Epistemological voyaging: thinking about a
Māori-centric curriculum
Shane Edwards, Ngāti Maniapoto
Jamie Lambert, Te Uri Kaiwhare, Ngāti Hinekura, Te Awemāpara
Miriata Tauroa, Ngāti Korokï-Kahukura, Ngāti Tuara/Kea, Ngāti Pahipoto, Ngāti Hokopu
Abstract
Many Māori1 are rethinking curriculum development, delivery, and assessment as part of an agenda of ethnovisioning, and a resistance to educational philosophies that legitimate dominant paradigms for knowing and, as a consequence, subjugate Māori epistemologies. This new agenda advances Māori ways of knowing as legitimate and as a positive contribution to Māori wellbeing. The following discussion contributes to this agenda by examining a number of successful elements of Māori-centric education that are receiving wider attention. We draw on an analysis of programme review and student evaluation data, combined with the authors’ personal experiences and studies, which have identified important considerations for educationalists to consider in the development, delivery, and assessment of a Māori-centric curriculum in the context of a Māori majority student population at a wānanga.2 Three elements of Māori-centric marau (curriculum) are examined: it is real, meaningful, contextual, and relevant to students in different contexts; it has Māori values as the pillars and bedrock for teaching and learning; and noho marae are part of tacit thought and practice. Three components of a Māori-centric delivery agenda for operationalising these elements are then suggested via the ideas of whanaungatanga, mana tangata, and tautoko. These ideas are presented as lived and tested theory and practice. Relevant success factors are highlighted as evidence in support of the elements discussed for educationalists across cultures to consider when engaging with Māori.
Whakataki—Introduction
The colonial history of education for many indigenous communities such as those in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and North America, along with the corresponding curriculum development in these countries, is grounded in the field of anthropology (Nakata, 2007) and its more contemporary home within mainstream universities. Drawing on the experiences of the indigenous communities of Australia and North America, as we do here, offers a way of examining the globalising effect of Eurocentric thought in curriculum development, delivery, and assessment at a macro level, and then brings the ideas and responses into a local environment for a contextual and focused examination. The contrasting and supporting evidence from indigenous communities outside Aotearoa New Zealand also supports collective indigenous aspirations for wider acceptance and acknowledgment of indigenous ways of knowing and being.
This view acknowledges that for these communities, the dominant educational philosophy has come from a single tradition—the European tradition. This is certainly the case in Aotearoa New Zealand. A review of this context and its relationship to Māori leadership and involvement as active constructors of educational tradition reveals some interesting insights as a basis for the discussions set out later.
The commonly acknowledged first generation of modern Māori scholars, which included Buck, Ngata, Papakura, and Pōmare, whose work and focus mirrored that of their colleagues of the same generation elsewhere in the world, were largely concerned with accurately recording accounts of the theories and practices of our Māori people within an anthropological mindset. However, these first modern Māori scholars were also concerned with counter-hegemonic correcting of the work of early European writers such as Best, Smith, and White, recognising that Māori historical journeys of education primarily span two distinct value systems and world views (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001).
The Second World War delayed Māori penetration into academia until Maharaia Winiata was appointed a tutor in Māori adult education at Auckland University in 1949 as part of the first generation of Māori academics, followed by Bruce Biggs as lecturer in Māori language in 1951 and Matiu Te Hau in 1952. Others followed shortly after, many of whom are still living today but reaching advanced stages of life and “active duty” (Deloria, 2004, p. 16) in institutions. These flagship scholars, whose agenda included ensuring the survival of the Māori people and Māori knowledge, have set the foundation for the discussion of Māori-centric curriculum development, delivery, and assessment set out below.
