the students’ correct spelling of words” (Skills) and there was no “meaningful response on the basis of the teacher’s explicit teaching of how a letter to the editor should be written, i.e. its structure” (p. 326).

Within the second ELA period, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s ideas for the daily lesson came from the Nelson Literacy (MacKenzie, 2008) teacher’s manual. This program advocates a

Writer’s Workshop approach (Process); however, the Process Discourse was not observed during these classroom periods of instruction. While a variety of activities were presented within the manual, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew mainly selected tasks reflecting the Genre Discourse (e.g., identifying text patterns/features) and Skills Discourse (e.g., vocabulary exercises). This discrepancy identifies tension between the discourses of the school mandated Nelson Literacy 162 program and Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom practice. However, because the Process

Discourse was the main focus of her instructional practice during Wild Mind writing this reflects negotiated tensions between the two ELA periods. When asked about the areas where she felt her students could use improvement with regards to writing, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew answered:

“Enhancing their vocabulary. I try to encourage dictionary and thesaurus use as much as possible in every subject area.” This reveals that tensions were also negotiated and resolved as

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew was able to choose the Nelson Literacy activities to supplement her instruction that she felt would meet the needs of her students. These findings align with

McCarthey et al.’s (2014) study which identified that writing teachers are influenced by the discourses reflected in the district-adopted/provincial curricula. Similar to one of McCarthey et al.’s teachers, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew resolved potential contradictions via reconstructing her instruction to navigate tensions in productive ways.

Beliefs about writing and learning to write: Tensions between discourses. Métis lawyer/educator Kathy Hodgson-Smith (2000) explains that in addition to methods, styles, and strategies, culturally responsive pedagogy “is also the epistemological/philosophical framework from which one approaches instruction” (p. 158). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew showed she values writing by making space for it daily within her classroom. However, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s beliefs about writing and learning to write reflected the tensions in her practice. Many aspects of

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s underlying philosophy about writing were consistent with a creative approach, focusing on the inclusion of interesting/inspiring topics and addressing personal relevance. However, although she believes that students learn to write by writing on topics that interest them (a viewpoint consistent with the Creativity Discourse) her writing prompts and instruction were Genre- and Skills-based. 163

Observations reflected alignment of some discourses between beliefs and instructional practices. For example, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s articulated belief in building student confidence via skill development indicated an emphasis on skill mastery, which translated into her instruction. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew believed that skills, writing stamina, and student independence resulted in confidence as a writer. They are built through practicing the act of writing; while the act of writing is inspired through interesting/relevant topics.

Although Wapiskisew-asiniskwew expressed beliefs supporting the Social Practices

Discourse (i.e., writing is communicative and purpose-driven) this discourse was not well instantiated in her instruction. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did not articulate any potential tensions between her predominantly creativity-oriented beliefs and genre-focused instruction and her references to social practices. Conversely, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew did not specifically express any beliefs consistent with the Sociopolitical Discourse of writing; however, many examples of her practice reflected the strength of her beliefs in identity formation and social justice. Her practices contrast with previous studies of mainstream American writing instruction (McCarthey et al., 2014) and analyses of Canadian curriculum (Peterson (2012b).

Overall, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s positive experiences in her own schooling and rich personal writing contributed to her confidence in teaching writing. This confidence (coupled with her ability to draw from more than one discourse and her comfort in making curricular decisions) has led to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew being able to effectively negotiate the tensions between the use of a variety of discourses of writing, and ultimately led to the academic development of her students. Her teaching reflects what Ivanić (2004) described as eclectic writing pedagogy: “Experienced, eclectic teachers of writing recognise the advantage of inspiring learners to write about topics which interest them and the opportunities this provides 164 for implicit learning, alongside explicit teaching about linguistic rules and patterns” (p. 230). In addition to embracing multiple ways of knowing and productively negotiating tensions,

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew ensured that Indigenous culture was authentically embedded into everyday learning. This addressed Ladson-Billings’ (1995) second criteria of culturally relevant pedagogy: a willingness to nurture and support cultural competence.

Nurturing and Supporting Cultural Competence

School environments that incorporate Indigenous perspectives have been shown to have a positive impact on academic outcomes for Indigenous students, including those outcomes related to reading and writing (Brayboy & Castagno, 2009; Gay, 2010; McDonald, 2011). Cultural competence is nurtured via instruction based on relationships, local culture, and a locally developed curriculum. I discuss these themes in terms of my analysis of Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s teaching and beliefs.

Instruction Based on Relationships and Local Culture

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s belief that the foundation for effective teaching is built upon relationships mirrors Delpit’s (1995) claim that in order to be an effective teacher it is essential

“to really see, to really know the students we must teach” (p. 183). Regardless of culture, neurobiologically students must feel safe, known, and cared for within their school in order to learn (Aupperle et al., 2012). In addition to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s existing relationships with the students and their families, being from the First Nation provided her with an in-depth knowledge of the students’ local culture. This resulted in an understanding of how their cultural practices, values and beliefs shaped the students as learners. Brayboy and Castagno (2009) highlighted the “importance of contextualizing or localizing curriculum and pedagogy so that it bears some connections and resemblance to the knowledge and learning of the local community” 165

(p. 47). In having the students re-create the 8 Ways (Yunkaporta, 2009) based upon the goodlife teachings of the seven Grandfathers, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew made these connections explicit.

Consistent with the research literature on culturally responsive teachers (Battiste, 2013; Gay,

2010; Smith, 2011), Wapiskisew-asiniskwew based her educational decisions and activities on local culture. Her use of writing prompts adapted from Elder teachings from Frost’s (2016) book and frequent discussions regarding culture, community, and the current sociopolitical landscape facilitated the students’ development of cultural competence.

Locally Developed Curriculum

As advocated by many Indigenous scholars, Indigenous students need to see themselves reflected authentically in the curriculum (e.g., Bell & Brant, 2015; Kovach, 2009; St. Denis,

2010). The locally developed Indigenous Curriculum Framework (TSEC, n.d.b) drew upon the local resources, materials, and knowledge of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s community. The knowledge, norms, values, resources, and epistemologies of the local community was therefore viewed as legitimate, valuable and intimately integrated into the school (Brayboy & Castagno,

2009). Thus, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing instruction was authentically connected to the students’ lives, engaging and culturally responsive. In using her community’s locally-developed curriculum, and instruction based on relationships and the students’ culture, Wapiskisew- asiniskwew was able to expand upon cultural competence and foster the development of a sociopolitical/critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings third criteria of CRP).

Development of a Sociopolitical/Critical Consciousness

The instantiation of the Sociopolitical Discourse within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom (evident within classroom discussions and instruction) facilitated students’ development of a sociopolitical/critical consciousness. Through a variety of writing assignments 166 students explored their Indigenous identity and worked towards social justice. In addition,

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s hybrid use of the Creativity and Sociopolitical Discourses provided space for Indigenous voices and experiences to hold power/knowledge within the classroom.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s utilization of Indigenous pedagogy (via the 8 Ways Aboriginal learning and pedagogical framework) represented and modeled the cultural capital of Indigenous teaching methods.

Indigenous Identity and Social Change

Wild Mind writing provided space for Wapiskisew-asiniskwew to advocate for a valuing of her community’s culture. The utilization of Indigenous writing prompts encouraged students to create texts that nurtured the development of their identity as Indigenous youth. Through discussion of issues of social injustice (e.g., Fontaine and Boushie cases) the status quo of power relations within the justice systems was explored. Consistent with the findings in McCloskey’s

(2012) study, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew fostered critical literacy within her classroom by allowing space for these discussions and practices to occur.

The Imagine a Canada project allowed for the students to reflect upon identity, knowledge and power as they authored their vision of a reconciled Canada. Through the incorporation of the Cree words within their texts the students constructed more powerful

Indigenous identities as they built an important bridge between Indigenous language and

Indigenous consciousness. As Blackfoot scholar Leroy Little Bear (2009) explains, an

Indigenous language is “a repository for all of the collective knowledge and experiences that a people, a society, or a nation has” (p. 22). As the students reflected upon social responsibility implicit in their ideas for engaging in reconciliation they moved “beyond generalisations about cultural contexts to sociopolitical explanations and positing alternatives which might better 167 represent the interests of less privileged social groups” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 225). Through encouraging students to share their vision and speak out, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew empowered her students to see themselves as agents of social change.

Hybrid Instantiations of Creativity and Sociopolitical Discourses

Creativity was a dominant discourse at work within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy. The self-expression and creativity in many examples of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s pedagogic practices reflected Indigenous culture and were often hybrid instantiations of the

Creativity and Sociopolitical Discourses. This aligns with Ivanić’s (2004) observations in that the Creativity Discourse “encompasses writing in all social and cultural contexts, rather than privileging the types of writing associated with education and other formal contexts. In this respect it overlaps with, and is often found in conjunction with, the sociopolitical discourse” (p.

234). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s use of choice and personal relevance was clearly sociopolitical because she provided space for Indigenous voices and experiences. In championing the value of writing that represented the perspectives and experiences of her students she challenged

Eurocentric ideas of what counts as interesting or ‘appropriate’ for a particular context. In this way, her students played “their part in resisting and contesting the status quo, and ultimately in contributing to discoursal and social change” (Ivanić, 2004, p. 238).

Reflections of my Positioning as a Non-Indigenous Researcher

Engaging in this study has been an invaluable learning experience. The process has assisted me in examining my own cultural and professional positioning, an absolute necessity for cross-cultural research. I believe that however uncomfortable it is to examine my own perceptions of other people and their cultures, the discomfort is necessary for growth and integrity in conducting cross-cultural research. I must challenge the stereotypes, misconceptions, 168 and prejudices I hold and recognize that racism is an ongoing and pervasive issue in Canadian schools, often manifesting in subtle and unconscious forms. I am aware that I may not even recognize the multitude of ways in which accepted, status quo approaches to teaching and learning present active barriers to the success of Indigenous students (Milne, 2017). Systemic racism is so embedded in societal institutions that it is often referred to as a hidden barrier;

“Those with power cannot see it and those without power experience it” (Toulouse, 2013b, p. 5).

I must resist what Battiste (2013) refers to as cognitive imperialism which privileges Western- based education and reinforces colonial worldviews and practices, while ignoring and degrading

Indigenous knowledge and worldviews. In the effort to decolonize education, it is essential for me to engage in critical dialogue that acknowledges how Canadian institutions claim universal truths in the Eurocentric worldview with a sense of superiority.

As I observed Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s class I recognized the difficulty of incorporating an Indigenous worldview within my own teaching when I do not have the cultural knowledge upon which to draw. Battiste (2000) taught me that “culture remains elusive; it is implicitly summed up by skills and shared traditions” (p. 196). In order to cultivate my own awareness and openness it was important for me to engage in a collaborative working relationship with

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and her Indigenous community. I then had to accept the fact that as a non-Indigenous educator I “can never really know what the experiences of the students have been like…you can visit, you can work there every day and still not have awareness of many things” (Tl’azt’en Nation educator, cited in Ball & Pence, 2006, p. 54).

In working closely with Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and questioning how I could reconcile worldviews I returned to Ermine’s (2007) ethical space of engagement. Ethical space “offers a venue to step out of our allegiances, to detach from the cages of our mental worlds and assume a 169 position where human-to-human dialogue can occur”; it “offers itself as a theatre for cross- cultural conversation in pursuit of ethically engaging diversity and disperses claims to the human order” (Ermine, 2007, p. 202). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I considered the coming together of both Western and Indigenous worldviews. The in-between spaces allowed us to move on from old stories and, through respect and reciprocity, we were able to work collaboratively to create new stories (Moore, 2017). I found great value in learning to see the world from Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s perspective; for as Freire (2005) argued, it “is in the experiencing the differences that we discover ourselves” (p. 127). In the following I reflect upon this research journey with the core principles of ethical responsibilities in mind: relationship, respect, reciprocity, relevance, and responsibility (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991; Styres & Zinga, 2013b).

Relationship

Ethics, an individual’s moral governing principles, have been inherently tied to my relationship with Wapiskisew-asiniskwew (Castellano, 2004). Within Indigenous pedagogy, relationship precedes all Eurocentric understandings of education and learning. My goal for this relational work with Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the students was to be genuine, honest, trustworthy, positive and open-minded. I asked many questions in order to sincerely understand; acknowledging my lack of knowledge, misconceptions, and willingness to learn. I strove to show respect through listening and through valuing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s work, knowledge and perspectives. Offering validation, I was thrilled she agreed to submit a call for presenter proposals at the Think Indigenous conference so that we could share her pedagogy story.

Indigenous teachers interviewed in St. Denis’ (2010) study advocated the importance of non-

Indigenous colleagues being supporters, working together to assist Indigenous educators, students and their families in moving forward from a history of oppression and colonization. I 170 endeavour(ed) to be one of these supporters, building relationships on mutual consent and trust

(Swiftwolfe, n.d.).

Through daily observation of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s pedagogy, reflective/clarifying open conversations, and the respectful relationship we built over time I went beyond merely learning about her Indigenous culture and learned from it. Mi'kmaw Elder Albert Marshall teaches that,

…when we learn from, it is through observation and personal relationship with the other

that the learning takes place. This is different than the “surface learning” that happens

when we learn about something. When we learn from something, it is a deep learning that

reflects our respectful relationship with that other life. (as cited in Moore, 2017, p. 108)

Regarding culturally responsive writing pedagogy I learned to let go of my rather linear, compartmentalized conceptualizations of writing and move towards the de-compartmentalized and fluid Indigenous ways of coming to know (Santoro et al., 2011); seeing writing as a recursive process rather than discrete steps to be followed. This coming-to-know I experienced while learning from Wapiskisew-asiniskwew is reminiscent of sociocultural theorists in that writing is conceptualized as a holistic cognitive social/cultural activity (Englert, Mariage &

Dunsmore, 2006; Prior, 2006); where the effort is valued in addition to, or instead of, the end result (Cajete, 2000).

This research journey has also encouraged me to really examine my privileged background and position of power. It is important to be cognizant of the social context I have been born into in order to challenge assumptions and recognize how knowledge construction has contributed to the normalization of Eurocentric superiority within Canada. Oppression is built into Canadian economics, politics, norms, and ideologies; it is embedded within policies, 171 practices, rules, laws, and education systems throughout our nation. It is essential for me, as a non-Indigenous educator, to question and explore my own sense of power and privilege

(Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2010). I acknowledge that I am privileged because of the identities that I was born with. I am white. Being heterosexual I have never felt I needed to conceal my sexual orientation. I feel comfortable in the gender I was born in. I am fully able. My family has never lived below the poverty line. I have never been shamed for my religious beliefs or ethnicity. I have never been denied the opportunity to speak my mother tongue or told where I may/may not live. As noted by Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017), “the more educated we become about people who are different from us and the more relationships we build with them, the more likely we are to have constructive responses when interacting with other members of their group” (p. 56). This requires a continuous commitment to lifelong learning and a persistent effort to challenge the structural and institutional oppressive norms embedded within the framework of Canada.

Respect

Cree educator Evelyn Steinhauer (2002) quotes an Elder who explained, “Respect means you listen intently to others’ ideas, that you do not insist that your ideas prevail. By listening intently you show honor, consider the well being of others, and treat others with kindness and courtesy” (p. 73). In focusing on promoting and legitimizing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s

Indigenous experiences and stories in this research (as recommended by Bishop & Glynn, 1999 in their power-sharing model) I endeavored to listen the way that Sto:lo scholar Jo-ann Archibald

(2008) proposed, with “three ears: two on the sides of our head and the one that is in our heart”

(p. 8). This required that I set aside filters that may foreground only familiar and/or comfortable conventions, and simply listen and learn. Maori scholar Robert Joseph (2008) wrote, “Hearing 172 one another’s stories validates experience and feelings” (p. 214). Respectful engagement with

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s Indigenous perspectives and pedagogy, combined with a willingness to interrogate my own standpoints, focused attention on important questions relating to research privilege. This respect of Indigenous cultural integrity ultimately led to more ethical engagement

(Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991).

