15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Conceptualizing Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Higher Education Through Co-generative Dialogue: Encounters in ‘Nodes of Tension’.
Jill Colton1, Joanne Mignone1, Diana Newport-Peace2
1University of South Australia, Australia; 2Flinders University, Australia
Presenting Author: Colton, Jill
Interdisciplinary collaboration is becoming more common as the benefits of making connections across diverse perspectives are recognized. Working across disciplines in collaborative teams is believed to mobilise diverse knowledges to create new ways of approaching the big questions of our time (Mclaughlin & Lodge, 2019). Interdisciplinary work requires deep disciplinary knowledge as well as the ability to enter into the discourses and practices of other fields of knowledge. Moving across disciplinary boundaries opens up possibilities for transaction and dialogue as relationships are developed and new ways of seeing are encountered. This can create a generative space where different kinds of knowledge are combined and coordinated for particular purposes. The research underpinning this paper aimed to investigate the experience of interdisciplinary work though iterative reflective writing informed by co-generative dialogue during and after the project. The conceptual work was infuenced by key literature about interdisciplinary practices with a focus on ‘boundary crossing’ (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), ‘boundary work’ (Newman et al., 2014) and ‘boundary encounters’ (Fitzgerald et al., 2020). The metaphor of the boundary provided a way of conceptualizing how disciplinary knowledge is black-boxed into familiar patterns and practices which must be transgressed in order to generate new knowledge. This paper came out of the project in which knowledges of illustrative design and English education was combined to lead students from two university courses in the collaborative design and production of narrative texts. We introduce the concept of ‘nodes of tension’ to describe the crucial points at which interdisciplinarity was encountered by the team as the practice of negotiation between the familiar and the unfamiliar. These nodes were identified through the method of co-generative dialogue in which we engaged over time during and after the project.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper outlines the co-generative dialogue as a method of investigating interdisciplinary collaboration. Co-generative dialogue is a method of reflexive practice used to examine our experiences with reference to our understandings of disciplinary knowledge and practice, including the different discursive practices encountered in this project. During the co-teaching and evaluation phases of the interdisciplinary work, our conversations became sites of data generation in which we discursively evolved understandings of what happened together (Roth & Tobin, 2004). Co-generative dialogue enabled us to explore different perspectives and draw on our practice to generate theory about interdisciplinary work. Our analysis was informed by key concepts from literature in the field of interdisciplinary practice, such as Kraus and Sultana’s concept of ‘disciplinary identities’ (2008) and Markauskaite and Goodyears’ notion of ‘epistemic cultures’ (2017). Our dialogue was enhanced by our developing insights into the disciplinary traditions and practices that are embedded within academic and professional work, and by our sharpened focus on the emotional labour in which we were occupied as we crossed boundaries and encountered nodes of tension. While boundaries defined what we knew and gave shape to our professional and academic identities, they could be traversed. This boundary crossing generated points which we have described as nodes of tension where uncertainty and unfamiliarity created a significant amount of emotional labour and relational work. Our method involved expanding the dialogue through shared, reflective writing through which our different perspectives were voiced, as in Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of dialogue as the sharing of ‘diverse ideas, discourses, experiences, values and cultures” (Fitzgerald et al., 2020, p. 6). We wrote in response to three co-constructed questions which had emerged from our series of dialogue events during and after the project. The focus of each writing piece was on the concept of ‘boundary encounters’ and ‘nodes of tension’. A similar method can be found in Parr et al., (2018) and (Fitzgerald et al., 2020) in their cross-generational and interfaculty studies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper argues that interdisciplinary work in higher education should be understood as intensely relational and dialogic. The quality of relationships between participants in an interdisciplinary team is crucial to enable the required risk taking and perspective shifting. Trust was a relational quality that enabled the interdisciplinary work to progress and this trust developed over time through relational encounters which were an essential part of designing and enacting the project. Dialogue between familiar and unfamiliar voices was a key element in the interdisciplinary work as meanings were negotiated and new knowledge constructed. The dialogue between different knowledges can make the work transformative but only when different voices are heard. This aspect of interdisciplinary work requires significant emotional labour in addition to the time taken to listen, reflect and co-construct. We argue that universities must be more careful to create the conditions that allow for sustained interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education. This is imperative to avoid the work becoming performative rather than transformational. We see interdisciplinary community of practice as a ‘relational encounter among individuals through which possibilities for growth are created’ (Zembylas 2007) - we grew slowly from our own disciplinary position and individual motivations into something that was more amoebic in character where disciplinary boundaries became more permeable.