This discussion continues the agenda of the first-generation scholars of ensuring the survival of Māori knowledge while acknowledging the context and realities of Māori lives today. The work presented here argues that Māori adult curriculum development, delivery, and assessment are still somewhat displaced from places where dominant ideologies and frameworks are the norm. This article discusses the traditional curriculum that has permeated these historical sites and proposes some elements for curriculum developers interested in a Māori-centric curriculum to consider. The relationship to the implemented curriculum is also discussed, as is Māori-centric assessment as part of a holistic approach to educational development. The discussion is based on wānanga, particularly Te Wānanga o Aotearoa,3 a relatively recent tertiary educational phenomenon, which is unique in that it operates within experience and space that are Māori centric and Māori led, in contrast to other traditional mainstream sites of education. In this regard this work is new, in that we take a wānanga world view and, in doing so, (re)claim our voice and take a place in discussions of curriculum development and design, historically the privileged domain of other institutions, with the aim of making a contribution.
He kupu herenga whakaaro—Background
Māori education has a long history of recognising the Māori occupation of Aotearoa New Zealand for some 1,100 years (Hemara, 2000). The vast majority of this history, particularly Māori curriculum development and design approaches outside mainstream systems, has supported Māori knowledge, education, and wellbeing. The primary aims of this education were grounded in whanaungatanga (intricate relationships) and survival. Education served the purpose of providing the necessary skills for the context and period, and contributed to harmonious survival. The knowledge was also passed down to other generations to ensure their continued survival. Education was, in this context, a social good.
Similar to other fields of enquiry, curriculum development sits at the intersection of political, social, cultural, and economic boundaries that serve up many contradictions, particularly in relation to state-funded and -controlled education, which should not, and can not, be underestimated (Evans, McDonald, & Nyce, 2000). As a result, and similar to other indigenous experiences, education and curriculum have largely centred on five meanings (Hampton, 1995):4
•&;&;&;&;Pre-European education—this education and curriculum consisted of oral histories, survivalist curricula (including ritual), relationships, rote learning, specialised knowledge, and apprenticeships, largely aimed at the collective benefit. This type of education was consistent with subsistence living, and focused on in-context learning and personal relationships between teacher and learner, with ample observation of tutors exhibiting the required skills themselves (Hemara, 2000; Papakura, 1986).
•&;&;&;&;Education for assimilation—assimilation education is designed to replace Māori ways of knowing and being with those of the dominant group. The assimilation largely occurs through curriculum design and content, access to and exclusion from certain types and levels of curriculum, and modes of delivery that ensure dominant positions of power and control are maintained. Assimilation education is also about the concerted devaluing of other knowledge forms, the people who utilise the knowledge, and the context and frameworks within which the knowledge occurs. This is most often created and exercised utilising concepts of superior and inferior.
•&;&;&;&;Education by Māori—this approach involves initiatives to increase the number of Māori educators, primarily to continue the dissemination of the assimilation agenda but with a more culturally appealing look and a covert agenda for ensuring the assimilation curriculum is effectively delivered to a mass audience. In many contexts, governments may use Māori to educate, nurse, and consult with Māori in culturally preferred ways but still with an assimilationist agenda, as evidenced by their tools, practice, and the outcomes sought to achieve this aim. While many Māori will act to subvert this agenda when it is apparent, it is often covert, and in being hidden is simply taken for granted.
•&;&;&;&;Education for self-determination—this has involved Māori-led initiatives for realising Māori aspirations. In many cases it has occurred to counter the approaches detailed above. It involves acts of Māori agency, and is becoming more frequent among Māori and Māori allies. Examples include kōhanga reo (early childhood Māori language centres); kura kaupapa Māori (total immersion Māori-language primary schools) and whare kura (total immersion Māori-language secondary schools5); and initiatives at the preschool, primary, and postprimary levels of education to provide education in the Māori world view through Māori language.
•&;&;&;&;Education sui generis—this refers to education as unique in its own right, using models of education informed by the Māori world view and realities and structured by Māori cultures—Māori methods, Māori structures, and Māori content and personnel. It has gained growing support as a result of tensions felt by curriculum developers, teachers, and administrators in trying to fit the Māori world view, theory, and practice into non-native structures. This is not to say that Māori do not want to fully participate in other aspects of the world; we do, but many of us want to do so through our own frameworks for understanding, and to have choice in the matter.