Learning about Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s culture and traditions helped me to view her writing pedagogy within the larger sociocultural context. After asking Wapiskisew-asiniskwew about cultural protocols I approached several Elders to respectfully request advice about a variety of topics. I initially experienced some fear that I would imply disrespect through my lack of understanding and fumbling attempts. For example, in offering tobacco to an Elder I handed it directly to her instead of setting it down and providing the opportunity for her to pick it up to show acceptance of my request (I was graciously corrected). Another example occurred during the first Monday morning smudge I attended. An Elder kindly pointed out to me that I needed to remove my glasses. I learned that the purpose of smudging is to remove any negative energy that may be present and that the metal in my glasses can hold on to negative energy. In attending a staff Sharing Circle, I learned that through passing/holding the talking stone everyone had a chance to speak, all opinions were valued, and we must listen with respect. I participated in a

Round Dance despite my lack of dance skills and shyness because I wanted to show that I value(d) their traditions and was willing to step out of my comfort zone to try something unfamiliar and uncomfortable in order to learn from the experience. These experiences taught me about physical manifestations of showing respect (e.g., offering tobacco, using a talking stone), the equality/relationship of all people (e.g., symbolized in the joining of hands to form a large circle in the Round Dance), the importance of community (e.g., the Round Dance Giveaway 173 representing respect/kindness/sincerity towards others as possessions are given away freely to honor those who have gathered to connect and strengthen relationships), and the celebration of

Indigenous identity. These are exhibited within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s writing pedagogy in, for example, the respectful sharing/listening of stories, her emphasis on the importance of relationships with her students in the building of writing competence, her incorporation of authentic writing activities that give back to the community, and her uptake of social justice issues.

Relevance

Respecting cultural integrity requires including legitimizing Indigenous knowledges and skills to ensure they are relevant to, and accepting of, Indigenous perspectives and experiences

(Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991). In my study the core principle of relevance was examined in asking the question of whose reality/stories was privileged in this research (Bishop & Glynn,

1999). I strove to remain true to Indigenous views of the world by keeping Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s perspectives and experiences of writing pedagogy at the forefront of this research story. This is reflective of Métis scholar Judy Iseke-Barnes’ (2008) ideology: “In telling stories we honor the experiences of Indigenous peoples and epistemologies and the contributions made to multiple, collective, and collaborative readings of our world” (p. 219). In telling Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s story I hope to honor her perspective and expertise and highlight her contribution to the research literature on Indigenous writing pedagogy.

Chickasaw scholar Eber Hampton (1988) argued that to be authentically Indigenous and relevant, education must incorporate twelve standards. I reflected on each of these criteria as I spent time in Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom and provide brief examples below: 174

1. Spirituality - an appreciation for spiritual relationships: Wapiskisew-asiniskwew made

explicit connections between course content and Indigenous spirituality (e.g., electrical

storms and praying to the Thunderbird for comfort/safety), teaching her students to

understand and value spiritual relationships. Spirituality was also incorporated into Wild

Mind writing prompts.

2. Service - the purpose of education is to contribute to the people: Reflective of 8 Ways

Community Links Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had her students share their learning within

the classroom community (e.g., Author’s Chair) as well as for the larger community

benefit (e.g., public service announcements).

3. Diversity - meeting the standards of diverse Indigenous groups and communities:

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew not only included the traditional teachings from a variety of

Indigenous groups (e.g., Cree, Blackfoot) but also included Western teaching methods

showing that she valued diversity, modeling the use of the strengths of many different

communities/cultures.

4. Culture - a people's way of thinking, communicating, and living: Wapiskisew-

asiniskwew was an advocate for understanding and valuing one’s culture, and

championed the local culture of her students. Cultural concepts and ideas were used as

writing prompts.

5. Tradition - continuity with tradition: Wapiskisew-asiniskwew incorporated traditional

teachings and activities whenever possible, frequently utilizing the school Elders, the

locally developed Treaty Language and Culture (TLC) resources and drawing upon her

own cultural knowledge. 175

6. Respect - the relationship between the individual and the group recognized as mutually

empowering: Wapiskisew-asiniskwew indicated that the foundation for effective writing

pedagogy, and indeed for all teaching/learning, is a respectful relationship between the

teacher and students.

7. History - appreciation of the facts of Indigenous People’s history, including the loss of

the continent and continuing racial and political oppression: Wapiskisew-asiniskwew

included stories from her personal history as well as discussions of Canada’s first (and

continuing) People within her story sharing as writing prompts were discussed.

8. Conflict - understanding the dynamics and consequences of oppression: In exploring

movements such as Idle No More, #noDAPL, and the current criminal justice

proceedings of Fontaine and Boushie, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew facilitated her students’

understanding of oppression, unequal power relationships, and systemic racism.

9. Place - the sense of place, land, territory: Wapiskisew-asiniskwew explicitly made the

writing content/process relevant to the students’ lives, place, and local community by

using writing prompts that asked students to respond with personal reflection.

10. Relentlessness - commitment to the struggle for good schools for Indigenous children:

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew showed her commitment to improving her craft as a writing

teacher through continued participation in professional development opportunities (e.g.,

voluntary participation in this research), stepping out of her own comfort zone to present

at the Think Indigenous conference, writing/sharing curricular units on the Treaty Six

Education Council’s webpage, and joining an Indigenous team in Ottawa for curriculum

writing. 176

11. Vitality - recognition of the strength of Indigenous people and culture: Wapiskisew-

asiniskwew encouraged her students to see the strength and beauty of their Indigenous

identity. In discussing their writing assignment on reconciliation, she shared that in

following their culture there would be no room for hate, anger, or greed.

12. Transformation - commitment to personal and societal change: Through having her

students discuss and write about reconciliation Wapiskisew-asiniskwew promoted social

justice and encouraged positive transformation.

This list of standards offered a set of guidelines against which I was able to determine practices and perspectives that were respectful and relevant to Indigenous considerations. To the extent that I (as an educator) am able to reconstruct myself to be more relevant to, and accepting of

Indigenous students’ experiences and perspectives, I will be that much more responsive and relevant to the needs of all students (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001).

Reciprocity

The core principle of reciprocity refers to the practice of sharing with others for mutual benefit (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991). I learned from Little Bear (2000) that the “Aboriginal value of sharing manifests itself in relationships. Relationships result from interactions with the group and with all creation…Sharing also brings about harmony, which sustains strength and balance” (p. 79). In examining the question of who gained directly from the research (Bishop &

Glynn, 1999) I return to my why for engaging in this study. The initial intent was a means to create entry points for Indigenous knowledges to come through within educational contexts, facilitating an understanding of how teachers can utilize Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in a more meaningful way within the classroom. Within the context of the research study itself the co-created, local adaptation of the 8 Ways pedagogy was shared with the school for 177 community use, as well as with teachers at the Think Indigenous education conference. Thus, in privileging Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s stories and experiences the research promoted Indigenous interest, as well as provided direct benefits to the participating community. Through engaging in cross-cultural dialogue and reflection Wapiskisew-asiniskwew noted growth in personal and professional self-awareness and validation stating, “I didn’t realize all the valuable knowledge I know about my culture until I actually speak about it” (personal communication, May 31, 2018).

Nehithawak scholar Herman Michell (2005) described the importance of sharing and caring without judgment in the process of building relationships of trust as it allows “an avenue where poisons can be exposed and discarded as part of the healing process” (p. 41). Wapiskisew- asiniskwew and I were able to build this type of relationship by allowing ourselves to become vulnerable with each other (Wapiskisew-asiniskwew in allowing me to observe her closely for two months, myself in admitting my ignorance of her culture, and both of us in expressing our desire to learn more about the writing process and how we could become better educators of all students in our multi-cultural world). The emphasis on reciprocity in relationships is beautifully articulated by mixed-heritage (Cree, Lakota, Scottish) author Monique Gray Smith (2017) in her book, You Hold Me Up. The final three lines of the text read, “You hold me up. I hold you up.

We hold each other up” (p. 20-24). These simple lines eloquently emphasized to Wapiskisew- asiniskwew and I the importance of connection, that relationships are meant to be reciprocal, not unidirectional.

In the spirit of the Giveaway and to give thanks and to pay honor to Wapiskisew- asiniskwew, the students, Elders and school community, I gave gifts in a variety of forms.

Tobacco in the form of cigarettes was gifted to the Elders. I brought baking/donuts for the entire school staff (and Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s class) several times. Noticing Wapiskisew- 178 asiniskwew’s love of sticky notes and hand lotion I gifted her these items, as well as a gift certificate to create a free photobook for her end-of-the-school-year field trip they had all been working so hard to fundraise for. The money that they insisted on paying me when I assisted the school as an emergency substitute teacher I gifted back to the staff. At the end of my time at the school I gave each of the students in the class a hand-made clip with a penny I had hand-stamped

“Lucky” as a “lucky penny” and some candy. To Wapiskisew-asiniskwew I gave a beautiful three-dimensional beaded hummingbird I had bought from an Indigenous artist (signifying harmony, beauty, integrity and industriousness). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and the students surprised me with a wonderful blanket with an Indigenous design. The Elders presented me with a picture in a frame they had made consisting of a feather and a saying: “The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”

Responsibility

Indigenous people value education that “helps them exercise responsibility over their own lives” (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991, p. 15). This research provided many opportunities for both Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I to share what we have learned throughout this process.

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew indicated that sharing this research journey with her community and at the conference was not only empowering but also resulted in additional opportunities to advocate for social justice. An article in the local newspaper about our research at the school led to

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew being contacted to join a committee on building local efforts towards reconciliation. She was later asked to share her passion and knowledge through writing curriculum from an Indigenous standpoint on the topic of reconciliation and flown to Ottawa to join a writing group. I learned from Mi'gmaq educator Fred Metallic (2008) that Indigenous teachings and traditions are “not to be treated as ‘sources of information’ that can be 179 accumulated for personal gain” but rather “teachings are often shared with the intent and understanding of strengthening our family systems, communities, and our nations” (p. 61).

Responsibility through participation was facilitated as Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I shared our understandings for the benefit of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals within the school, community, the larger academic audience at the conference, and ultimately in print within this completed dissertation and a co-authored journal article submitted for wider publication.

I explored the principle of responsibility by reflecting upon to whom is the researcher accountable (Bishop & Glynn, 1999). As stated by Sensory and DiAngelo (2017), “Canada is a nation that was built on the genocide and forced removal of Indigenous peoples who had been living on the territory for several thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans” (p. 122).

This research journey has solidified an awareness within myself that although I personally may not have contributed to the atrocities suffered by Indigenous Peoples many years ago, this is still etched within the history of this country; and as a privileged settler Canadian I am responsible for taking action towards reconciliation. Thus, as a researcher I am accountable to not only

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and her community but to all Indigenous and non-Indigenous people living in Canada.

“Inside-Out Lessons” from the Research Journey

Cree scholar Fyre Jean Graveline (2012) recognized that teaching and learning have challenging moments. Rather than viewing these struggles as problems or as making mistakes,

Graveline said she has been taught to think of them “as ‘inside-out lessons,’ offered by our friend and teacher, the Trickster” (p. 7). She “offer[ed] Trickster as a Guide, to highlight the unplanned, uninvited, uncomfortable and confusing moments and possibilities that can erupt” (p. 7). 180

This journey for me has not been without inside-out lessons that were unplanned, uncomfortable, and confusing. Styres, Zinga, Lilley, and Tomlins-Jahnke (2019) asked that we acknowledge and engage in contestation in educational contexts in relevant, respectful, and meaningful ways. They noted that, in general terms, “contestation occurs in the shared spaces where disparate worldviews collide” (p. xvii). In critically examining assumptions that

“dominant Western perspectives are the only lens from which we should operate” (p. xviii) we begin to untangle some of the colonial relations and forge new relationships based on egalitarianism and mutual respect (Styres et al., 2019). To be transparent, my original research proposal for my dissertation looked solely at Ivanić’s Western framework (conceiving of it as

‘best-practices’ in writing instruction) and how I might create professional development opportunities to bring this framework to rural educators in Indigenous communities (e.g., alternative forms of delivery to remote communities). It was only after reading works by

Indigenous authors that I came to understand how unilateral this assumption was and recognized a “saviour complex…that only serves to entrench colonial relations of power and privilege”

(Styres, 2019, p. 59). I found myself at the uncomfortable realization that, “I did not know that I did not know”; although well-intentioned I was unaware of the influence and imposition of my positionality (Styres, 2019). My entire first chapter hit the trash bin and I began again. In considering the spirit of culturally responsive education, the end result of this study did not begin with the researcher presenting teachers and communities with a pre-developed writing curriculum or professional development workshop; but rather, worked collaboratively with an

Indigenous teacher to explore the nature of culturally responsive writing pedagogy in a rural First

Nations school in northern Canada. 181

I was greatly impacted by reading the writing of Indigenous authors. From my reflective journal (February 20, 2019):

Reading Indigenous writing, including scholarly works, evokes in me that sense of

wonder and awe, a personal connection where I could weep with familiarity, and dance

with discovery. It is a sense of story that draws you in and makes you hold tight with a

sense that you must read the entire thing instead of, for example, only page 56 with that

interesting heading that might relate to your work (as with compartmentalized

Eurocentric texts). We can learn so much from Indigenous writers as to how to

incorporate the spiritual and emotional into our academic writing. Because we get so lost

in our own monocultural academic world it is fortunate that, as King (2003) noted,

Indigenous written literature “has allowed us to come to you” (p. 114). To Indigenous

writers around the world, young and old, we need you!

The reading of these works challenged and changed me as I engaged with their stories. Now that

I fully understand the importance and power of storytelling within academia, I would consider narrative inquiry (research through storytelling) as methodology for future research endeavors.

Alternatively, an ethnographic case study might also provide valuable insight into understanding the cultural phenomena inherent within local Indigenous practices.

Another idea I struggled with was having a relationship with the Land. I appreciated

Moore’s (2017) confession that, “it’s sort of embarrassing to admit…I just don’t get how I am supposed to have a relationship with a salmon” (p. 25). In a similar admission, I confess I’m not entirely sure how to have a relationship with the Land. Metallic (2008) provided some clarification:

…in accepting that we have always lived from our land, in accepting that the land has 182

taken care of us, we also accept that the land is a gift given to us by the Creator. By

acknowledging the land in this way, we affirm our relationship with all of its beings. (p.

62)

In Cajete’s (1994) term “ensoulment” (p. 83) the Land is viewed as a living soul. From this orientation Indigenous People recognize responsibilities to the Land and to all living things, similar to the responsibilities they have to each other. Indigenous scholar Sandy Grande (2000) described Indigenous pedagogies as fundamentally grounded in the land. Thus, it is Land that is essential to not only our identities, but also to our learning. I am continuing my reflective journey on my relationship with the Land.

Finally, when immersed in Trickster space we are challenged to acknowledge and interrogate our own “internalized acculturation” (Graveline, 1998, p. 250) and strive for the development of culturally affirming pedagogy. Moore (2012) suggested that the first step is to

“Find the First Nations community leaders in your region, enter into a relationship with them, and learn their way of knowing the world” (p. 329). Styres (2019) asked that we engage with

Indigenous knowledges in the appropriate context, being respectfully mindful of and adhering to local protocols, and that we always demonstrate “a genuine interest in learning and expanding one’s understanding of self-in-relationship” (p. 51). Indigenizing education is an active process;

Simpson (2014) advised:

If you want to learn about something, you need to take your body onto the land and do it.

Get a practice. If you want to learn about movement building, get yourself outside

involved with people that are building movements. That doesn’t mean don’t read books,

or don’t talk to people with all kinds of intelligences. It doesn’t mean don’t find mentors.

It does mean, get out, get involved and get invested. (p. 17-18) 183

This journey has taught me that we cannot just think or write about contestation, but we must

“live it – in all its discomfort and in its many expressions” (Styres et al., 2019, p. xviii).

Implications for Teacher Practice and Education

My study has implications for teacher practice and teacher education. Implications include raising teachers’ awareness of the existence of all six discourses of writing and the contradictory discourses that surround them, and their need to take up instructional methods/strategies for teaching writing that utilize the application of Indigenous perspectives and processes.