ReferencesAkkerman, Sanne F., and Arthur Bakker. 2011. “Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects.” Review of Educational Research 81 (2): 132–169.
Colton, J, Joanne Mgnone & Diana Newport-Peace. 2022. "Nodes of tension: negotiating epistemic fluency in interdiscplinary co-teaching". The Australian Educational Researcher 49: 511-527.
Davies, Martin, and Marcia Devlin. 2010. “Chapter 1 Interdisciplinary Higher Education.” In Interdisciplinary Higher Education: Perspectives and Practicalities, edited by Martin Davies, Marcia Devlin, and Malcolm Tight, 5:3–28. International Perspectives on Higher Education Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3628(2010)0000005004.
Fitzgerald, Ange, Graham Parr, Judy Williams, Rachel Wellam, Bethany Howard, Stavroula Zandes, and Basia Diug. 2020. “Interfaculty Collaboration for Improving International Mobility Experiences: Sustaining a Dialogue across Difference.” Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15.
Kraus, Katrin, and Ronald G Sultana. 2008. “Problematising ‘Cross-Cultural’ Collaboration: Critical Incidents in Higher Education Settings.” Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies 13 (1): 59–83.
Kress, Gunther R. 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. Psychology Press.
Markauskaite, Lina, and Peter Goodyear. 2017. Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education: Innovation, Knowledgeable Action and Actionable Knowledge. Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Vol. 14. Professional and Practice-Based Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
McLaughlan, Rebecca, and Jason M. Lodge. 2019. “Facilitating Epistemic Fluency through Design Thinking: A Strategy for the Broader Application of Studio Pedagogy within Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (1): 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1461621.
Mills, Roderick. 2015. “Beyond Boundaries: Illustration Futures.” In Ilustrafic 2015. 2o Congreso Internacional de Ilustración, Arte y Cultura Visual, edited by Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/ILUSTRAFIC/ILUSTRAFIC2015/1133.
Newman, Sally, Beatrix Niemeyer, Terri Seddon, and Anita Devos. 2014. “Understanding Educational Work: Exploring the Analytic Borderlands around the Labour That Enables Learning.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 12 (3): 321–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.916609.
Schön, Donald. 1983. “The Reflective Practitioner.” New York.
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2007. “Risks and Pleasures: A Deleuzo‐Guattarian Pedagogy of Desire in Education.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (3): 331–47.
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Design for a Non-Formal and Interdisciplinary Learning Context: Partnership between Education Research Unit (CIDTFF-SKG) and Space Design Studio (Toyno)
Valentina Piacentini, Suliane Porto, Rui Vieira, Susana Pinto
CIDTFF (Centro de Investigação em Didática e Tecnologia na Formação de Formadores) education research unit, Portugal
Presenting Author: Piacentini, Valentina;
Porto, Suliane
The “Research-Centre-on-Didactics-and-Technology-in-the-Education-of-Trainers” (CIDTFF, from Portuguese) is a research unit associated with the Department of Education and Psychology (DEP) at the University of Aveiro (UA, Portugal). The role of education being pivotal in preparing more qualified and critical citizens in knowledge-based and globalised societies, CIDTFF research/action is focused on educational processes in formal, non-formal and informal contexts, covering their (trans)national regulation conditions and communication spaces where they are developed. By embracing perspectives of lifelong learning, inclusive and integrated education, multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Baumfield & Butterworth, 2007; Tress et al., 2005) within (inter)national networks are required, promoting research sustainability and citizen science.