In attempts to develop and design education sui generis, we have found, along with Hampton (1995, p. 11) and MacIvor (1995, p. 74), that there is a lack of theory of what Māori education is, which impedes development. We are talking here about a theory of Māori curriculum design that might consider things such as:
•&;&;&;&;the spiritual dimensions of a human being
•&;&;&;&;the unique and distinctive Māori styles of thought and communication, and their educational implications
•&;&;&;&;the dual-purpose thinking of promoting Māori culture and identity, as well as the skills for living in the contemporary world
•&;&;&;&;historical analysis as a way to understand tradition and heal the past
•&;&;&;&;the relevance of strong bond groups, and the place of great individual freedom
•&;&;&;&;the place of service and humility in education.
For Māori, particularly in higher education, there has been little change despite apparent innovations in educational methods, curriculum, and pedagogy with regard to basic institutional organisation, the division of subjects, teaching methods, and ceremony. The curriculum, particularly in the form of the traditional curriculum, still bears the pervasive imprint of Western metaphysics (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001) and the legacy of Aristotle in the divisions of knowledge and its power to continue to shape Western notions of education.
Many Māori wish to receive an education that prepares us and our children for the world, but supports our cultural imperatives where these have been interrupted, or ensures that our cultural roots are not severed as a price for this inclusion and aspiration. In this regard many Māori are remembering elements of our identity and wellbeing and utilising this knowledge to construct a curriculum for our people, and those others who may find value in our world views, which ensures we have the widest possible access and success in education and yet remain culturally intact.
Me titiro ki muri—The traditional curriculum
Curriculum is inextricably linked to culture, and in particular the culture that pervades a context and people’s thinking at any given period, which has been referred to as “systems of meaning”. For this reason, a curriculum largely reflects the tacit and eclectic experiences of the curriculum’s developers. As Grundy (1987, p. 5) points out:
Curriculum is not a concept, it is a cultural construction. That is, it is not an abstract concept which has some existence outside and prior to human experience. Rather, it is a way of organising a set of human educational practices.
The pre-European traditional curriculum, or what we refer to in our work as the Māori curriculum, existed as cultural knowledge systems where practical skills were taught based on strongly held principles, moral codes, and adherence to prescribed rituals (Hemara, 2000). Participants in this system were often chosen for specific reasons to fulfil the needs of the collective across a wide-ranging curriculum, including (but not limited to) whaikōrero (formal public speaking), karakia (ritual incantation), toi (arts), and whakapapa (genealogy).
The post-European traditional curriculum focused on the transmission of discrete pieces of information—frequently rote facts and formulas—from teacher to student. This has been the most common type of curriculum and pedagogy that has been systematically applied to Māori learners as part of colonial contact and discourses. Because the information is considered important in its own right, traditional curriculum designers often paid little attention to whether or not students could use the information in any real-life contexts. The post-European traditional curriculum segregates knowledge into silos, most commonly referred to as “disciplines”, which are used to impose order on and for information. This approach remains an archetype for teaching what to think, as opposed to how to think.
There are similarities between the pre- and post-European traditional curricula, for example, in the segregation into discrete knowledge forms, but a primary difference is that the pre-European curriculum was constructed to support practical applications that were a necessity for the survival of the wider community to which the individuals belonged.
In the Aotearoa New Zealand context—and of particular importance to Māori as it relates to ideologies of power and control—the traditional curriculum was introduced into many Māori communities in the early 1800s by missionaries, and spread over time as part of the cultural invasion of Aotearoa New Zealand, which is most commonly referred to as colonisation (Irwin, 1994; Walker, 1991). The traditional curriculum was underpinned by theological, and later scientific, views that justified such actions as part of a world view that conjured up a static perception of the world and a belief in a divine right to impose a world view on those whose culture they were displacing (Freire, 1972). The traditional curriculum became a feature of Māori educational experience and subjugation over the next 170 years as a key ideological apparatus for the maintenance of dominance. Today, many of the pillars of this ideology remain in the form of underlying assumptions, aims, practices, and outcomes as a feature of curriculum design, delivery, and assessment (Binney, 1990; Walker, 1991).