Entry Points

In asking non-Indigenous educators to embed Indigenous perspectives within their classrooms Yunkaporta (2009c) echoed the concerns expressed by many teachers: “They are expected to do something that nobody has shown them how to do” (p. 5). Schools can draw upon the rich Indigenous knowledge in their locale but, as noted by Barnhardt (2008), “this requires more than simply substituting one body of knowledge for another in a conventional subject- based curriculum – it requires substantial rethinking of not only what is taught, but how it is taught” (p. 119). What I learned through this research is that we need to not only teach about

Indigenous content, but within/through Indigenous perspectives and processes. The 8 Ways

Learning and Pedagogical Framework is a culturally safe point of entry which shows how teachers can engage with Indigenous learning processes and facilitates a space for dialogue at the common ground between Indigenous and mainstream pedagogies.

The overlap I observed between Indigenous (8 Ways) and Western pedagogies indicates that focusing on the similarities between Indigenous and Western systems of knowledge rather than on their differences is a useful starting place for educational reform (Battiste, 2002). As 184 demonstrated by Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, centering instructional practices that facilitate a variety of salient textual and semiotic systems positions Indigenous cultural forms not as an add- on, but as relevant to core learning. For non-Indigenous students, Indigenous infused pedagogy and curriculum can generate awareness of different cultures, acceptance of diversity, improved relationships, and can be a mechanism to fight racism and prejudice (Milne, 2017). “Good

[I]ndigenous pedagogy is right for all students” (Fraser & Hewitt, 2004, as cited in Donovan,

2007, p. 96). Indeed, “Indigenous education is Canadian education” (Toulouse, 2013a, p. 17). As one of the calls to action stated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015d)7 is to facilitate teachers’ competence in integrating Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms, utilization of 8 Ways embodies the call for social justice inherent within the

Sociopolitical Discourse. My findings reflect the anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge advocated by Nishnaabekwe educator, Leanne Simpson

(2004): “How you learn is as important or perhaps more important than what you learn, and

Indigenous educational programs must use culturally inherent ways of teaching and learning” (p.

380).

Indigenous educators Bell and Brant (2015) offer some useful advice for non-Indigenous teachers:

When teaching about Aboriginal people, non-Aboriginal teachers are particularly

challenged by meeting the needs of Aboriginal students as well as the cross-cultural

7 The “TRC represents a turning point in this country. The previous denials of the federal government and the major institutions in this country have now been acknowledged and steps towards reconciliation appear to be under way” (Blaire, Pelly & Starr, 2018, p. 125). Beyond 94 is a comprehensive website developed by the CBC Indigenous Unit that monitors the progress of the TRC’s 94 Calls to Action (www.cbc.ca/beyond94). A teacher guide is available to assist in exploring the Beyond 94 site and the TRC Calls to Action (Beyond 94, 2020a). To date, there is no Indigenous education legislation being drafted; however, “Regarding the principles it would include…there is some progress” (Beyond 94, 2020b, Draft new Aboriginal education legislation, paragraph 1). 185

needs of non-Aboriginal students. These teachers need to challenge their biases and

assumptions about Aboriginal people to ensure that they don’t inappropriately influence

their teaching. They also need to know their limitations, acknowledging that without the

lived experience of an Aboriginal person, they lack the cultural knowledge transmitted

through appropriate practices. Non-Aboriginal teachers can fill these gaps by bringing

“first voice” into the classroom through Aboriginal people themselves, by using resources

produced by Aboriginal people, or by team teaching with an Aboriginal person. (p. 19)

It is essential to follow local protocol when requesting assistance, as well as recognizing the burden and need for compensation of time/knowledge of Elders. Four Arrows (2013) also advocates for co-teaching with a traditionally raised Indigenous person but if such a person is not available he implores that we begin immediately with the resources we have: “Our world is in too precarious a condition to wait until this situation changes before starting the process of

[I]ndigenizing education. It must begin now” (p. 76).

Beyond Entry Points to Cultural Competence

Adopting TSEC’s (n.d.b.) Niswayak Nistohtamowin Model (“Both Ways of

Understanding”) to examine culturally responsive writing pedagogy requires moving beyond entry points to developing cultural competence. Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I were impacted by the idea of a Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall who coined the term Two-Eyed Seeing as a model for education and a guiding principle for cross-cultural collaboration (Institute for Integrative

Science & Health, n.d.a). “Two-Eyed Seeing is to see from one eye with the strengths of

Indigenous ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western ways of knowing, and to use both of these eyes together” for the benefit of all (Hatcher & Bartlett, 2010, 186 p. 16). Teachers can use this model to develop their proficiency in incorporating different cultural perspectives into their pedagogy.

In observing Wapiskisew-asiniskwew I learned that Two-Eyed Seeing is a type of cultural humility (Hatcher & Bartlett, 2010). Through engaging in the process of self-reflection I was required to humbly acknowledge myself as a learner when it came to understanding Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s experience. In identifying personal and systemic biases as well as strengths we can move towards a system of education that respects the diverse pedagogical and epistemological foundations provided by both Western and Indigenous societies (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2008).

This is a sentiment echoed by Battiste (2000) in her call for “creating a balance between two worldviews” (p. 202). Two-Eyed Seeing asks that at times these two eyes work together as they do in binocular vision; but other times, depending upon the situation, we can choose to call on the strengths of Indigenous knowledges or in another circumstance the strengths of Western knowledges (Institute for Integrative Science & Health, n.d.a). This necessitates an understanding of the core differences between Indigenous and Western worldviews in order to achieve respectful relationships and cultural harmony (Indigenous Corporate Training Inc., 2016, provides a useful summary comparison; see also Leroy Little Bear’s, 2000, article Jagged

Worldviews Colliding).

We also learned from Elder Marshall that, “We need teachers who can weave back and forth between the knowledges” (as cited in Hatcher & Bartlett, 2010, p. 16), and that successful cultural border crossing requires flexibility, criticality, and reflexivity. I have included as appendices three excerpts which facilitated my understanding of Two-Eyed Seeing and cultural border crossing. My hope is that my research experience, and the understandings gained, will be used to assist teachers in coming to their own understandings and development of cultural 187 competence. The first, Appendix H: When Paradigms Collide provides a humorous and illustrative story of a clash of worldviews between the Mohawk and Cree people. Next,

Appendix I: Weaving Between Worldviews, is an account written by a Western scientist as he navigated Western/Indigenous understandings. Finally, Appendix J: I don’t understand! is “a little story [of] a debugging device for educators whose mental software has become infected by a colonial virus” (RAET, 2019e, para. 11).

Writing is a cultural tool. During his keynote address at the Think Indigenous conference that Wapiskisew-asiniskwew and I attended, Little Bear (2018) noted that Indigenous

People have always been contemporary, utilizing the technologies and tools of the day. This reminded us of Elder Marshall who had remarked:

Our journey here is not meant for one perspective, or one consciousness to get us

through. We all need each other. So the lessons we are trying to put forth now is to our

young people: it’s going to be much more expedient if we can take the best, whatever

tools the white man has brought forth, and the tools that our forefathers have left us with.

(Institute for Integrative Science & Health, n.d.b, 6:02)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew had commented, “Yes, ‘decolonize your mind’ but I still need a vehicle to go from point A to B! We need each other.”

Sociocultural theorists identify writing as an essential cultural tool to be used to meet a situated, communicative social purpose (Rish et al., 2015). According to Schutz (1967), a tool is a carrier of social history; it is: “a thing-in-order-to; it serves a purpose and for the sake of this purpose it was produced” (p. 201). The emphasis in learning to use this communicative tool must be on strategic, situated use. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) noted that: 188

People who use tools actively rather than just acquire them…build an increasingly rich,

implicit understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools

themselves. The understanding, both of the world and of the tool, continually changes as

a result of their interaction. (p. 33)

As observed within Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom, when students experience supported authentic activities using writing as a tool, the learning of the writing process can become internalized and become part of the students’ repertoire.

Through my study I learned that both Indigenous and Western perspectives have valid representations of writing as a cultural tool, and these can work together in complementary ways.

For example, the text-types exemplified by Ivanić’s (2004) Genre Discourse can be effectively taught using Yunkaporta’s (2009) 8 Ways pedagogy of Deconstruct/Reconstruct. Observations in

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s classroom showed that students are more likely to learn text-types when they deconstruct the elements specific to a particular text-type (teaching for learning); engage in dialogue, modeling, scaffolding to create a shared understanding (enabling access); receive feedback for reflection for learning; and reconstruct the text-type with all necessary components (writing to learn) (Lundgren, 2013). In viewing writing pedagogy through the lens of both Indigenous and Western perspectives we honor both and create a learning environment that meets the needs of all contemporary students.

Discourse Knowledge, Contradictions, and Negotiations

It is important that teachers of writing be aware of all six discourses of writing and learning to write, the instructional strategies associated with each of them, and to be able to recognize which discourse(s) of writing they are taking up in their practice (Ivanić, 2004). Each of the discourses adds value to a writing program and a comprehensive approach is beneficial to 189 student writers. Addressing research findings that there is a lack of adequate writing methods courses and that many teachers feeling deplorably unprepared to teach writing (Grisham &

Wolsey, 2011; McQuitty, 2012; Myers et al., 2016; Lehman, 2017) it is essential for teacher education programs to ensure that teachers have a firm grasp of the complex process of teaching writing and are able to intentionally incorporate practices from all six discourses. In-service teachers who can recognize the predominance of certain discourses in their practice may adopt a more balanced approach to their writing pedagogy. Recognition is a first step.

Implications for practice also include raising teachers’ awareness of the contradictory discourses that surround them and how they can productively negotiate the tensions that may arise. As reflected in McCarthey et al.’s (2014) study, Wapiskisew-asiniskwew exemplified that borrowing from a variety of discourses without resolving potential contradictions between discourses can result in instructional practices that lack consistency or underlying coherence, creating unresolved tensions in classroom practice. An understanding of the differences among discourses would contribute to a teacher’s ability to effectively navigate among them. For example, there were contradictions between Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s view of writing as purpose-driven communication within a social context and her uptake of practices that foster the view that writing is a decontextualized product of the students’ creativity. As noted by Ivanić

(2004), “this does not imply that a teacher should treat writing as either one or the other – rather that both should be understood, and should be drawn upon in the light of an understanding of the other” (p. 241). In addition, recognizing the tension that may arise from misalignment of privileged discourses of a mandated curriculum and the discourses the teacher predominantly uses would empower educators to recombine and transform the available discourses.

190

Broadening the Definition of Literacy

The findings from this study also suggest a need to broaden the common definition of literacy beyond that of simply reading and writing. The outer layer of Ivanić’s (2004) multi- layered view of language, that of the sociocultural and political context, consists of the

“socioculturally available resources for communication: the multimodal practices, discourse and genres which are supported by the cultural context within which language use is taking place” (p.

224). Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s students brought to school with them a wealth of knowledge that she drew upon and built on to acquire the literacy promoted in schools. Wapiskisew- asiniskwew’s pedagogy reflected Brayboy and Castagno’s (2009) recommendation that the “oral traditions and storytelling central to many tribal communities can and should serve as foundations for the written and text-based literacies required by and developed within schools”

(p. 43). This requires expanding the definition of literacy to include socially and culturally constructed systems of communication (Alberta Education, 2015; Antone, 2003; George, 2010;

Graveline, 2012; Toulouse, 2013b). Torres Strait Islander Professor Martin Nakata (2003) added a word of caution, that educators maintain a balance in their pedagogy and do not prioritise teaching Indigenous students via primarily oral/aural language; in doing so, educators may neglect the development of written literacy that is essential for the full participation of

Indigenous people in contemporary society.

Antone (2003), a scholar from the Oneida of the Thames First Nation, advocated that

Indigenous literacy is more than just the development of skills used in the process of writing and reading. In their discussion with Indigenous literacy practitioners Antone, Gamlin and Turchetti

(2003) found that Indigenous literacy “is reflected in the ability to communicate and, while it includes reading, writing and numbers, ‘spiritual and emotional literacy’ are integral” (p. 22). 191

Anishnawbe educator Ningwakwe George (2000, 2010) proposed a wholistic approach to literacy based on the Medicine Wheel which she called the Rainbow/Holistic Approach to

Literacy:

Red: Mother Tongue Literacy (descriptive, shows interconnectedness of life)

Orange: Oral Literacy (speaking, listening)

Yellow: Literacy of Symbolism (creativity, communication through symbols/sign

language)

Green: English and/or French Literacy (multicultural/multilingual)

Blue: Literacy Using Technology (technology of communication)

Indigo: Spiritual Literacy (spiritual seeing or intuition)

Violet: Holistic Literacy (spirit, heart, mind, body)

This approach to literacy,

…integrates the importance of language as the basis of culture and the importance of

incorporating listening and speaking (Oracy). It also notes the importance of symbol

literacy (e.g., letters, wampum) as well as the need to be aware of living in two worlds.

The approach includes the need to continue to use the values of the ceremonies in the

literacy program and also to be aware of the body reactions (intuition) to what is

happening in relation to learning. So bringing these all together integrates the four aspects

(spirit, heart, mind, and body) of developing the whole person. (Antone, 2003, p. 14)

Wapiskisew-asiniskwew drew on her students’ multiple semiotic resources, concentrating not just on the mental, but facilitating the development of the whole being. Wapiskisew- asiniskwew artfully wove Indigenous culture into her writing instruction. She provided a balance of all personal aspects of the students. The mental aspects of the students were developed 192 through integrative learning that blended Indigenous and Western knowledge and ways of knowing (e.g., cultural writing prompts and discourses of writing). The physical aspects of the students were actualized by building writing stamina through daily practice. The emotional aspects of the students were addressed by an emphasis on reflecting and expressing emotions and feelings within their writing. The spirit of the students was celebrated through the learning of traditional stories and teachings via Wapiskisew-asiniskwew (a Knowledge Keeper) to use as inspiration for their Wild Mind writing.

Implications for Future Research

This research represents a small pebble in addressing the gap in the literature on culturally responsive writing pedagogy and provides a platform for further study. This case study focused on one Indigenous teacher’s perspectives and practices of writing instruction within a rural, Indigenous school in Canada. Due to the nature of case study research no claim to generalizability of these findings can be made as each classroom is multifaceted and highly contextual. In addition, we must be continually mindful of pan-Indigeneity and the limitations of transposing Indigenous concepts from one Indigenous group/context to another (e.g., Australian to Canadian, rural to urban). However, as Gerring (2007) and Ruzzene (2012) noted, lessons can be drawn that apply beyond the single case, shedding light on a larger class of cases. Further research is needed on teachers’ writing identity construction and writing pedagogy within a variety of cultural contexts.

Construction of Teachers’ Writing Identities

Consistent with previous research, this study found that a teacher’s writing pedagogy is influenced by beliefs, personal histories and experiences of learning to write, mandated curriculum, and professional development experiences related to teaching writing. The tensions 193 and contradictions resulting from these multiple influences are negotiated daily within the classroom. Since teaching practices greatly impact students’ development it would be beneficial to further examine how preservice and in-service teachers develop their writing identities and what role teacher education programs play in writing identity construction.

The professional development of teachers is a fundamental factor in shaping the quality of teaching over a career. Professional development experiences can have a powerful effect on teachers’ epistemologies and instructional practices, especially if they have a particular framework such as Wild Mind writing or a Writer’s Workshop model. Examination of the research literature on professional development reveals that needs-assessment, evaluation, and follow-up are essential features of effective professional development (Snyder & Wolfe, 2008).

Increased teacher understanding and growth, as well as lasting change regarding implementation of newly acquired strategies for writing instruction, will only occur when teachers experience success and ongoing support within their classrooms. A needs assessment of teachers would be an essential step in understanding what professional development is required and how educators can engage in professional learning in an ongoing way. In addition, the “development of teacher knowledge in culturally affirming pedagogy is a significantly valued approach. Honouring

Indigenous teachers through legitimizing their experiences with a variety of collaborative opportunities also is in the direction of positive change” (Toulouse, 2013a, p. 16). Collaborative, inquiry-oriented, contextually-based professional learning opportunities enhance both teaching and learning (Rolheiser, Evans, Gambhir & Broad, 2012).