Aligning with the goals of quality education (UNESCO, 2017), CIDTFF researchers seek to work articulately for the development of sustainable communities and societies and of multiliterate and critical citizens, and for a quality and evaluation of education, teacher training and research, the Open Science strategy being a priority. Furthermore, CIDTFF spaces for teaching and learning have been reconceptualised, strengthening collaboration practices and openness to society, through the conception/validation of programmes and educational resources within partnerships and networks, increasingly more sustainable and extended.
Deeper education research and teacher training synergies between university and society as well as higher visibility of research findings have, thus, been crucial CIDTFF goals, as clear in the two 2020-2024 transversal and interrelated projects (supported by National Funds through FCT – UIDB/00194/2020 and UIDP/00194/2020, CIDTFF): “Open-Education-Smart-Campus” (OESC, Laranjeiro, 2022) and “Smart-Knowledge-Garden” (SKG). SKG acts as an open and integrated research framework focused on education, teacher training and education outreach programmes (examples: https://educacaoaescuta.web.ua.pt/; https://www.ua.pt/pt/cidtff/page/24014), grounded in previous CIDTFF research (e.g., Rodrigues, 2016) and aimed at a holistic approach to education, training and research (cf. Pombo, 2008).
The development of such a “conceptual/methodological environment” involves the thematic CIDTFF Labs – which promote articulation between research, training and dissemination with(in) the Centre’s educational partners (https://www.ua.pt/en/cidtff/page/8720) – and the (undergraduate, master’s and PhD) courses offered in DEP-UA. It also includes the reconceptualisation of the Science Garden (Jardim-da-Ciência, JC) – an outdoor environment for non-formal science education activities – to become part of the broader project of a ‘Smart Knowledge Garden’ (Porto et al., 2023).
This reconceptualisation has been taking place through: 1. reconfiguration of existing JC modules with the main objective of lending a holistic character to the module-embedded physical phenomena within an interdisciplinary matrix of knowledge construction, engaging CIDTFF Labs and under/post-graduate students; 2. conceptualisation of new inter/trans-disciplinary modules (here, prefixes are used in relation to curricular subject topics rather than to research paradigms; Tress et al., 2005) with a “space experience design studio” as a partner.
Collaborative partnerships enable “delivering more with less […] by bringing together complementary services” (Baumfield & Butterworth, 2007, p. 414): design-thinking expertise from designers; learning theories and educational issues from education researchers. Moreover, since university-company partnerships involving education research areas seem limited (Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020), this partnership model is innovative. In acknowledgement of the complexity of the decision-making process and of the need to involve and benefit from different areas, a sub-team of CIDTFF researchers and educational partners (school teachers, monitors, etc.) has been working on the conceptualisation of new JC modules (SKG-JC team).
The presentation focuses on this partnership-directed process. The (research) question is how to design, through a co-creative and participatory approach, new inter/trans-disciplinary modules while also incorporating the existing JC ones into an aggregated narrative. The design and structure of the modules should be interactive, fostering experiences of knowledge discovery and involving school and university communities, and other (cultural) users/spaces in the city. The process/product can orient participatory approaches within discovery centres elsewhere in Portugal and Europe.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedCollaboration with external educational partners, recommended by UNESCO (2017), is at the heart of the JC reconceptualisation, which represents an educational challenge for a non-formal environment in a local context. Module design in the JC space and subsequent implementation of non-formal learning activities is, actually, a “significant intervention […] in a real educational context […] to create an improvement in local practice” (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16), which is thus being carried out through design-based research (DBR).
“Toyno Studio” was chosen for designing spaces for “knowledge sharing through inclusive experiences of discovery, interaction, and participation” and activities/dynamics for “positive and impactful learning experiences” (https://www.toyno.com/projects), and for having previously worked with CIDTFF. The Toyno and SKG-JC teams have collaborated since July 2022, mainly remotely, through different phases. The “conceive” phase is ongoing, following further iteration of understanding and definition (see Easterday et al., 2014).