The historical influences alluded to above are far from attractive, and yet they motivate journeys of transforming our “curriculum for Māori” into a “curriculum by Māori”, while ensuring that we do not repeat the oppressive agenda imposed on us and thus mirror the practices of early colonials and become the oppressors ourselves. One challenge for us is to ensure that the Māori-centric curriculum is inclusive. What is clear to us is that we must develop new curriculum approaches and appropriate theoretical frameworks to hang our curriculum on. We want to suggest that utilising timeless principles, as outlined in the elements below, will help many Māori to navigate the diverse realities that are part of our dichotomous existence of being a minority in our own lands in a European-dominated world. We argue that a sound method for achieving this is to think and act in ways that acknowledge that Māori-centric curriculum honours our ancestors and serves our grandchildren.
Many curriculum exponents—whether designers, deliverers, or assessors— are now actively reviewing their thinking and developing Māori-centric approaches to incorporate thinking, theories, and practices that support indigenous world views and recognise the dichotomous existence experienced by Māori. Our work follows in this vein and examines the elements that our predominantly Māori student population have identified as being part of a distinctly Māori-centric curriculum, delivery, and assessment, and that contribute to their success. We have used student feedback from the previous three years (2004–2007) from three distinct information sets. For a start, we have analysed student feedback from our programme review data, together with data from our institutional student evaluations. These two datasets have provided a rich source of information that gives the students a real voice, and has highlighted what elements of our programme design, delivery, and assessment students found unique and that supported their success. The third dataset was the combined experiences of the authors as educators having close contact with tutor and student populations. These experiences have highlighted the fact that as curriculum designers, deliverers, and assessors, the changes referred to above are most meaningfully achieved when those of us involved in this work realise that the diverse realities of many Māori require diverse solutions. One area that we report on based on our experiences and analysis as curriculum designers within a wānanga is the development, delivery, and assessment of a culturally relevant marau (curriculum) that enhances wellbeing through attempts to be educationally, critically, culturally, and contextually robust.
Nā te kōrero ka whai whakaaro—Elements of a Māori-centric marau
Our work at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in the field of adult education with a very high proportion of Māori learners has shown that a Māori-centric curriculum contains key features that are most likely to support Māori learners. The key features we have found to be most responsive are as follows.
•&;&;&;&;Curriculum that is real, meaningful, contextual, and relevant to students across different contexts
An appropriate curriculum requires students to be able to clearly see and value the fact that the content, delivery, and assessment have high personal relevance in different contexts, in areas such as professional practice, community, and whānau, to support diverse responsibilities and realities that Māori mediate on an ongoing basis. This is not always obvious to many Māori learners when they begin their studies, but it becomes increasingly true as they contextualise the learning for themselves. This transference is not always apparent in the learning outcomes, nor is this transference prescribed, but it underlies the philosophy of positive Māori-centric educational thinking.
•&;&;&;&;Curriculum that has Māori values as pillars and bedrock for teaching and learning
Māori values and principles are essential organising and guiding tools for curriculum development and content. Principles such as rāhui (prohibition), tapu (restriction), manaaki (care for esteem), noa (unrestricted), and whakamā (shame) are examples of values that have guided our practice in the past and form the framework within which Māori knowledge can be applied in context. Values and principles created with and for the operation of a Māori world view support the successful development, delivery, and assessment of teaching and learning as the framework for practice. This values-based approach recognises a plethora of contexts and situations that occur as a result of being guided by these values, and carries inherent benefits and risks if not applied in context. For example, a person might expect to feel and experience whakamā if they have been guided by certain values and have then chosen not to follow this guidance and operate outside the values, to the detriment of themselves or the group. This acknowledges that values are dichotomous and co-dependent elements within a Māori world view.
•&;&;&;&;Programme design that uses noho marae6 (marae stay) as tacit curriculum development
The enactment of a Māori-centric curriculum that is value rich is most powerful in environments created to cater for the expression of a Māori world view that is informed by values. In Māori-centric curriculum design and development, noho marae as contexts and vehicles for facilitating learning are foremost in thinking about the development and design of curriculum. Marae, as the oldest social institution in Aotearoa New Zealand, have a long history and bring together elements of the Māori world view that normalise practices. The presence of the elements of the Māori world view in harmony in marae spaces supports the holistic operation of thought, philosophy, theory, and practice, most commonly culminating in values, tikanga, and kawa (practices) that serve as the foundational physical and spiritual principles for the Māori world view to become embedded in an environment that is conducive to quality teaching and learning.