Writing Pedagogy within Cultural Contexts

Ivanič’s (2004) framework is limited by its Anglophone perspective. My study extended her framework to take into account beliefs about writing and pedagogic practices in an 194

Indigenous context. Observation of Wapiskisew-asiniskwew’s use of the 8 Ways (Yunkaporta,

2009) reveals these as effective instructional strategies to show how the Sociopolitical Discourse might be actualized in writing classrooms. Further research in other cultural contexts (e.g., examining the practices of teachers across Indigenous communities in all Canadian provinces and territories) is needed in order to refine the framework to extend its scope.

Kanu (2011) argued for an integration of Indigenous perspectives into the school curriculum through a layering at five levels of classroom practice:

1. Integration at the level of student learning outcomes

2. Integration at the level of curriculum content and learning resources

3. Integration at the level of instructional methods/strategies

4. Integration at the level of assessment methods/strategies

5. Integration as a philosophical underpinning of the curriculum

To address all five levels would have exceeded the scope of this project; thus, this research focused on integration at the level of instructional methods/strategies. It would be beneficial for future research to investigate additional levels of classroom practice. For example, investigating how writing and the integration of culturally responsive writing pedagogy is perceived by the students may provide useful information regarding how these perceptions impact students’ authentic engagement with writing, and ultimately their learning outcomes.

In conclusion, it is essential that we deeply explore the ways in which students are taught in order to move beyond the ‘add Indigenous and stir’ model of education. Traditional

Indigenous education consisted of teaching children what they needed to know to survive in their existing environments. Survival today requires that Indigenous students have the necessary skills to provide for themselves in the dominant Canadian and global culture, while being firmly 195 grounded in their Indigenous identity; ensuring that Indigenous culture is not only sustained, but revitalized. It is well established that teachers are fundamental to high quality educational programs and successful student learning (Sparks, 2002; Winton & McCollum, 2008). As affirmed by Anishinabek scholar/educator Pamela Rose Toulouse (2011),

The primary key to the literacy success of learners is the educator, who ultimately affects

the quality and relevancy of the program. It is therefore critical that our teachers have the

tools, resources, training, and supports to work effectively with these learners. First

Nation, Métis and Inuit students’ success, engagement, retention and graduation highly

depend upon it. (p. 4; emphasis added)

Final Words

The enduring effects of colonization persist within Canadian society. Education played a significant role in oppression and will play an equally important role towards healing, decolonization, and reconciliation. Education can support the resurgence of Indigenous cultures and foster relationships between Indigenous people and settler Canadians. Direction provided from Indigenous educators is critical to successful pedagogical shifts.

Transformative change in the field of education to address the needs of Indigenous students is not a new concept. The 1972 policy paper, Indian Control of Indian Education, put forth by the National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations recognized the colonial impact on Indigenous learning and the failure of education systems to respond to the learning needs of Indigenous children. Similarly, the Royal Commissions on Aboriginal Peoples of 1996 stated recommendations for Indigenous education and the need for direct involvement of

Indigenous stakeholders. Despite these, and other reports of similar findings, minimal progress has been made to education systems across Canada. It is with great hope that the 21st century will 196 finally record progressive steps forward with direct involvement of Indigenous stakeholders to apply culturally responsive recommendations to educational frameworks. The vision of the

Accord on Indigenous Education, developed in 2010 by the Association of Canadian Deans of

Education, is “that Indigenous identities, cultures, languages, values, ways of knowing, and knowledge systems will flourish in all Canadian learning settings” (p. 4).

Bell (2014) identified that, “Indigenous knowledge and worldview is attained by choosing to do what is necessary to obtain multiple perspectives from which to view the world”

(p. 16). Cultural competence begins with each of us. As a non-Indigenous educator, I must make a conscious decision to do what is necessary to obtain multiple perspectives. I must persevere through the vertigo until my eyes adjust to the disconcerting feeling of Two-Eyed Seeing. I must persevere through the racist ideology of the dominant culture and cultivate the ability to see the influence of my historical and cultural conditioning on my worldview. Much can be gained through the integration of both Indigenous and Western knowledges into our schools and, even more importantly, into the hearts and minds of all those who live on this land. Algonquin Métis artist Diana Frost (2016) extends an invitation: “To the Blackfoot people, the buffalo represents the qualities of perseverance. The buffalo faces the storms of life and walks into them. I invite you to follow the buffalo. We will walk into the storm together” (p. 7). From my reflective journal (April 17, 2019):

Long ago a young teacher left her Western world and set forth to teach in the far north

where the Dene People lived. She fell in love with the children there and set about trying

to teach them through, and of, the ways of her Western world. Often the teacher felt that

she was swimming against the wind, not understanding that their ways were not her own.

Time and again the wind came and blew her back to shore. 197

One clear day as the teacher wrestled with the waves, a boat appeared, and a hand

reached down to her offering assistance. The teacher grabbed a hold and struggled

unsuccessfully to climb in.

“You will not fit into my boat if you are bringing all of those boxes. And see this river?

There are few places along the banks that will carry you in a straight path to the

destination you seek. The journey is long and winding. It will take Time, Perseverance,

and an Open Heart. Are you up for the journey?”

The teacher took the hand that was offered and, with much assistance, let go of the

baggage she carried and climbed awkwardly into the boat.

“Thank you for coming. I will help you get comfortable.”

“I appreciate that,” the teacher replied. “I’m ready.”

The story begins anew…

I raise my hands in respect and thanks to Wapiskisew-asiniskwew, the students, the Elders, and school community at Tipiyimisiw First Nation, with whom I learned so much more than can ever be expressed within these pages. Hiy hiy!

198

References Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage Books. Absolon, K. (1994). Building health from the medicine wheel: Aboriginal program development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Native Physician’s Association (Winnipeg, Manitoba, March 1994). Adkins, M. H. & Gavins, M. V. (2012). Self-regulated strategy development and generalization instruction: Effects on story writing and personal narratives among students with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 20(4), 235-249. Alberta Education Department. (2005). Our words, our ways: Teaching First Nations, Métis and Inuit Learners. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/307199/words.pdf Alberta Education. (2008). First Nations, Métis and Inuit education policy framework, progress report. Edmonton, AB: Author. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/ 840103/fnmi%20progress%20report%202008%20final.pdf Alberta Education. (2015). Literacy: Definition, components and elements of the progressions. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/3069627/definition-components-and- elements-literacy.pdf Alberta Education. (2018). Alberta’s commitment. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/first-nations-m%C3%A9tis-and-inuit-education/education- for-reconciliation/everyone/overview/ Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2008). Education is our buffalo: A teachers’ resource for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: The Alberta Teachers’ Association. Retrieved from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Human-Rights- Issues/Education%20is%20Our%20Buffalo%20(PD-80-7).pdf Alexie, S. (1997). Superman and me. In M. Dorris & E. Buchwald (Eds.), The most wonderful books (pp. 3-6). Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Alfred, T. (2014). The Akwesasne cultural restoration program: A Mohawk approach to land- based education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 134-144. Alim, H.S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. D. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7(2), 2-13. Retrieved from http://www.socialworker.com/jswve Aluli-Meyer, M. (2008). Ho’oulu: Our time of becoming: Hawaiian epistemology and early writings. Honolulu, HI: Ai Pohaku Press. Anderson, D. (2007). The story robe. Thompson Canada. Anderson, J., Anderson A., Friedrich, N. & Kim, J.E. (2010). Taking stock of family literacy: Some contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(1), 33-53. Andes, L. & Clagget, E. (2011). Wiki writers: Students and teachers making connections across communities. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 345-350. Angrosini, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Observations on observation: Continuities and challenges. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. 199

Antone, E. (2003). Culturally framing Aboriginal literacy and learning. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(1), 7-15. Antone, E., Gamlin, P. & Turchetti, L. (2003). Literacy and learning: Acknowledging Aboriginal holistic approaches to learning in relation to ‘best practices’ literacy training programs. Final report. Toronto, ON: Literacy and Learning: Acknowledging Aboriginal Wholistic Approaches. Retrieved from http://en.copian.ca/library/research/aboriglt/finlrprt/finlrprt.pdf Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Armstrong, J.C. (1998). Land speaking. In S.J. Ortiz (Ed.), Speaking for the generations: Native writers on writing (pp. 175-194). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning & Achievement. Association of Canadian Deans of Education. (2010). Accord on Indigenous education. Retrieved from https://www.trentu.ca/education/sites/trentu.ca.education/files/ACDE%20Accord%20on %20Indigenous%20Education.pdf Aupperle, R.L., Melrose, A., Stein, M.B., & Paulus, M.P. (2012). Executive function and PTSD: Disengaging from trauma. Neuropharmacology, 62(2), 686-694. Bainbridge, R., Whiteside, M., & McCalman, J. (2013). Being, knowing, and doing: A phronetic approach to constructing grounded theory with Aboriginal Australian partners. Qualitative Health Research, 23(2), 275-288. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Ball, J. (2004). As if Indigenous knowledge and communities mattered: Transformative education in First Nations communities in Canada. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 454-479. Ball, J. (2010). Promoting young Indigenous children’s emergent literacy in Canada. Canadian Child Care Federation. Retrieved from http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/Emergent%20literacy%20Revised%20Apr%2027%20811 .pdf Ball, J., & Janyst, P. (2008). Enacting research ethics in partnerships with Indigenous communities in Canada: “Do it in a good way”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 33-51. Ball, J., & Pence, A.R. (2006). Supporting Indigenous children’s development: Community- university partnerships. Vancouver, B.C.: UBS Press. Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The TESOLANZ Journal, 13, 76-88. Barnhardt, R. (2008). Creating a place for Indigenous knowledge in education: The Alaska Native Knowledge Network. In D.A. Gruenwald & G.A. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Barnhardt, R. & Kawagley, A.O. (2008). Indigenous Knowledge systems and education. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107(1), 223-241. Bass, R., & Elmendorf, H. (n.d.). Social pedagogies. Teagle Foundation White Paper. Retrieved from https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/bassr/social-pedagogies/ 200

Bastien, B. (2004). Blackfoot ways of knowing: The world view of the Siksikaitsitapi. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Battiste, M. (1986). Micmac literacy and cognitive assimilation. In J. Barman, Y. Hebert, & D. McGaskill (Eds.), Indian education in Canada, volume 1: The legacy (pp. 23-44). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Battiste, M. (2000). Maintaining Aboriginal identity, language, and culture in modern society. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 192-208). Vancouver: UBC Press. Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature review with recommendations. Ottawa: National Working Group on Education and the Minister of Indian Affairs, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Battiste, M. (2007). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. Denzin and M. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical futures of qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge (pp. 111-132). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Publishing Limited. Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. (2009). Naturalizing Indigenous knowledge in Eurocentric education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 32(1), 5-18. Beaver, J. (2001). Developmental reading assessment. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press. Bell, N., & Brant, T. (2015). Culturally relevant Aboriginal education. Toronto: Pearson Canada, Inc. Bennet, D. (2012). Cracks in Bloom’s Taxonomy at 60. 2nd International Conference on Management and Artificial Intelligence. IPEDR, 35, 109-113. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com/vol35/022-ICMAI2012-M20050.pdf Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bergeson, T., Griffin, A., & Hurtado, D. (2000). Reading and the Native American learner: Research report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Indian Education. Retrieved from https://www.uen.org/indianed/teacherresources/literacy/files/other/ReadingResearchRepo rt.pdf Bernal, D.D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 1-26). Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R.D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. Curtin, G., Hawkins, J.M. & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291-304. Berry, J.W. (1999). Aboriginal cultural identity. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 19(1), 1-36. Berryman, M., Carr-Stewart, S., Kovach, M., Laliberte, C., Meyer, S. Merasty, B., Sloboda, A., Stelmach, B. & Steeves, L. (2014). Seeking their voices: Improving Indigenous student learning outcomes. Regina, SK. Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit. Retrieved from http://aerc.usask.ca/research-projects-planning- activities/Seeking%20Their%20Voices_Nov%202014.pdf

201

Beyond 94. (2020a). Teacher guide: Beyond 94 – Truth and Reconciliation in Canada. Retrieved from https://media.curio.ca/filer_public/ad/9c/ad9c7ec2-6678-464f-b917- 2bd6be93b52b/beyond94guide2.pdf Beyond 94. (2020b). Beyond 94 - Truth and Reconciliation in Canada. Retrieved from https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform-single/beyond-94?&cta=10 Bifuh-Ambe, E. (2013). Developing successful writing teachers: Outcomes of professional development exploring teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers and writing teachers and their students’ attitudes and abilities to write across the curriculum. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(3), 137-156. Bintz, W.P. & Dillard, J. (2004). Seeing writing instruction differently: Lessons with lasting impressions. Language Arts, 82(2), 110-119. Bird, G. (1998). Breaking the silence: Writing as “witness”. In S.J. Ortiz (Ed.), Speaking for the generations: Native writers on writing (pp. 26-48). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Blaeser, M.K. (1996). Gerald Vizenor: Writing in the oral tradition. Oklahoma, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Blaire, H.A., Pelly, L., & Starr, R. Connecting Indigenous languages policy, programs, and practices. In P. Whitinui, M. del Carmen Rodriguez de France, & O. McIvor (Eds.), Promising practices in Indigenous teacher education (pp. 119-129). Singapore: Springer Nature. Boote, D.N. & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. Bougie, E., Kelly-Scott, K., & Arriagada, P. (2013). The education and employment experiences of First Nations people living off reserve, Inuit and Métis: Selected findings from the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 89653X — No. 001). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-653-x/89-653-x2013001-eng.pdf Brand, A.G. (1987). The why of cognition: Emotion and the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38(4), 436-443. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Brayboy, B.M.J., & Castagno, A.E. (2009). Self-determination through self-education: Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous students in the USA. Teaching Education, 20(1), 31-53. Brink, H.I.L. (1993). Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis, 16(2), 35-38. Britsch, S. J. (2005). ‘But what did they learn?’ Clearing third spaces in virtual dialogues with children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(2), 99-130. Britton, J. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, T. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms. Education Today, 2. Retrieved from http://www.bucks.edu/old_docs/academics/ facultywebresources/Beyond_constructivism.pdf 202

Budge, K. (2006). Rural leaders, rural places: Problem, privilege, and possibility. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21(13), 1-10. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Gower Publishing Company Limited. Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Durango, CO: Kivaki Press. Retrieved from https://skyschool.arizona.edu/skyschoolwiki/images/1/19/Cajete_1994.pdf Cajete, G. (1999). Igniting the sparkle: An Indigenous science education model. Skyand, NC: Kivaki Press. Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Sante Fe: Clear Light Publishers. Cajete, G. (2004). Philosophy of native science. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought: Philosophical essays (pp. 47-57). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Calkins, L. (1983). Lessons from a child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Publishing. Campbell, M. et al. (1992). Give back: First Nations perspectives on cultural practice. North Vancouver: Gallerie Publications. Campbell, R. (1994). Teaching writing: Syntax and grammar in the first year of school. Learning and Instruction, 3(4), 251-268. Campbell, T.A., & Hlusek, M. (2009). Storytelling and story writing: “Using a different kind of pencil”. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, What Works? Research into Practice. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Storytelling.pdf Canadian Council on Learning. (2006). Lessons in learning: The rural-urban gap in education. Ottawa, ON: Report on Learning in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ccl- cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/10-03_01_06E.pdf Canadian Council on Learning. (2007). Redefining how success is measured in First Nations, Inuit and Métis Learning. Ottawa, ON: Report on Learning in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/5._2007_redefining_how_success_is_measur ed_en.pdf Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2015). CTF survey on teachers’ perspectives on Aboriginal education in public schools in Canada: Summary report. Retrieved from https://www.ctf- fce.ca/Research-Library/CTF-Survey-Teachers-Perspectives-on-Aboriginal-Education- Summary-Report-web.pdf Cappon, P. (2008). Measuring success in First Nations, Inuit and Métis learning. Retrieved from http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/whither-the-liberals/measuring-success-in-first- nations-inuit-and-Métis-learning/ Castagno, A.E., & Brayboy, B.M.J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941-993. Castellano, M.B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 98- 114. Retrieved from https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ijih/article/view/28935/24063 Catlin, S.J. (2013). Exchanging between two rivers: Possibilities for teaching writing in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 119-143.