Noho marae provide the opportunity for educational teaching and learning theory and practice that take place in sites where tikanga and āhuatanga Māori are the principles of social relations in the operation of human interaction and intergenerational teaching, and where learning is contextualised to a space and place. These sites can frequently include, but are not limited to, schools (after school hours), halls, and marae proper. In these contexts, where Māori values pervade the environment in spirit and in operation, communities of learners can access and utilise these values directly. These spiritual and practical learning experiences provide opportunities for collaborative and supported learning environments at a local level. This has the dual effect of reducing barriers to access and allowing students to assume a greater ownership of the teaching and learning. The learning becomes a powerful catalyst for success that supports and advances blocked learning experiences via peer teaching and learning.
The ownership of the teaching and learning, and the support evident in the principles of the Māori world view (which are highlighted later) are powerful catalysts for success that support and advance these blocked learning experiences. Peer learning, teaching, and assessment opportunities grounded in whanaungatanga (intricate relationships), referred to above (Evans et al., 2000), are central to this idea. The focus on noho marae as a primary curriculum development and design consideration is unique, and acknowledges the centrality of marae and the inherent value systems that provide positive catalysts for enacting the Māori-centric curriculum.
The use of ako7—often referred to as reciprocal learning through real-life contexts and experiences—has been shown to be more successful in contextualising learning to situations that will be encountered in everyday activities. Helser (1934), in his early work, set the foundation for this when he described this process as a meaningful experience-based curriculum, an experience-based educational programme that is based on the conditions in which the students live, utilising local as well as outside resources to help them become contributing members of their community. This connection makes the learning real, meaningful, and contextual. The approach supports the views of Barnhardt (1981) when he talks about the educational aims of a programme and how they should include aspects such as ideals, attitudes, dispositions, and appreciations to be striven for, as well as knowledge and habits.
The connection between development, delivery, and environmental contexts has traditionally not been made in many cases, to the point where they have operated as limitations and causes of failure. The strengthening of connections between these elements as a holistic delivery methodology is central to successful outcomes in relation to a Māori-centric curriculum. The scope and sequence of the curriculum will, by definition, be extended to include the interaction between content, process, and context, and thus allow for possibilities beyond the usual culture-bound determinations that are associated with an emphasis on content alone (Barnhardt, 1981).
A key point here is the degree of connection between the delivery and assessment elements. An important distinction specific to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and in contrast to many other institutions that develop curricula, is that the thinking, design, delivery, and assessment occur in an environment where the dominant world view is predominantly Māori. This highlights a key difference between institutional identities and commitment to Māori world views and Māori as a distinct group. This approach to curriculum design, delivery, and assessment across a whole institution ensures that the institutional identity is distinctively Māori. In short, Māori are masters in our own house, and our thinking and operation are not subject to those realities that many of our colleagues and allies of Māori-centric marau suffer under in relation to institutional systems, processes, ideologies, and practices that can act to colonise Māori-centric theory and practice. The identified elements across curriculum design, delivery, and assessment appear in all our curricula, without exception, and irrespective of discipline or field. These elements are fundamental. To not see these elements in a curriculum would be, in short, unacceptable, and approvals would not be given. This is distinctly different to many other institutions.
This approach is a powerful way of ensuring that an institutional culture remains Māori-centric. While we would agree that the normalisation of this type of thinking and freedom occurs elsewhere, we would also note that in our experience—and in the anecdotal evidence provided by our colleagues in other institutions as well as those who have joined us as work colleagues from elsewhere—this theory and practice occur unevenly, certainly in disparate ways and in disparate spaces, in other institutions. Where theory and practice that normalise these elements across curriculum design, delivery, and assessment as non-negotiable requirements across the whole of the institution occur, it is often only after being actively challenged and led by Māori. In many cases, their sustainability requires the continued presence of those initial leaders, and is often constantly having to be defended.