203

Champagne, D. (2009). Contemporary education. In United Nations (Ed.), State of the world’s Indigenous Peoples (pp. 129-155). New York: The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP_web.pdf Chapman, M.L. (1999). Situated, social, active: Rewriting genre in the elementary classroom. Written Communication, 16(4), 469-490. Charles, V.M. (2009). Fairy tales in the classroom: Teaching students to write stories with meaning through traditional tales. Markham, ON: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Charnley, K. (2006). Our stories are our sacred ground; our language is the air we breathe – toward a Halq’emeylem-based literary aesthetic: The Aboriginal worldview in contrast with the European philosophical tradition. Retrieved from https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/02/Charnley_2006.pdf Chase, M. (2012). Revision process and practice: A kindergarten experience. Language Arts, 89(3), 166-178. Cheesman, E., & De Pry, R. (2010). A critical review of culturally responsive literacy instruction. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5(1), 83-99. Chenail, R.J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262. Christensen, D. (2000). Ahtahkakoop. Shell Lake, SK, Canada: Ahtahkakoop Publishing. Clarke, H., Imrich, J., Surgenor, E., & Wells, N. (2003). Enhancing rural learning: Report on the task force on rural education. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Education. Clark, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (1990). Affect and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clifton, D., Verpoorten-Laws, R., Thomson, C., Zahra, T., & Keegan M. (2016a). 8 ways activities sheets. Indigenous 8 ways: A free student and teacher resource game using the 8-ways pedagogy of Australian Indigenous knowledges. Retrieved from http://shinyshiny.wixsite.com/8-ways-game/free-downloads Clifton, D., Verpoorten-Laws, R., Thomson, C., Zahra, T., & Keegan M. (2016b). What are the 8 ways of Indigenous learning? Western Sydney University. Retrieved from http://shinyshiny.wixsite.com/8-ways-game/8-ways-pedagogy Cochran, P.A., Marshall, C.A., Garcia-Downing, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin L., Gover, R.M.S. (2008). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 22-27. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Cole, S. (2011). Situating children in the discourse of spirituality. In N.N. Wane, E.L. Manyimo, & E.J. Ritskes (Eds.), Spirituality, education & society: An integrated approach (pp. 1- 14). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/973-spirituality-education-society.pdf#page=40 Cousin, G. (2006). Case study research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(3), 421-427. Coutts, N. (2015). Visual literacy – metalanguage & learning. Retrieved from http://thelearnersway.net/ideas/2015/10/4/visual-literacy-metalanguage-learning

204

Cowley, P., & Easton, S.T. (2004). Report card on Aboriginal education in British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute. Retrieved from https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/BCAboriginalSchoolReportReprint.pdf Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide, grades 3 and up. Toronto: Scholastic Professional Books. Culham, R. (2005). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide for the primary grades. New York: Scholastic. Culham, R. (2016). Five things to avoid… Retrieved from https://ruthculham.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/five-things-to-avoid/ Curwen Doige, L.A. (2001). Literacy in Aboriginal education: An historical perspective. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 117-128. Cutler, L. & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919. de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. Toronto: Harper Collins. del Carmen Rodriguez de France, M., Scully, A., & McIvor, O. (2018). Beyond the classroom: The impact of a required Indigenous education course in the lives of pre-service teachers. In P. Whitinui, M. del Carmen Rodriguez de France, & O. McIvor (Eds.), Promising practices in Indigenous teacher education (pp. 87-102). Singapore: Springer Nature. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. den Hayer, K. (2009). Sticky points: Teacher educators re-examine their practice in light of a new Alberta social studies program and its inclusion of Aboriginal perspectives. Teaching Education, 20(4), 343-355. Denzin, N.K. (2007). Grounded theory and the politics of interpretation. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 454-471). London: Sage. Dionne, A. (2010). Developing critical literacy skills: Exploring masculine and feminine stereotypes in children’s literature. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. What works? Research into Practice. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Critical_Literacy. pdf Dix, S. & Amoore, L. (2010). Becoming curious about cats: A collaborative writing project. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(2), 134-150. Dodson, M. (1994). Cultural rights and educational responsibilities. Speech by Michael Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner: The Frank Archibald Memorial Lecture, 5 September 1994, University of New England. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/cultural-rights-and-educational- responsibilities-dodson-1994 Donohoo, J., & Katz, S. (2017). When teachers believe, students achieve: Collaborative inquiry builds teacher efficacy for better student outcomes. The Learning Professional, 38(6), 20- 27.

205

Donovan, M. (2007). Can information communication technological tools be used to suit Aboriginal learning pedagogies? In L.E. Dyson, M. Hendricks, & S. Grant (Eds.), Information Technology and Indigenous People (pp. 93-99). Sydney, Australia: Information Science Publishing. Drinkwater, R. (2017). Canadian teachers lack confidence to discuss Indigenous cultures in class, study says. The Globe and Mail Inc. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian-teachers-lack- confidence-to-discuss-indigenous-cultures-in-class-study-says/article36038597/ Drozdowski, V. (n.d.). The eight-way framework of Aboriginal pedagogy. Retrieved from https://vickidrozdowski.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/individual-investigation-of-a- learning-theory-aboriginal-pedagogy.pdf Dunn, M. W. (2011). Ask, reflect, text: Illustrating story plans with art. Journal of Research on Childhood Education, 25(4), 376-389. Dyc, G. (1994). The use of native language models in the development of critical literacy. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 18(3), 211-233. Dyson, A.H. (1988). Negotiating among multiple worlds: The space/time dimensions of young children’s composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(4), 355-390. Dyson, A.H. (2003). “Welcome to the jam”: Popular culture, school literacy, and the making of childhoods. Harvard Education Review, 73(3), 328-361. Dyson, A.H. (2008a). Children out of bounds: The power of case studies in expanding visions of literacy development. In J. Flood, S. Heath & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research in teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 109-118). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Dyson, A.H. (2008b). The pine cone wars: Studying writing in a community of children. Language Arts, 85(4), 305-315. Dyson, A.H. (2010). Opening curricular closets in regulated times: Finding pedagogical keys. English Education , 42(3), 307-319. Dyson, A.H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Edith Cowan University (ECU). (2013). Dr. Tyson Yunkaporta. Retrieved from https://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/2013/eculture/keynote Egan, K. (1988). Teaching as storytelling: An alternative approach to teaching and the curriculum. London: Routledge. Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan. Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208-221). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Ermine, W. (1995). Aboriginal epistemology. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 101-112). Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press. Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193-203. Farnan, N., & Dahl, K. (2003). Children’s writing: Research and practice. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 993-1007). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

206

Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2001). Interactions: Teaching writing and the language arts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/113006/chapters/Learning,-or-Not-Learning,-in- School.aspx Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs). (2013). Teaching truly: A curriculum to Indigenize mainstream education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Frank, C.R. (2001). “What new things these words can do for you”: A focus on one writing- project teacher and writing instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(3), 467-506. Freeman, K., McDonald, S., & Morcom, L. (2018). Truth and reconciliation in YOUR classroom: How to get started and who can help. Retrieved from https://www.edcan.ca/articles/truth-reconciliation-classroom/ Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach. Boulder, CO: Westview. Gallagher, W. (1993). The power of place: How our surroundings shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions. New York: Poseidon Press. Gallavan, N.P., Bowles, F.A., & Young, C.T. (2012). Learning to write and writing to learn: Insights from teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 61-69. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Garnier, K. (1990). Our Elders speak: A tribute to Native Elders. White Rock, BC: Karie Garnier. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College. Genishi, C., Stires, S. E. & Yung-Chan, D. (2001). Writing in an integrated curriculum: Prekindergarten English language learners as symbol makers. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 399-416. George, P. (Ningwakwe; 2000). The Holistic/Rainbow approach to Aboriginal literacy: Work in progress. Retrieved from http://en.copian.ca/library/research/abo-hol/abo-hol.pdf George, P. (Ningwakwe; 2010). A new vision guiding Aboriginal literacy. Owen Sound, ON: Ningwakwe Learning Press. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710-737. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494-518.

207

Global Intellectual Group. (2015, July 21). The 8 way learning model explained at the Australian Indigenous College [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=lSetGyCcdSY Gordon, M. (2000, October 26-28). A thousand cups of tea. Keynote address presented at the conference Gathering Voices: Building an Alliance for Family Literacy. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456336.pdf Goulet, L. (2001). Two teachers of Aboriginal students: Effective practice in socio- historical realities. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(1), 68-82. Government of Canada. (2010). Aboriginal Head Start on Reserve (AHSOR). Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/services/first-nations-inuit- health/family-health/healthy-child-development/aboriginal-head-start-reserve-first- nations-inuit-health-canada.html Government of Canada. (2015). TCPS 2 – Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy- politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter9-chapitre9/ Government of Canada. (2016). Guidelines for the merit review of Aboriginal research. Retrieved from http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/merit_review- evaluation_du_merite/guidelines_research-lignes_directrices_recherche-eng.aspx Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it all with The Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 58-68. Graham, S., MacArthur, C.A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 313-335. Graham, S., MacArthur, C.A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Grande, S. (2000). American Indian identity and intellectualism: The quest for a new red pedagogy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(4), 343-359. Graveline, F.J. (1998). Circle works: Transforming Eurocentric consciousness. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Graveline, F.J. (2012). Circleworks: Transforming Aboriginal literacy. Owen Sound, Ontario: Ningwakwe Learning Press. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at work. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books. Graves, D. (2004). What I’ve learned from teachers of writing. Language Arts, 82(2), 88-94. Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools. (2017). About Catholic education. Retrieved from https://www.gscs.ca/faith/Pages/CatholicEducation.aspx Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates: Strengthening a weak curricular area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 348–364.

208

Gruenewald, D.A. (2003a). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place- conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619-654. Gruenewald, D.A. (2003b). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 3-12. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gunderson, L. & Shapiro, J. (1988). Whole language instruction: Writing in 1st grade. The Reading Teacher, 41(4), 430-437. Guskey, T.R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748-750. Haberlah, D. (2017). 8 Aboriginal ways of learning – a review. Retrieved from http://haberlah.edublogs.org/2017/12/06/8-aboriginal-ways-of-learning/ Hachem, A., Nabhani, M. & Bahous, R. (2008). ‘We can write!’ The writing workshop for young learners. Education 3-13, 36(4), 325-337. Hall, S. (1991). Ethnicity: Identity and difference. Radical America, 23 (4), 2–20. Hall, T., & Strangman, N. (2008). Graphic organizers. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum at CAST. Retrieved from https://www.northernhighlands.org/cms/lib5/nj01000179/centricity/domain/18/graphic_o rganizers_2008.pdf Hampton, E. (1988). Toward a redefinition of American Indian/Alaska Native education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Boston. Hansen, J.A. (2007). First grade writers revisit their work. YC Young Children, 62(1), 28-33. Hare, J. (2011). ‘They tell a story and there’s meaning behind that story’: Indigenous knowledge and young indigenous children’s literacy learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12(4), 389-414. Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213-224. Harmon, H. L., Henderson, S. A., & Royster, W. C. (2003). A research agenda for improving science and mathematics education in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 18(1), 52-58. Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/18-1_8.pdf Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (2013). “An adjective is a word hanging down from a noun”: Learning to write and students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(1), 65- 79. Harris, K.R., Lane, K.L., Driscoll, S.A., Graham S., Wilson, K., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M. & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Tier 1, teacher-implemented self-regulated strategy development for students with and without behavioral challenges. The Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 160-191. Hatcher, A., & Bartlett, C. (2010). Two-eyed seeing: Building cultural bridges for Aboriginal students. Canadian Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.integrativescience.ca/uploads/articles/2010-Canadian-Teacher-Magazine- Hatcher-Bartlett-building-bridges-aboriginal-students-education-Integrative-Science.pdf Hayes, J.R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. Heath, S. (1984). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

209

Heffernan, L., Lewison, M., Tuyay, S., Yeager, B., & Green, J. (2005). What’s lunch got to do with it? Critical literacy and the discourse of the lunchroom. Language Arts, 83(2), 107- 117. Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85-104. Henk, W.A., Marinak, B.A., Moore, J.C., & Mallette, M.H. (2003). The Writing Observation Framework: A guide for refining and validating writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 322-333. Herbert, J. (1998). Herbert on Aboriginal pedagogy. Making the Links: Aboriginal Pedagogy Conference. Department of Education, Western Australia. Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-5/herbert-on-aboriginal-pedagogy Herman, M. (2005). Nehithawak of Reindeer Lake, Canada: Worldview, epistemology and relationships with the natural world. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 34, 33-43. Heydon, R. & Stooke, R. (2012). Border work: Teachers’ expressions of their literacy-related professional development needs in a First Nations school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 11-20. Heydon, R. & Wang, P. (2006). Curricular ethics in early childhood education programming: A challenge to the Ontario Kindergarten program. McGill Journal of Education, 41(1), 29- 46. Hibbert, K. M., Scheffel, T., Rich S. & Heydon, R. (2013). Orchestrating expertise in reading and writing. Education 3-13, 41(2), 125-137. Hilberg, R., & Soleste-Tharp, R.G. (2002). Theoretical perspectives, research findings, and classroom implications of the learning styles of American Indian and Alaska Native Students. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Hodgson-Smith, K.L. (2000). Issues of pedagogy in Aboriginal education. In M.B. Castellano, L. Davis, & L. Lahache (Eds.), Aboriginal education: Fulfilling the promise (pp. 156-169). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Hoewisch, A. (2001). “Do I have to have a princess in my story?”: Supporting children’s writing of fairy tales. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(4), 249-277. Holmes, A., & Gonzalez, N. (2017). Finding sustenance: An Indigenous relational pedagogy. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 207-224). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Huck, G.J. (2015). What is good writing? Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Hughes, P., & More, A.J. (1997). Aboriginal ways of learning and learning styles. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/1997/hughp518.pdf Hwang, B., & Kim, H.H. (2017). It pays to write well. Journal of Financial Economics, 124, 373-394. Idle No More. (n.d.). Idle no more. Retrieved from http://www.idlenomore.ca/ Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. (2015). Timeline – Indian residential schools. Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1332939430258/1332939552554 Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2016). Indigenous Peoples worldviews vs western worldviews. Retrieved from https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-worldviews- vs-western-worldviews

210

Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (2019). Indigenous Peoples: A guide to terminology. Retrieved from https://www.ictinc.ca/indigenous-peoples-a-guide-to- terminology?hsCtaTracking=78222e95-067f-4dbf-b5ab-dcf30327c183%7Cbecdb1c0- 7f37-4a84-98e4-b5fb804e47ef International Center for Leadership in Education. (2009). Student engagement teacher handbook. Retrieved from http://fneii.ca/Student_20Engage_20handbook_20excerpt.pdf Ingalls, L., Hammond, H., Dupoux, E., & Baeza, R. (2006). Teachers’ cultural knowledge and understanding of American Indian students and their families: Impact of culture on a child’s learning. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(1), 16-24. Institute for Integrative Science & Health. (n.d.a). Two-eyed seeing. Retrieved from http://www.integrativescience.ca/Principles/TwoEyedSeeing/ Institute for Integrative Science & Health. (n.d.b). Two-eyed seeing [video]. Retrieved from http://www.integrativescience.ca/Media/Video/ Irizarry, J.G. (2017). “For us, by us”: A vision for culturally sustaining pedagogies forwarded by Latinx youth. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 83-99). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Irlbacher-Fox, S. (2014). Traditional knowledge, co-existence and co-resistance. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 145-158. Iseke-Barnes, J.M. (2008). Pedagogies for decolonizing. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1), 123-148. Ivanić, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220-245. Jacobs, D.T. (2003). Way of the brave: An Indigenous perspective on character education. Orbit, 33(2), 26-28. Janssens, C. (2017, March 21). Remembering Richard Wagamese. Sheridan Sun. Retrieved from http://sheridansun.sheridanc.on.ca/2017/03/21/remembering-richard-wagamese/ Jolly Learning Ltd. (n.d.). Jolly phonics: Parent/teacher guide. Retrieved from http://jollylearning.co.uk/parent-teacher-guide/ Joseph, R. (2008). A jade door: Reconciliatory justice as a way forward citing New Zealand experience. In M.B. Castellano, L. Archibald, & M. DeGagné (Eds.), From truth to reconciliation: Transforming the legacy of residential schools (pp. 207-230). Ottawa, Canada: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.ahf.ca/downloads/from-truth-to-reconciliation-transforming-the-legacy-of- residential-schools.pdf Juliebo, M. F. & Edwards, J.M. (1988). The effect of topic choice on narrative writing, grades 1- 6. Canadian Journal of Education, 13(3), 437-440. Justice, D.H. (2018). Why Indigenous literatures matter. Waterloo: WLU Press. Kanu, Y. (2011). Integrating Aboriginal perspectives into the school curriculum. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kaomea, J. (2005). Indigenous studies in the elementary curriculum: A cautionary Hawaiian example. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36 (1), 24-42. Kaomea, J., Alvarez, M.B., & Pittman, M. (2019). Reclaiming, sustaining and revitalizing Hawaiian education through video-cued Makawalu ethnography. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 50(3), 270-290.

211

Kear, D.J., Coffman, G.A., McKenna, M.C., & Ambrosio, A.L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23. Keefe, E.B., & Copeland, S.R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3/4), 92-99. Kendrick, M. & McKay, R. (2004). Drawings as an alternative way of understanding young children’s constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 109-128. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. King, T. (2003). The truth about stories: A Native narrative. Toronto: Anansi Press. King, L., & Schielmann, S. (2004). The challenge of Indigenous education: Practice and perspectives. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000134773 Kinloch, V. (2017). “You ain’t making me write”: Culturally sustaining pedagogies and black youths’ performances of resistance. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 25-41). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kirkness, V.J. (1992). First Nations and schools: Triumphs and struggles. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). FIRST NATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION: The four R’s – respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1-15. Korteweg, L. & Fiddler, T. (2018). Unlearning colonial identities while engaging in relationality: Settler teachers’ education-as-reconciliation. McGill Journal of Education, 53(2), 254-275. Korteweg, L., Gonzalez, I., & Guillet, J. (2010). The stories are the people and the land: Three educators respond to environmental teachings in Indigenous children’s literature. Environmental Education Research, 16(3-4), 331-350. Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown (Ed.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 19- 36). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc. Kovach, M. (2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40-48. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Kulchyski, P., McCaskill, D., & Newhouse, D. (Eds.). (1999). In the words of elders: Aboriginal cultures in transition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-91. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Lai, E.R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson Research Report. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf Lane Jr., P., Bopp, J., Bopp, M., Brown, L., and Elders. (2012). The Sacred Tree (fourth edition). Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Press. 212

Lavallee, L.F. (2009). Practical applications of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21-40. Lee, C.D. (2017). An ecological framework for enacting culturally sustaining pedagogy. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 261-273). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lee, S.L., & McCarty, T.L. (2017). Upholding Indigenous education sovereignty through critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 61- 82). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Legacy of Hope Foundation. (2014). Hope and healing: The legacy of the Indian residential school system. Retrieved from http://legacyofhope.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Hope- Healing-2014_web.pdf Legacy of Hope Foundation. (2016). 100 years of loss. Retrieved from http://legacyofhope.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/100-years-print_web.pdf Lehman, C. (2017). Where early-career educators learn to teach writing. Voices From the Middle, 25(2), 41-43. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged world views colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77-85). Vancouver: UBC Press. Reprint retrieved from https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/aswt/worldviews/documents/jagged_worldviews_col liding.pdf Little Bear, L. (2009). Naturalizing Indigenous knowledge, synthesis paper. University of Saskatchewan, Aboriginal Education Research Centre, Saskatoon and First Nations and Adult Higher Education Consortium, Calgary. Retrieved from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/21._2009_july_ccl- alkc_leroy_littlebear_naturalizing_indigenous_knowledge-report.pdf Little Bear, L. (2018). Keynote speaker presentation at the Think Indigenous Education Conference, Saskatoon, SK, March 14-16, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSS2pXjU7SE Locke, T. (2009). Grammar and writing – the international debate. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand & J. Riley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 182-193). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Lotherington, H. (2005). Writing postmodern fairy tales at Main Street School: Digital narratives and evolving transliteracies. McGill Journal of Education, 40(1), 109-119. Lotherington, H. & Chow, S. (2006). Rewriting “Goldilocks” in the urban, multicultural elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 60(3), 242-252. Lowe, K. & Yunkaporta, T. (2013). The inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the Australian National Curriculum: A cultural, cognitive and socio-political evaluation. Curriculum Perspectives, 33(1), 1-14. Luke, A. & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in ‘new times’. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(1), 4-8. Lundgren, B. (2013). Bridging discourses in a writing classroom. Education Inquiry, 4(2), 315- 332.

213

Lynch, J. (2010). Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about students’ knowledge of print literacy and parental involvement in children’s print literacy development. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 157-171. Maaka, M.J. (2019). Education through Paideia: The contested space of the Indigenous psyche. In H. Tomlins-Jahnke, S. Styres, S. Lilley, & D. Zina (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 39-62). Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Introduction. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 1-7). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Markle, R., & O’Banion, T. (2014). Assessing affective factors to improve retention and completion. Learning Abstracts, 17(11). Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/successnavigator/pdf/learning_abstracts_markle_obanion.pdf Martin, L. & Thacker, S. (2009). Teaching the writing process in primary grades: One teacher’s approach. YC Young Children, 64(4), 30-35. McCall, S., Reder, D., Gaertner, D., & L’Hirondelle Hill, G. (2017). Centring Indigenous intellectual traditions: Introducing read, listen, tell. In S. McCall, D. Reder, D. Gaertner, & L’Hirondelle Hill (Eds.), Read Listen Tell: Indigenous stories from Turtle Island (pp. 1-11). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. McCloskey, E. (2012). Conversations about jail: Inclusive settings for critical literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6) 369-377. McDonald, R.A. (2011). First Nations languages and culture impacts on literacy and student achievement outcomes: Review of literature. Assembly of First Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/ipeoples/emrip/studylanguages/assemblyfirstnat ions1.pdf McKee, L. L. & Heydon, R. M. (2014). Orchestrating literacies: Print literacy learning opportunities within multimodal intergenerational ensembles. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1-29. McLaughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of Indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72. McLeod, N. (2007). Cree narrative memory: From treaties to contemporary times. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing. McQuitty, V. (2012). Emerging possibilities: A complex account of learning to teach writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(4), 358-389. Mellor, S., & Corrigan, M. (2004). The case for change: A review of contemporary research on Indigenous education outcomes. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council of Educational Research. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Metallic, F. (2008). Strengthening our relations in Gespe’gewa’gi. In L. Simpson (Ed.), Lighting the eighth fire: The liberation, resurgence, and protection of Indigenous nations (pp. 59- 71). Winnipeg, MB: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

214

Miller, R.J., Ruru, J., Behrendt, L., & Lindberg, T. (2010). Discovering Indigenous lands: The doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education. (2010). Saskatchewan curriculum: Kindergarten. Saskatchewan, Ministry of Education: Curriculum and E-Learning, Humanities Unit. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milne, E. (2017). Implementing Indigenous education policy directives in Ontario public schools: Experiences, challenges and successful practices. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(3), 1-20. Ministry of Education. (2008a). Renewed objectives for the Common Essential Learning of Critical and Creation Thinking (CCT) and Personal and Social Development (PSD). Retrieved from http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/11/84187-Renewed-Objectives- CEL.pdf Ministry of Education. (2008b). Saskatchewan curriculum for English Language Arts 6. Retrieved from https://www.curriculum.gov.sk.ca/bbcswebdav/library/curricula/English/English_Langua ge_Arts/English_Language_Arts_6_2008.pdf Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Saskatchewan curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.curriculum.gov.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum-BBLEARN/index.jsp# Mombourquette, C., & Bruised Head, A. (2014). Building First Nations capacity through teacher efficacy. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 34(2), 105-123. Moore, S. (2012). A trickster tale about integrating Indigenous knowledge in university-based programs. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 324-330. Moore, S. (2017). Trickster chases the tale of education. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Mountain, A. (2019). From Bear Rock Mountain: The life and times of a Dene residential school survivor. Victoria, B.C.: Brindle & Glass. Mussell, W. (2008). Decolonizing education: A building block for reconciliation. In M.B. Castellano, L. Archibald, & M. DeGagné (Eds.), From truth to reconciliation: Transforming the legacy of residential schools (pp. 319-338). Ottawa, ON: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Myers, J., Scales, R.Q., Grisham, D.L., Wolsey, T.D., Dismuke, S., Smetana, L., Yoder, K.K., Ikpeze, C., Ganske, K., & Martin, S. (2016). What about writing? A national exploratory study of writing instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(4), 309-330. Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 41-62. Nabigon, H., Hagey, R., Webster, S., & MacKay, R. (1999). The learning circle as a research method: The trickster and windigo in research. Native Social Work Journal, 2(1), 113– 137. Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA Journal, 28(5/6), 281-291. Nakata, M. (2003). Some thoughts on literacy issues in Indigenous contexts. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 31, 7-15. Nakata, M. (2007a). Disciplining the savages, savaging the disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. 215

Nakata, M. (2007b). The cultural interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, Supplement, 7-14. National Aboriginal Health Organization. (2005). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Retrieved from http://www.naho.ca/documents/fnc/english/FNC_OCAPCriticalAnalysis.pdf National Aboriginal Health Organization. (2008). In the words of our ancestors: Métis health and healing. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization. National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_ downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools & Colleges. (2003). The neglected ‘R’: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). Writing now: A policy brief. Council Chronicle, 18(1), 15-22. National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations. (1972). Indian control of Indian education: Policy paper presented to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Retrieved from https://oneca.com/IndianControlofIndianEducation.pdf Native Reflections. (2009). Seven Grandfather teachings. Native Reflections, Inc. Nelson, G.L. (2000). Warriors with words: Toward a post-columbine writing curriculum. English Journal, 89(5), 42-46. New, W.H. (1990). Native writers and Canadian writing: Canadian literature special issue. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Newkirk, T. (2000). Misreading masculinity: Speculations on the great gender gap in writing. Language Arts, 77(4), 294-300. Nicol, C., Archibald, J., & Baker, J. (2013). Designing a model of culturally responsive mathematics education: Place, relationships and storywork. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(1), 73-89. #NoDAPL Archive. (n.d.). #NoDAPL archive – Standing Rock Water protectors. Retrieved from https://www.nodaplarchive.com/ Nystrand, M. (1982). Rhetoric’s audience and linguistics speech community: Implications for understanding writing, reading, and text. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 1-28). New York: Academic Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11-27). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. OECD. (2017). Promising practices in supporting success for Indigenous students. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/promising-practices- in-supporting-success-for-indigenous-students_9789264279421-en#page3 OECD Directorate for Education. (2004). Early childhood education and care policy: Canada country note. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/canada/33850725.pdf Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. The Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281. 216

O’Neil Green, D., Creswell, J.W., Shope, R.J., & Plano Clarke, V.L. (2007). Grounded theory and racial/ethnic diversity. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 472-492). London: Sage. Pantaleo, S. (2010). Developing narrative competence through reading and writing metafictive texts. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(3), 264-281. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. Paris, D., & Alim, H.S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Peat, F.D. (2005). Blackfoot physics: A journey into the Native American universe. York Beach, ME: Weiser Books. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity – one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21. Peterson, S.S. (2008). Writing across the curriculum: All teachers teach writing. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Peterson, S.S. (2012a). Action research supporting students’ oral language in northern Canadian schools: A professional development initiative. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(10), 1-16. Peterson, S.S. (2012b). An analysis of discourses of writing and writing instruction in curricula across Canada. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 260-284. Peterson, S. S. & McClay, J. (2014). A national study of teaching and assessing writing in Canadian middle grades classrooms. McGill Journal of Education, 49(1), 17-39. Peterson, S.S., McClay, J. & Main, K. (2010). Teaching writing in Canadian middle-grades classrooms: A national study. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(2), 77-90. Peterson, S.S., Parr, J., Lindgren, E., & Kaufman, D. (2018). Conceptualizations of writing in early years curricula and standards documents: International perspectives. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 499-521. Peterson, S.S. & Portier, C. (2013). Teacher feedback and student writing revision in a grade 2 classroom. Ohio Reading Teacher, 43(1), 29-40. Peterson, S.S. & Portier, C. (2014). Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Education 3-13, 42(3), 237-257. Pewewardy, C. (2002). Learning styles of American Indian/Alaska native students: A review of the literature and implications for practice. Journal of American Indian Education, 41(3), 22-55. Piazza, C.L. (2003). Journeys: The teaching of writing in elementary classrooms. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pierre, E., & Oughton, J. (2007). The affective domain: Undiscovered country. College Quarterly, 10(4). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2007-vol10-num04- fall/pierre-oughton.html Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-66). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Redwing-Saunders, S.E., & Hill, S.M. (2007). Native education and in-classroom coalition building: Factors and models in delivering an equitous authentic education. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(4), 1015-1045. Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019a). 8 way planning checklist. Retrieved 217

from https://recorder-porpoise.squarespace.com/8way-planning-checklist Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019b). Aboriginal pedagogy. Retrieved from https://recorder-porpoise.squarespace.com/about Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019c). Best practice overview. Retrieved from https://www.8ways.online/best-practice-1 Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019d). 8 way whole school e.g. Retrieved from https://www.8ways.online/8ways-wholeschool-eg Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019e). I don’t understand! Retrieved from https://recorder-porpoise.squarespace.com/i-dont-understand Rich, A. (1979). On lies, secrets, and silence. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Richards, J. (2008). Closing the Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal education gaps (C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder, Issue 116). Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe institute. Retrieved from https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Backgrou nder_116.pdf Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London: SAGE. Rish, R.M., Bylen, K., Vreeland, H., & Wimberley, C.C. (2015). Using Google Drive to write dialogically with teachers. In M.L. Niess & H.W. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp. 357-379). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Roberge, G. (2013). What works? Research into practice: Promoting critical literacy across the curriculum and fostering safer learning environments. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_PromotingCritical Literacy.pdf Robinson, R. (2000). The debt: What America owes to Blacks. New York: Dutton Books. Roen, D., Goggin, M., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2008). Teaching of writing and writing teachers through the ages. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 347-364). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rohman, D.G. (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16(2), 106-112. Rogers, J. (2018). Teaching the teachers: Re-educating Australian teachers in Indigenous education. In P. Whitinui, M. del Carmen Rodriguez de France, & O. McIvor (Eds.), Promising practices in Indigenous teacher education (pp. 27-39). Singapore: Springer Nature. Rogers, L.A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879-906. Rolheiser, C., Evans, M., Gambhir, M., & Broad, K. (2012). Connecting inquiry and practice: Lessons learned from a multi-year professional learning partnership. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 5, 13-21. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Vol.3: Gathering strength. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Ruzzene, A. (2012). Drawing lessons from case studies by enhancing comparability. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42(1), 99-120. Saint-Laurent, L. & Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting parental intervention to first graders’ evolution of reading and writing abilities. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(3), 253-278. Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 27-37. 218