Kia whaikiko te kōrero—Delivering the elements of Māori-centric marau
Above we have detailed what we believe to be the essential elements of a Māori-centric curriculum, and the view that design must involve clear ideas on how it will be enacted. A key idea we want to advance is that Māori-centric curriculum will require the use of the Māori world view and thinking in its enactment (Nakata, 2007). In reviewing the ancestral whare wānanga (institutions of higher learning), potential pia (initiates) (Mead, 2003) who were selected to attend were expected to go through various selection processes, and assessments were made to determine whether a particular learning style would be suitable to retain specific knowledge such as whakapapa (genealogy), whakairo (carving), rāranga (weaving), and mau rākau (weaponry), considered important in former times. Many of the elements of the ancestral wānanga8 have been revived in the contemporary wānanga.
However a key difference, in line with colonial contact, has been the shift of the enactment of specific mātauranga (knowledge) to incorporate other subject areas in line with modern society to primarily address the collective good of the hapū (subtribe) and iwi (tribe), using a commodity view of knowledge as part of encouraging the individual in the pursuit of their chosen area of study. These world view conflicts are part of diverse solutions and tensions that seek to maintain authenticity in the application of the Māori world view in the form of āhuatanga Māori, in accordance with tikanga Māori,9 in a contemporary wānanga context as part of tacit and infused practice.
With regard to the enacted curriculum, Stairs (1995, p. 139) concludes that:
… educators have not changed so much, it is more that curriculum that has changed as part of a culture-based approach to curriculum. Tutors are points of contact that bring their culturally patterned ways of being, organising and passing on knowledge. Their values systems on how and what should be learnt.
This provides a reason to examine the Māori-centric curriculum enactment that is conducive to Māori-centric curriculum design. Should there be a lack of congruence between design and delivery, there is less chance of a successful outcome.
An enacted curriculum that is supportive of the Māori world view is continually reflected and practised at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa via the use of Māori values employed as the key critical success factors for the delivery of a curriculum that provides connections between design and enactment.
The key enactment values are inextricable, and include whanaungatanga, mana tangata (personal authority), and tautoko (support). These are only three examples of a number of concepts that bind learning at both the subject and methodological levels. They are briefly described below.
Whanaungatanga: Smith (1999) states that whānau (family) is “one of several Māori concepts or tikanga that have become part of a methodology … a way of giving voice to the different sections of Māori communities”. At the interface, the whānau classroom environment is symbiotic with the core unit within te ao Māori (the Māori world). Strong bond relationships and environments (Hampton, 1995, p. 16), actualised through whanaungatanga, focus on operationalising the values and nurturing individuals and groups to learn in an environment where tau utuutu (reciprocity), manaaki tangata (respect to and from the individual), and whakaiti (humility) are all synchronised in a holistic approach to the pursuit of excellence when learning. The result of this not only fosters successful and fulfilling learning to the tauira (student learner), but also provides a healthy social and economic base for communities (Cherrington, 2006).
Mana tangata: This principle advances the inherent esteem and spiritual essence of people, acknowledging their inherent makeup and characteristics, both individual and collective, as being of value. Acknowledgement of and attention to the mana (authority, prestige) of people ensure that the individual and collective mauri (or life essences) are maintained, enhanced, and advanced so that people are at their best physically and spiritually for study. This attention to the personal mana of learners advances Māori values-based pedagogy. At the interface between tauira and kaiako (tutor), the kaiako creates a space for tauira to share their personal histories, whakapapa (genealogy), and values-based systems that have been handed down from their ancestors, and maintains these inherent values as a point of reference and basis for negotiation and knowledge sharing, knowing that the student has and is of mana. This opens up opportunities for values (some already discussed, such as whanaungatanga and whakaiti) to be present and support collective success. As a result of the attention to individual and collective mana in enacting the curriculum, tauira experience connections both directly and indirectly to form meaningful relationships that extend beyond the learning environment and support learning via value systems that emphasise the importance of connections to self, people, and place.
Tautoko: Our practice has found that tutorial support and peer support via a collective value of tautoko, which permeates relationships between tutors and student learners individually and collectively and is normalised as values-based practice, is a mainstay of successful Māori-centric curriculum enactment and supports the group in terms of both wellbeing and teaching and learning contexts. The value of tautoko includes tacit acts of support, primarily embodied as aroha (care and compassion), to actively seek ways to acknowledge the mana and mauri of the tauira. This active project requires kaiako to have a personal and collective pedagogical practice of connectedness with each student, to actively be available for student needs (whether social, cultural, or economic), and to tend to those needs as required.
Ka aro ngā mata ki te wai—aromatawai marau—The assessed curriculum
Education that draws on the above elements of curriculum development and delivery needs to be congruent with the assessment practices. Our experiences have taught us that the above elements make the assumption that all learners are going to be successful. This is underpinned by environmental factors and critical thinking that respond to negative historical educational experiences that have facilitated educational failure for Māori.
A key part of the success factors for Māori-centric educational success involves assessment for learning that mirrors ancestral practices, whereby the assessment involves detailing how well someone has done up to that point, and offering pointers or suggestions for what a student might like to think about next as part of a feed-forward process. A key point is that no one actually passes or fails. They have either achieved or are yet to achieve the standard considered to be acceptable at that time. In this system, assessment is in direct relation to time—achieved now or yet to achieve—as against the pass/fail system that has been the common experience. This reduces and limits the debilitating effects of grading systems that judge people as having succeeded or failed, and that have formed part of many of our students’ lived realities.
The achieved/yet to achieve system is employed in our assessment processes, which we argue is a powerful tool for enhancing and advancing mana tauira (student esteem). This process and thinking acknowledge personal mana and fit within the Māori world view of what and how one should inform others. In this way, the Māori world view is made a central component of the educative process (Nakata, 2007). The rationale is not to be overtly directive or prescriptive, but to guide a learner.
Assessment that offers the opportunity to display key strengths and weaknesses across multiple areas in order to demonstrate improvement and thinking processes is a powerful way to assess knowledge. Added to this is the ability to apply the skills in context to support others over oneself. In our experience, this is most often achieved by connecting the curriculum, the delivery, and the assessment to our students’ hapū, whānau, and iwi in thought and practice. This involves critical reflection about appropriate assessment activities and styles from developers and deliverers, which take into account the lived realities of Māori adult learners and the context in, and against, which their learning occurs. This has involved using combinations of traditional written and test-type activities, together with the dissemination of knowledge by students using expressionist forms such as oral, art, performance, and visual representations to express thinking and knowledge.
Ko ngā hua—Summary and conclusions
This article has discussed the essential elements of curriculum development, delivery, and assessment in Māori-centred education, drawing on the key elements of Māori-centric marau or curriculum. The paper has argued that the essential considerations for Māori-centric curriculum development are that:
•&;&;&;&;the curriculum is real, meaningful, contextual, and relevant to students across different contexts
•&;&;&;&;Māori values are the pillars and bedrock for teaching and learning
•&;&;&;&;noho marae are important for tacit curriculum development.
The article has argued that Māori-centric curriculum development must be connected to an understanding of the lived and contextual realities of Māori adult learners, and that the truths of the Māori world view must feature in the enacted curriculum. The elements we suggest as being essential are:
•&;&;&;&;whanaungatanga
•&;&;&;&;mana tangata
•&;&;&;&;tautoko.
Finally, the article has argued that appropriate assessment activities that offer a broad range of approaches to assessment and that utilise assessment as an “of learning” tool are most powerful with Māori adult learners. This approach allows feed-forward thinking to occur, which enhances students’ and teachers’ vision of learning. This discussion advances the view that the consideration of these elements by educationalists provides a common ground where there are opportunities for distinctive cultures to both learn from and teach each other.
We have argued that this approach is Māori-centric, and has called on the lived experiences of students and educators in a Māori-centric institution that has had a large amount of success. The article has argued that if the educational inequalities between Māori and others are to be addressed meaningfully, the approaches we take to education—particularly, in this case, to adult learners—will need to consider these elements and factors.