San Pedro, T.J. (2017). “This stuff interests me”: Re-centering Indigenous paradigms in colonizing schooling spaces. In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 99-117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Santoro, N. (2009). Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about ‘self’ and ‘others’ do teachers need? Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(3), 33-45. Santoro, N., Reid, J., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2011). Teaching Indigenous children: Listening to and learning from Indigenous teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10), 65-76. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=ajte Sarris, G. (1993). Keeping slug woman alive: A holistic approach to American Indian texts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2008). Play and exploration: Early learning program guide. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=c711842e- 23aa-4e82-b33d-4a530f8d4b2f Saskatoon Public Schools. (2013). Saskatoon Public Schools’ First Nations, Inuit and Métis education ACTION plan 2012-2015. Saskatoon, SK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.spsd.sk.ca/division/fnimeducationunit/documents/fnimactionplan2013.pdf Schallert, D.L., & Martin, D.B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 31-45). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scheuerman, R., Gritter, K. Schuster, C.J. & Fisher, G. (2010). Sharing the fire: Place-based learning with Columbia Plateau legends. The English Journal, 99(5), 47-54. Schneider, J.J. (1997). Undoing “the” writing process: Supporting the idiosyncratic strategies of children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 47th National Reading Conference. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED417425.pdf Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Sellars, B. (2013). They called me number one: Secrets and survival at an Indian residential school. Vancouver, B.C.: Talon Books. Sensory, O., Sanghera, R., Parmar, G., Parhar, N., Nosyk, L., & Anderson, M. (2010). Moving beyond dance, dress, and dining in multicultural Canada. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://ijme- journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/viewFile/248/432 Sensoy, S., & DiAngelo, D. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sideeg, A. (2106). Bloom’s Taxonomy, Backward Design, and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development in crafting learning outcomes. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 158-186. Silko, L. M. (1996). Yellow woman and a beauty of the spirit: Essays on Native American life today. New York: Simon & Schuster. Simpson, L.B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. 219

Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 1-25. Simpson, L.R. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 373-384. Smith, M.G. (2017). You hold me up. Victoria, B.C.: Orca Book. Smith, G. (2011). Bringing the experience of Indigenous people into Alaska rural systematic initiative/Alaska Native knowledge network. In G. Dei (Ed.), Indigenous philosophies and critical education: A reader (pp. 229-244). New York: Peter Lang. Smith, G. (2016). The past, present and future of place-based learning. Retrieved from https://www.gettingsmart.com/2016/11/past-present-and-future-of-place-based-learning/ Snively, G., & Williams, W.L. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing home: Braiding Indigenous science with Western science. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. Retrieved from https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/knowinghome/ Snyder, P. & Wolfe, B. (2008). The big three process components of effective professional development: Needs assessment, evaluation, and follow-up. In P.J. Winton, J.A. McCollum & C. Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood professional development (pp. 13-52). Washington D.C.: ZERO TO THREE. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stanton, C.R. & Sutton, K. (2012). “I guess I do know a good story”: Re-envisioning writing process with Native American students and communities. English Journal, 102(2), 78-84. Statistics Canada. (2003a). International Adult Literacy Survey. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada. (2003b). Aboriginal peoples of Canada: A demographic profile, 2001 census. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/archive.action- eng.cfm?/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/abor/pdf/96F0030XIE2001007. pdf Statistics Canada. (2013). The education and employment experiences of First Nations people living off reserve, Inuit, and Métis: Selected findings from the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (The Daily, Statistics Canada Official News Bulletin Release Catalogue no. 99- 012-X201100311849). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily- quotidien/131125/dq131125b-eng.pdf Statistics Canada. (2015). Projections of the Aboriginal population and households in Canada, 2011 to 2036. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/91-552-x/91-552- x2015001-eng.pdf?st=ijsCJtXE Statistics Canada. (2017). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 census. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a- eng.htm St. Denis, V. (2010). A study of Aboriginal teachers’ professional knowledge and experience in Canadian schools. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/otso/UserFiles/File/ABORIGINAL_Report2010_EN_Web.p df 220

St. Denis, V. (2011). Silencing Aboriginal curricular content and perspectives through multiculturalism: “There are other children here.” The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33, 306-317. St. Denis, V., & Hampton, E. (2002). Literature review on racism and the effects on Aboriginal education. Prepared for the Minister’s National Working Group on Education, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ottawa: INAC. Steinhauer, E. (2002). Thoughts on an Indigenous research methodology. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(2), 69-81. Stonefish, B. (2007). Moving beyond: Understanding the impacts of the residential schools. Owen Sound, Ontario: Ningwakwe Learning Press. Struthers, R. (2001). Conducting sacred research: An Indigenous experience. Wicazo Sa Review, 16(1), 125-133. Styres, S. (2008). Relationships: An Indigenous transnational research paradigm. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1), 293-322. Styres, S. (2019). Pathways for remembering and (re)cognizing Indigenous thought in education. In H. Tomlins-Jahnke, S. Styres, S. Lilley, & D. Zina (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 39-62). Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. Styres, S. & Zinga, D. (2013a). Opening the circle: Welcoming Brother Sun. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 1-3. Styres, S. & Zinga, D. (2013b). The community-first Land-centred theoretical framework: Bringing a ‘good mind’ to Indigenous education research? Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 284-313. Styres, S., Zinga, D., Bennett, S., & Bomberry, M. (2010). Walking in two worlds: Engaging the space between Indigenous community and academia. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(3), 617-648. Styres, S., Zinga, D., Lilley, S, Tomlins-Jahnke, H. (2019). Opening: Contested spaces and expanding the Indigenous education agenda. In H. Tomlins-Jahnke, S. Styres, S. Lilley, & D. Zina (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. xiii- xxix). Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. Susag, D. (2006). Indian education for all: Through our own eyes. Why IEFA? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(3), 201-203. Swiftwolfe, D. (n.d.). Indigenous ally toolkit. Retrieved from https://teachingcommons.lakeheadu.ca/sites/default/files/inline- files/Indigenous%20Ally%20Toolkit.pdf Tadmor, C.T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J.T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity: The superadditive benefits of multicultural experiences for collective creativity in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384-392. Taylor, L.K., Bernhard, J.K., Garg, S., & Cummins, J. (2008). Affirming plural belonging: Building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multiliteracies pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3). 269-294. Thomas, R. (2005). Honoring the oral traditions of my ancestors through story-telling. In L. Brown (Ed.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 237-254). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Tracy, M. (2015). Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) histories and cultures, & subject 221

English. English K-6 Chat Papers, 3, 1-5. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxlbm dsaXNoazZjaGF0cGFwZXJzfGd4OjVjNGQ2ZDM4MGI1MmVjZDk

Tomlins-Jahnke, H., Styres, S., Lilley, S., & Zinga, D. (2019). Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. Towers, C. (2018). Aboriginal knowledge systems [PowerPoint slides]. Early Childhood Australia National Conference. Retrieved from http://www.ecaconference.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/Ceane_Towers.pdf Toulouse, P.R. (2008). Integrating Aboriginal teaching and values into the classroom. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, What Works? Research into Practice. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Toulouse.pdf Toulouse, P.R. (2011). Achieving Aboriginal student success: A guide for K to 8 classrooms. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Toulouse, P.R. (2013a). Beyond shadows: First Nations, Metis and Inuit student success. Canadian Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3b79/184a037260400572eb2b0fcccc01e2e6e1c8.pdf?_g a=2.234966530.222508856.1580003243-1168402965.1563550800 Toulouse, P.R. (2013b). Fostering literacy success for First Nations, Métis and Inuit students. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, What Works? Research into Practice. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/ww_fostering_literacy.p df Toulouse, P.R. (2016). Achieving Indigenous student success: A guide for secondary classrooms. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Treaty Six Education Council. (TSEC; n.d.a). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.tsec.ca/ Treaty Six Education Council. (TSEC; n.d.b). Treaty Six Education Council (TSEC) Niswayak Nistohtamowin Model “Both Ways of Understanding”. Retrieved from http://indspire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/D5-TSEC-niswayak-nistohtamowin- Education-Model.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Canada’s residential schools: The history, Part 1: Origins to 1939. In The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 1. Retrieved from http://caid.ca/TRCFinVol1Par12015.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b). Canada’s residential schools: The history, Part 2: 1939 to 2000. In The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 1. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Retrieved from http://caid.ca/TRCFinVol1Par22015.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015c). Canada’s residential schools: The legacy. In The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 5. Retrieved from http://caid.ca/TRCFinVol52015.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015d). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Retrieved from http://trc.ca/assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed. 222

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2019). Expanding the Indigenous education agenda: A foreword. In H. Tomlins-Jahnke, S. Styres, S. Lilley, & D. Zina (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. ix-x). Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. Turner, K.M.T., Sanders, M.R., & Hodge, L. (2014). Issues in professional training to implement evidence-based parenting programs: The preferences of Indigenous practitioners. Australian Psychologist, 49, 384-394. Uppal, S. (2017). Young men and women without a high school diploma (Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 75-006-X). Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75- 006-x/2017001/article/14824-eng.pdf?st=wXIi5Qw0 Valaskakis, G.G. (1993). Parallel voices: Indians and others, narratives of cultural struggle. Canadian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 283-296. van der Wey, D. (2001). Exploring multiple serendipitous experiences in a First Nations setting as the impetus for meaningful literacy development. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(1), 51-67. Van Nest, P.E. (2003). Untangling approaches to teaching writing: A process of change in one classroom. In S.S. Peterson (Ed.), Untangling some knots in K-8 writing instruction (pp. 6-16). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vellutino, F.R., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Experimental and quasi-experimental design. In N.K. Duke & M.H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 155-187). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Trans. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar. Cambridge: MIT P. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warick, J. (2017). ‘It’s not just add Indigenous and stir’: U of S’s indigenization approach raising questions. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/indigenous-education-university- saskatchewan-1.4299551 WE Charity. (2019). Welcome to WE Schools. Retrieved from https://www.we.org/en-CA/our- work/we-schools/ Wilson, S. (1998). Native viewpoints: De-mystifying spirituality. Canadian Social Studies, 33(1), 7. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood Publishing. Winton, P.J. & McCollum, J.A. (2008). Preparing and supporting high-quality early childhood practitioners: Issues and evidence. In P.J. Winton, J.A. McCollum & C. Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood professional development (pp. 1-12). Washington D.C.: ZERO TO THREE. Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). What is EBE? Retrieved from www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/edlite-slide003.html Wildcat, M., McDonald, M., Irlbacher-Fox, S., & Coulthard, G. (2014). Learning from the land: Indigenous land-based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society, 3(3), 1-15. Retrieved from https://nycstandswithstandingrock.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/wildcat-et-al-2014.pdf Wolcott, H. (2005). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 223

Wolf, S.A. (2004). Interpreting literature with children. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. Wotherspoon, T. (2008). Teachers’ work intensification and educational contradictions in Aboriginal communities. Canadian Review of Sociology, 45(4), 389-418.

Yancy, K.B. (2009). Writing in the 21st century: A report from the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/Yancey_final.pdf Yenawine, P. (1997). Thoughts on visual literacy. Essay. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 845–846). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. York, A., Daly, R., & Arnett, C. (1993). They write their dreams on the rock forever: Rock writings in the Stein River Valley of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: Talonbooks. Youngblood Henderson, J.S. (2000). Challenges of respecting Indigenous world views in Eurocentric education. In R. Neil (Ed.) Voice of the Drum (pp. 59-81). Brandon: Kingfisher Publication. Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about Indigenous people. Edmonton, Alberta: Brush Education Inc. Yunkaporta, T. (2009a). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface: Draft report for DET on Indigenous research project conducted by Tyson Yunkaporta, Aboriginal Education Consultant, in Western NSW Region schools, 2007-2009. Retrieved from http://8ways.wikispaces.com/file/view/draft+report.doc Yunkaporta, T. (2009b). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. Our ways of learning in Aboriginal languages. Retrieved from https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/10974/4/04Bookchapter.pdf Yunkaporta, T. (2009c). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. Professional Doctorate (Research) thesis, James Cook University. Retrieved from https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/10974/2/01thesis.pdf Yunkaporta, T., & Kirby, M. (2011). Yarning up Aboriginal pedagogies: A dialogue about eight Aboriginal ways of learning. In N. Purdie, G. Milgate, & H.R. Bell (Eds.), Two way teaching and learning: Toward culturally reflective and relevant education (pp. 205- 213). Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. Yunkaporta, T., & McGinty, S. (2009). Reclaiming Aboriginal knowledge at the cultural interface. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(2), 55-72.

224

Appendix A Recruitment of Teacher Participant Letter

225

Appendix B Recruitment of Participants – Script to Children

Hello everyone! My name is Mrs. Heppner and I’m going to be spending a few weeks in your classroom. I’m curious as to how you like to learn how to write, and I’m very much hoping that you will show me your favorite ways! I will be writing the things I learn down on this paper [show paper on clipboard] to help me remember. You don’t have to tell me your favorite ways of writing if you don’t want to, or show me any of your work. You are certainly free to say, “No thanks!” This is not a test or anything like that – I am here to learn, just like you are! I am very much looking forward to spending time with you all! Thank you!

226

Appendix C Letter of Consent for School Administrator (on OISE/UT letterhead) (Date)

Dear Administrator: I am a PhD student at OISE at the University of Toronto. I would like to invite the teachers at Saulteaux Heritage School to participate in a research project called: Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy.

I anticipate that their participation would benefit the teacher/children in the following ways: • Opportunity to share strength-based, culturally responsive teaching strategies with other teachers through publication, conferences, etc. • Opportunity to voice concerns/possibilities for improving professional learning activities for rural Indigenous teachers • Contribute to the writing development of Indigenous students • Published information can be used to apply for grants and/or project funding opportunities Participation would involve the following: • Informal interview (topics: approaches/resources used to teach writing, ways your students are learning to write) • Two months of classroom observations during writing instruction I will be inviting the teachers to participate. I will also be asking the students’ parents/guardians permission to allow me to undertake this research. The participation of all children and adults is voluntary and they can choose to withdraw at any time without penalty. I will not include the data from anyone who withdraws and will erase/shred it to ensure it is not used. Children for whom I do not have permission to gather data will not be included within my classroom observations. I will regularly remind the teacher to ensure that children whose parents/caregivers do not sign consents are not to be subject to any disciplinary procedures, denied access to services, or suffer any grade penalties. All audio recordings will be deleted upon completion of transcription; and all written records will be stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office for 7 years and then destroyed. Only the researcher, teacher, and parent/child-participants from your community will know the actual names of participants. I pledge not to reveal this information. The rights of privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of all participants will be respected for all participants. There is no conflict of interest for the researcher involved in this study. I will be happy to provide you with a copy of the completed study if you check this off on the consent form. If you consent to allow the teacher/children to participate in this research, please sign and return one copy of the attached consent form, and keep a copy of this letter and the consent form for your records. If you have any questions about the study please feel free to ask at any point. You can contact me at: [email protected] or (306) 270-2255. You may also contact Shelley Stagg Peterson (PhD supervisor, OISE/University of Toronto) at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978- 0329) or the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978-2798).

Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Denise Heppner 227

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Please return one signed copy and retain the other for your records)

I consent to participation of the teacher/children at Saulteaux Heritage School in a research study called, Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy. Denise Heppner, the researcher, has explained the purpose of the study, what participation will require, and how much time it will take. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and get additional information regarding the study, and my questions have been answered fully. I understand that the participants are under no obligation to participate and are free to withdraw from the research study at any time without penalty of any kind. I understand that the researcher will keep the data confidential. Anonymity will be ensured through the use of false names for all participants. I understand that the researcher will be submitting the findings of this study to her professor at the University of Toronto, and intends to present the findings in educational publications.

I understand that if I have questions or concerns about the participants’ rights and ethical conduct of the research, I can contact the researcher.

I acknowledge that I have read and fully understood the consent form. I give my permission freely and voluntarily.

______(Name of Administrator – Printed) (Name of Administrator – Signature)

I would like to receive a copy of the research report: ______Yes ______No

______(Email address for future correspondence) (Date) 228

Appendix D Letter of Participation and Consent for Teacher (on OISE/UT letterhead) (Date) Dear Teacher: I am a PhD student at OISE at the University of Toronto. I would like to invite you to participate in a research project called: Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy.