He Tuhinga Tautoko – References
Barnhardt, R. (1981). Culture, community and the curriculum. Retrieved 5 October 2006, from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/RayBarnhardt/
CCC.html [This article was originally published by the Center for Cross Cultural Studies, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1981.]
Binney, J. (1990). The people and the land: Te tangata me te whenua: An illustrated history of New Zealand, 1820–1920. Wellington: Allen & Unwin.
Cherrington, K. (2006). Transformative journeys through the tertiary learning experience: Critical success factors in wānanga. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Deloria, V. (2004). Marginal and submarginal. In D. A. Mihesuah & A. C. Wilson (Eds.), Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities (pp. 16–30). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deloria, V., & Wildcat, D. R. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Resources.
Evans, M., McDonald, J., & Nyce, D. (2000). Acting across boundaries in aboriginal curriculum development: Examples from Northern British Columbia. Journal of Native Education, January, 23(2) 190–205.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: Falmer Press.
Hampton, E. (1995). Towards a redefinition of Indian education. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 5– 46). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Helser, A. D. (1934). Education of primitive people. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co. Reprinted (1969) by Negro Universities Press, Greenwood Publishing Co, New York.
Hemara, W. (2000). Māori pedagogies: A view from the literature. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Irwin, K. (1994). Māori education, policy and teaching: Thinking globally, acting locally. In E. Hatton (Ed.), Understanding teaching: Curriculum and the social context of teaching (pp. 333–344). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
MacIvor, M. (1995). Redefining science education for aboriginal students. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 73–98). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Mead, H. (2003). Tikanga Māori, living by Māori values. Auckland: Huia Publishers.
Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the savages, savaging the disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Papakura, M. (1986). Auckland: The old time Māori. Auckland: New Woman’s Press.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies. New York: Zed Books.
Stairs, A. (1995). Learning processes and teaching roles in native education: Cultural base and cultural brokerage. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 139–153). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Walker, R. (1991). Liberating Māori from educational subjection. Monograph No. 6, University of Auckland. Matawhanui Hui-a-tau, University of Auckland.
Notes
1&;&;&;The Māori people are recognised as the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand.
2&;&;&;Wānanga are tertiary education institutes in Aotearoa New Zealand established by the 1989 Education Amendment Act, which provide education that is characterised by āhuatanga Māori according to tikanga Māori.
3&;&;&;Te Wānanga o Aotearoa is a Tertiary Education Institute in Aotearoa New Zealand.
4&;&;&;Hampton applies these themes to native North Americans. We have contextualised this by replacing his term, “Indian”, with our term, “Māori”.
5&;&;&;Whare kura, in some instances, refers to all levels of schooling beginning from early childhood settings right through to secondary school.
6&;&;&;In 2006 Te Wānanga o Aotearoa enrolled 34,000 students, of which 26,000 were Māori. Over the last five years the average student population has been at approximately the 70 percent mark.
7&;&;&;In Aotearoa New Zealand a marae is regarded as a traditional Māori living complex, which includes a meeting house, an eating house, and several other buildings.
8&;&;&;The concept of “ako” here refers to reciprocal teaching and learning.
9&;&;&;An institution of higher learning.
10&;&;Āhuatanga Māori in accordance with tikanga Māori here means using Māori characteristics in accordance with Māori rules or customs.
Ngā kaituhituhi—The authors
All three authors are employees of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, working within the Marautanga (Curriculum) division of the institution, primarily in the role of curriculum design, development, and delivery.
Shane Edwards is Kaihautu Marautanga, Head of Curriculum Development and Management, based at the Head office of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in Te Awamutu. Other fields of interest include the examination of indigenous frameworks of knowledge and indigenous epistemologies.
Jamie Lambert is employed at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa as a kaiwhakahanga marau (curriculum designer). She is a graduate of the kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa education system. She participates in kapahaka and enjoys time spent with family.
Miriata Tauroa is a kaiwhakahanga marau (curriculum designer) employed at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. She is an active member of her marae and interested in marae development. She has a keen interest in music and performing arts.
Emails:
shane.edwards@twoa.ac.nz
jamie.lambert@twoa.ac.nz
kelly.tauroa@twoa.ac.nz