I anticipate that your participation would benefit you in the following ways: • Opportunity to share strength-based, culturally responsive teaching strategies with other teachers through publication, conferences, etc. • Opportunity to voice concerns/possibilities for improving professional learning activities for rural Indigenous teachers • Contribute to the writing development of Indigenous students • Published information can be used to apply for grants and/or project funding opportunities Participation would involve the following: • Informal interview (topics: approaches/resources used to teach writing, ways your students are learning to write) • Two months of classroom observations during writing instruction You are invited to participate. I will also be asking the students’ parents/guardians permission to allow me to undertake this research. The participation of all children and adults is voluntary and they can choose to withdraw at any time without penalty. I will not include the data from anyone who withdraws and will erase/shred it to ensure it is not used. Children for whom I do not have permission to gather data will not be included within my classroom observations. I will regularly remind you, the teacher, to ensure that children whose parents/caregivers do not sign consents are not to be subject to any disciplinary procedures, denied access to services, or suffer any grade penalties.

The data will be stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office for seven years after completion of the study and then destroyed. Only the researcher, teacher, and parent/child-participants from your community will know the actual names of participants. I pledge not to reveal this information. The rights of privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of all participants will be respected for all participants. There is no conflict of interest for the researcher involved in this study. I will be happy to provide you with a copy of the completed study if you check this off on the consent form.

If you consent to participate in this research, please sign and return one copy of the attached consent form, and keep a copy of this letter and the consent form for your records. If you have any questions about the study please feel free to ask at any point. You can contact me at: [email protected] or (306) 270- 2255. You may also contact Shelley Stagg Peterson (PhD supervisor, OISE/University of Toronto) at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978-0329) or the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978-2798).

Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Denise Heppner

229

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Please return one signed copy and retain the other for your records)

I consent to the participation of myself, the teacher, and the children at #### School whose parents/guardians have provided consent, in a research study called, Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy. Denise Heppner, the researcher, has explained the purpose of the study, what participation will require, and how much time it will take. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and get additional information regarding the study, and my questions have been answered fully. I understand that the participants are under no obligation to participate and are free to withdraw from the research study at any time without penalty of any kind. I understand that the researcher will keep the data confidential. Anonymity will be ensured through the use of false names for all participants. I understand that the researcher will be submitting the findings of this study to her professor at the University of Toronto, and intends to present the findings in educational publications.

I understand that if I have questions or concerns about the participants’ rights and ethical conduct of the research, I can contact the researcher.

I acknowledge that I have read and fully understood the consent form. I give my permission freely and voluntarily.

______(Name of Teacher – Printed) (Name of Teacher – Signature)

I would like to receive a copy of the research report: ______Yes ______No ______(Email address for future correspondence) (Date)

230

Appendix E Recruitment of Participants – Informed Consent – Parents

(on OISE/UT letterhead) (Date)

Dear Parents/Guardians,

Your child is invited to participate in a study being conducted through the University of Toronto. The purpose of this study is to learn how young Indigenous students learn to write and how teachers can include cultural teachings in the classroom.

If your child participates he/she will be part of classroom observations where I will be learning from the children how they like to learn how to write.

All recorded information (e.g., my notes and possibly writing examples from your child) will be strictly confidential and false names given for any information reported.

I would really appreciate your willingness to take the time to help me with this educational project!

Please see the attached letter for more information. I will also be available in person to answer any questions, or by phone (1-306-270-2255) or email [email protected]!

Sincerely,

Denise Heppner

231

(on OISE/UT letterhead) (date)

Dear Parents/Guardians:

I am a PhD student at OISE at the University of Toronto. I would like to invite your child to participate in a research project called: Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy. I expect that the research will help children to become better, more confident writers.

I would like to include your child in the research and am asking for your permission to observe and take notes about what your child does when she/he is writing. I will be at the #### School from January until March.

Only I will know the actual names of participants, and I pledge not to reveal this information. I will keep the data for seven years and then destroy them. I will only do all of this if I have your written consent and if your child says yes when I ask him/her if it is okay to observe him/her.

Your child’s participation is voluntary and you can decide, or your child can decide not to take part at any time during the study. If your child chooses not to participate, I will not include your child in observations. I will regularly remind your child’s teacher to ensure that children whose parents/guardians do not sign consents are not to be subject to any disciplinary procedures, denied access to services, or suffer any penalties of any kind.

I will make sure that no one knows your child has taken part in my research by using false names for all people, the school, and the school district. There is no conflict of interest for the researcher involved in this study. I will be happy to provide you with a copy of the completed study if you check this off on the consent form.

If you consent to your child’s participation in this research, please sign and return one copy of the consent form, and keep a copy of this letter and the consent form for your records. If you have any questions about the study please feel free to ask at any point. You can contact me at: [email protected] or (306) 270-2255. You may also contact Shelley Stagg Peterson (PhD supervisor, OISE/University of Toronto) at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978-0329) or the University of Toronto Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] (Telephone: 416-978-2798).

Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Denise Heppner

232

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Please return one signed copy and retain the other for your records)

I consent to my child’s participation in a research study called, Tell Me Your Stories, Teach Me Your Ways: An Indigenous Teacher’s Experiences with Culturally Responsive Writing Pedagogy. Denise Heppner, the researcher, has explained the purpose of the study, what participation will require, and how much time it will take. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and get additional information regarding the study, and my questions have been answered fully.

I have read and fully understood the consent form and give my permission to begin the project.

______(Name of Child) (Date of Birth)

______(Name of Parent/Guardian – Printed) (Name of Parent/Guardian – Signature)

I would like to receive a copy of the research report: ______Yes ______No

______(Email address for future correspondence) (Date)

233

Appendix F Question Protocol for Semi-Structured Interviews

Date: Time: Name: Cultural background: Grade level: How many years teaching this grade: How many years teaching at this school: Overall, how many years teaching: How much time is scheduled for formal writing instruction/practice in your classroom:

Beliefs/attitudes about writing • Can you tell me about a time when something that one of your students wrote really excited you? • In your understanding, what is writing? • Do you enjoy writing? Why/why not? • Do you think your students enjoy writing? Why or why not? • What is your favorite part of teaching writing? What are your strengths as a writing teacher? Beliefs about learning to write • Complete the sentence: You learn to write by…, learning to write involves… Approaches to the teaching of writing • Can you tell me about how you like to teach writing in your classroom? Describe a typical lesson? • What curriculum do you use? • Have you used commercial writing programs? Which ones? Were they useful? Why/why not? • Can you show me what kinds of resources you use when you teach writing? • Can you show me some examples of what kinds of writing you have your students do? Which kinds of writing do you think your students like the most? What kinds of writing show their strengths? • Can you describe a time when your students talked to each other about their writing during writing class? What kinds of things did they talk about? • Can you tell me how you like to provide feedback to your students about their writing? Have your students ever given feedback to each? If yes, can you give an example of such a time? Assessment criteria • In general, what are your goals for your students as writers? • What kind of criteria do you use for writing assessment? • Do you use commercial assessments? Which ones? Are they useful? Why/why not? • Can you show me some student writing that you feel is really strong? What made it a strong piece? What are areas where you feel they could use improvement? 234

Cultural relevance • Can you show me (or describe) any resources, instructional strategies, and methods of assessment that you feel reflect culturally relevant writing instruction? • Looking at the 8ways of Aboriginal Learning, are there any that you feel stand out as being used by your students? Any that you find yourself using more often when you are teaching writing? • Can you tell me about a time when your students were involved in culturally relevant writing activities? How did your students respond (or how might you think they would respond)? Professional development

Any additional thoughts on: • In your view, how could teachers be supported in being more culturally responsive writing teachers? • What would you like to learn more about as a writing teacher? Would this be useful as a topic for professional development? • What kinds of things support, or get in the way of, your professional learning?

235

Appendix G 8 Ways Learning & Pedagogical Framework – Observation Template

Story Sharing: Approaching learning through narrative. We connect through the stories we share.

Learning Maps: Explicitly mapping/visualising processes. We picture our pathways of knowledge.

Non-Verbal: Applying intra-personal and kinaesthetic skills to thinking and learning. We see, think, act, make and share without words. Symbols & Images: Using images and metaphors to understand concepts and content. We keep and share knowledge with art and objects. Land Links: Place-based learning, linking content to local land and place. We work with lessons from land and nature. Non-Linear: Producing innovations and understanding by thinking laterally or combining systems. We put different ideas together and create new knowledge. Deconstruct/Reconstruct: Modelling and scaffolding, working from wholes to parts (watch then do). We work from wholes to parts, watching and then doing. Community Links: Centring local viewpoints, applying learning for community benefit. We bring new knowledge home to help our mob. Indigenous Content Included Notes:

(adapted from Tracy, 2015, p. 3; Yunkaporta, 2009, p. 10, 13) 236

Appendix H: When Paradigms Collide The following is an excerpt from: Peat, F.D. (2005). Blackfoot physics: A journey into the Native American universe. York Beach, ME: Weiser Books.

But clashes of worldviews do not only happen between Europeans and Turtle Islanders. Chief Brian David is a Mohawk from Akwesasne and tells the following story about the time that his people put on a reception for a visiting team of Cree people after a sports event. The Mohawk people have traditionally been farmers, a people who rely upon the Three Sisters – beans, squash, and corn. They supplement their diet by fishing and hunting, but being mainly an agricultural people it is their tradition to mount lavish feasts in which the fruits of Mother Earth are displayed in abundance. These displays are meant to far exceed the ability of their guests to consume. The Cree people, however, live farther north where farming is not such a practical proposition and they are by tradition a hunting people. When a kill has been made it is customary to organize a feast at which, according to certain rules, the meat is distributed. In such a feast no one would refuse to eat what is put before them, for it would be considered disrespectful, not only to the host, but also to the spirits that have provided the game. Here we have two peoples who, when it comes to putting on feast, have very different customs, but customs that flow very naturally from their particular lives and worldviews. Moreover, these worldviews go very deeply into the ways their societies have functioned for hundreds and thousands of years. And so the Cree sat down to this stupendous feast and, being well-bred, ate everything in sight. For their part, the Mohawks were a little shocked, but willingly worked in the kitchen to prepare more food, which was brought out to the tables. By then the Cree were somewhat overwhelmed but continued to eat. With a second round of eating the Mohawks muttered among themselves that the Crees must be very ill-mannered to test their hospitality to such an extent but, nevertheless, they continued to bring out yet more food. The Crees, for their part, wondered if maybe they were being killed by eating, but continued to show their good manners by forcing the food down – even to the point that some of the older people became quite seriously ill! In the context of a meal two peoples, each attempting to accommodate the other with a show of goodwill and politeness, end up totally at odds. Each sees the world in a way that seems perfectly natural and inevitable and so it never occurs to them that the other does not do things in a similar manner. (p. 40-41)

237

Appendix I: Weaving Between Worldviews The following is an excerpt from: Peat, F.D. (2005). Blackfoot physics: A journey into the Native American universe. York Beach, ME: Weiser Books.

Not long ago I sat around a table with Native and Western thinkers at the Fetzer Institute. This was one of the first times that Western scientists, linguists, and psychologists had engaged in dialogue with Native American Elders, philosophers, and scientists in a sprit of openness and equality. At one point the discussion came around to the Mic Maq worldview and the question was asked, “Why does ice heal?” When a hole has been made in the ice for fishing, sometime later the ice will be found to have healed over, but when a hole is made in the earth it will not heal – in fact, holes in the road are often observed to get bigger. So why does ice heal? Within their own framework Western scientists have their own idea of the answer. The problem begins when they try to “interpret” what the Mic Maq scientist may mean. The natural tendency is to jump to our own science, think up the “correct” explanation, and then attempt to fit the Mic Maq concept to our own template. But those of us who are engaged in that dialogue discovered that when faced with the questions of the ice that heals we had to begin to let go of everything we had read and been taught about Western physics. For my part, I had to discover a way of entering another space. I had to allow my mind to move into another world, a world with totally different approaches and insights. It was only then, as I began to relax into that world and slowly move around within its territory, testing my way, and never attempting to judge it or compare it with what I had learned from the West, that I began to feel comfortable with a new way of seeing and understanding. Only then could I respect how complete and meaningful it was, how intellectually satisfying its explanation. Having gained this new insight I could then move back, for a time, into my more familiar Western way of thinking. Gradually it became possible to develop this ability to move between worldviews, to engage in a sort of exchange or trade between them, not measuring one in terms of the other, or attempting to explain one approach using the yardstick of the other. The experience is a little like moving between different languages, each being complete in itself, each describing the world in a subtly different way, each containing ideas and concepts that are virtually inexpressible in the other. Something similar happens when you become totally engaged in a film or novel; for a time you enter that other world, you begin to think and feel like its protagonist and accept the world as he or she experiences it. Then, when the book is set down, you move back into your own world and see it in a new and fresh way. The difference, of course, between novels and Native science is that the latter is a living, ongoing way of seeing the world, one that is completely consistent in its own right and has lasted for thousands of years. (p. 43)

238

Appendix J: I don’t understand! The following is taken from: Regional Aboriginal Education Team (RAET). (2019e). I don’t understand! Retrieved from https://recorder-porpoise.squarespace.com/i-dont-understand (Public Domain, No Copyright)

I don't understand!

We've noticed a strange phenomenon while explaining Aboriginal ways of knowing to teachers. Often, their brains will suddenly shut down for some reason, and they will completely lose the basic ability to figure out simple things on their own. This isn't just because it's new knowledge - even the most disengaged teacher has at least two strategies for dealing with unfamiliar content:

(a) Google it. (b) Tell the students to find it out.

Those strategies are just automatic, even if you ask a drama teacher to deliver a unit on quantum physics. But for some reason, even these simple steps fly out the window when you ask teachers to consider Aboriginal ways of knowing and learning. We've had teachers go through detailed training and planning sessions, and still ask, "But how do I do it?" We present dozens of examples, and then they stare blankly at us and say, "I don't understand - can you show me some examples?"

Don't worry if this happens to you. It's not brain damage - it's just your colonised identity throwing up a wall in your head to protect itself. Whether that identity is based on privilege or victimhood, Aboriginal or settler consciousness - those colonial discourses are powerful and they have installed emergency shut-down switches in your brain. Any time you consider Aboriginal culture as something other than primitive, simple, dying- out, savage - your whole brain will suddenly switch to safe-mode.

If this happens, don't panic or beat yourself up. Just remind yourself of the two fall-back strategies: (a) google it. (b) Tell the students to find it out.

For an example we'll give you the absolute worst case scenario. Your principal tells you to teach a science lesson by the end of the week that utilises "Aboriginal reasoning strategies". Your brain immediately shuts down, but somehow you remember the word "Google". You crawl to the computer and realise you no longer have the ability to read more than a paragraph, so you do an image search, which turns up a basic model of an Aboriginal reasoning process. You also find a western scientific reasoning model, and you manage to copy and paste them side by side, like this:

239

Unfortunately the effort has exhausted you, so you now sleep for twelve hours. When you wake up you have forgotten all about it and can now function properly again. You begin to run a regular science class, where the students are conducting an experiment and recording observations. Suddenly you see the print-out from last night on your desk, with the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal reasoning models. Your brain shuts down again and you are in danger of losing control of your class, but you dig deep and remember the second safe-mode strategy - get the students to find it out.

So you pass the diagrams on to them, and point out the way their experiment matches the diagram on the right. Then you tell them that the diagram on the left is an Aboriginal reasoning model, and get them in groups to make sense of it, look up any words they don't understand, and then try to repeat the experiment using that thinking process instead.

Afterwards, you allow the students to compare the two experiments - the processes, results and conclusions. There are some very interesting statements made, and during the course of the discussion your brain comes back on and you are even able to contribute some thoughts to the discussion yourself!

So, in the worst case scenario demanding specialised and complex knowledge, you have applied the most basic of strategies and still been able to produce a productive, on-topic lesson with Aboriginal perspectives. Perhaps now you can build on those basic strategies and even include some community consultation. Once again, baby steps. Start by yarning with old Aunty down the road. She might talk about fishing at the bend yesterday, and instead of saying "did you get a big one", you might ask her about her thinking process in deciding to fish in that place at that time. You begin to find out about local Aboriginal reasoning processes that you can apply to your next class...

Please consider this little story a debugging device for educators whose mental software has become infected by a colonial virus (which self-activates automatically upon installation of an Indigenous knowledge program).