A kickoff meeting was held to establish a common understanding, between Toyno and SKG-JC, of the purpose/meaning of the modules in JC and for SKG; focus groups were conducted by Toyno with a diversity of CIDTFF researchers to define the themes relevant to module development (water, salt, arts, gastronomy, economics) and target audience (kids aged 4-12, teachers and general public); specific (CIDTFF and non-CIDTFF) researchers/professors were nominated by SKG-JC and interviewed by Toyno to clarify/deepen specific aspects; a first workshop “to test the theme relevance with a pilot audience” was designed by Toyno and (in)validated by SKG-JC.
An “online collaborative whiteboard platform” (https://miro.com/) allowed “distributed teams”, both in Toyno internal meetings and those with SKG-JC, “to work effectively together”. In October, Toyno proposed the design of one aggregating module, centring its narrative on the natural/anthropic Ria-de-Aveiro; SKG-JC accepted its form and core theme, but did not agree with topics connected with arts, mathematics or literature being presented as additional activities rather than integrated in the module. A new proposal was presented to the whole CIDTFF community a month later and feedback was categorised and summarised by a SKG-JC sub-team, and shared with Toyno. This participatory process highlighted the need for going beyond topics of compartmentalised subjects and initiating the experience through non-curricular aspects and themes. The two groups, working more and more as one team, in the last 3-4 months have discussed the importance of a macro-to-micro narrative for the module, messages relevant for the audience to achieve through exploring it and related possible learning experiences.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs Barab and Squire (2004) remind, “the design is conceived not just to meet local needs, but to advance a theoretical agenda” (p. 5). SKG-JC has gained significant insights about the process of sense-making within this design partnership (cf. “relational learning process”, Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020). For example, the meaning of “content” or “exhibition” needed to be negotiated between SKG-JC and Toyno and “meta-curricular” used by SKG-JC researchers required clarification. Moreover, researchers and designers may have “different understandings of research” (Baumfield & Butterworth, 2007, p. 414).
The module development is now being reconceptualised. Co-constructing an inter/trans-disciplinary module based on a holistic approach to knowledge is challenging, as is the complex nature of the project in which the module is integrated. This DBR benefits from culturally diverse professions, being a synergy between an education research unit and a space design company. Toyno, mainly, drives toward a practical outcome – design of a module and narrative for the SKG context – and SKG-JC, mainly, advances integrating the knowledge from this co-construction process within SKG (trainings, dissemination, etc.). Through a participatory approach, this is a “participatory study” with academic and non-academic actors collaborating (Tress et al., 2005), in a problematic situation (Baumfield & Butterworth, 2007), developing useful interventions as well as contributing to the conceptual/methodological intersection envisaged in the education-training-research SKG framework. Further stages will also involve CIDTFF Labs and the local community.
This university-company partnership represents a social innovation, which affords possibilities for studies at master’s and doctorate levels – an educational form still neglected (Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020) – while also researching educational processes/resources and creating non-formal learning experiences for a diversity of stakeholders. Although CIDTFF belongs to the Portuguese context, this process sustains a global dialogue about how knowledge can be constructed, translated and enjoyed within an education research unit.
References- Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
- Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Introduction: Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
- Baumfield, V., & Butterworth, M. (2007). Creating and translating knowledge about teaching and learning in collaborative school–university research partnerships: An analysis of what is exchanged across the partnerships, by whom and how. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 13(4), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600701391960
- Easterday, M. W., Lewis, D. R., & Gerber, E. M. (2014). Design-Based Research process: Problems, phases, and applications. ICLS 2014 Proceedings, 317-324. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/1130/1/317-324.pdf
- Laranjeiro, D. (2022, November 17-19). Open Education Smart Campus–technological development of an educational platform [Paper presentation]. 2022 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), Coimbra, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE56031.2022.9982359
- Nsanzumuhire, S. U., & Groot, W. (2020). Context perspective on University-Industry Collaboration processes: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120861
- Pombo, O. (2008). Epistemologia da Interdisciplinaridade. Ideação – Revista do Centro de Educação e Letras. 10(1), 9-40. https://e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/ideacao/article/view/4141/3187
- Porto, S., Piacentini, V., & Vieira, R. (2023). O “Jardim da Ciência” como contexto de educação e investigação interdisciplinar: Uma trajetória para o Smart Knowledge Garden. Revista Internacional de Pesquisa em Didática das Ciências e Matemática, 4, e023005. https://periodicoscientificos.itp.ifsp.edu.br/index.php/revin/article/view/904
- Rodrigues, A. V. (2016). Perspetiva Integrada de Educação em Ciências: Da teoria à prática. UA Editora.
- Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. (2005). Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application (pp. 13-26). Springer.
- UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning objectives. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Researching for, with and alongside Indigenous communities: An Aotearoa New Zealand case study
Melinda Webber, Camilla Highfield
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Presenting Author: Webber, Melinda;
Highfield, Camilla
Topic: This paper reports the results of a research partnership project designed to investigate the specific school-based interventions that positively impacted indigenous Māori students’ academic motivation and in-school engagement within a community of schools in New Zealand. Student, family, school leader, and teacher perspectives were examined to understand which interventions were most successful for Māori students and why. The results revealed a desire by school leaders to develop and enhance a localised and relevant curriculum, utilising culturally responsive teaching approaches, which prioritised Māori language and cultural knowledge. Initiatives to address inequity and mitigate poverty were also prioritised by school leaders. The results of this study have implications for schools serving culturally diverse communities globally.
Objective: This project was designed with Māori, for Māori, and by Māori (Durie 2006) and provided an opportunity to address themes of strategic importance regarding raising educational success of Māori students within the New Zealand education system (Ministry of Education, 2022). This research project was aligned with a professional development initiative within 12 schools in a low-socio economic area of a regional city in New Zealand. The schools had appointed professional development leaders who worked collaboratively with a focus of raising Māori student engagement and motivation at school as Māori make up over 60% of the school population demographic in this community. The research design sought to examine Māori student success from the perspective of Māori students, their families, community members, and teachers from one iwi (tribal) region. Their research concluded that collaborations between academics and practitioners that draw upon indigenous perspectives with an inquiry-focused methodology have much to contribute, firstly in New Zealand and, secondly, in other culturally diverse research contexts. This project, conducted through a research–practice partnership (Coburn et al., 2013), involved school leaders and teachers as researcher–practitioners working alongside academic researchers to identify the interventions, teacher practices, and leadership decisions that supported Māori students to be successful on their own terms.
Theoretical Framework: The Kaupapa Māori approach utilised in this research project meant that ethical, methodological, and cultural matters were given precedence and influenced decisions regarding methods, technologies, participant preferences, communication strategies, and the dissemination of the research findings. The full research team was focused on ensuring that Māori perspectives and ideas were at the forefront of the initiative, and every effort was made to ensure Māori culture and language was foregrounded and respected while also being cognisant of the contemporary realities of the participants.
Culturally Sustaining Schooling (CSS), also known as culturally relevant pedagogy or culturally responsive teaching, is a collective approach to teaching that focuses on raising the achievement of diverse students who have, historically, been underserved by the education system (Castagno & Brayboy 2008). CSS assumes that a firm grounding in one’s language, culture and history is a fundamental prerequisite for the development of culturally healthy students and communities, and an essential ingredient for identifying the appropriate qualities and practices associated with culturally sustaining educators, curricula, and schools (Alaska Native Knowledge Network 1998). In the New Zealand context, CSS approaches use Māori students’ ethnic and cultural backgrounds as a context for learning, and attempts to connect “to and through [students’] personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual capabilities, and their prior accomplishments” (Gay 2010, p. 26). Paris’ (2012) definition of culturally sustaining pedagogy expands on these assertions by promoting learning opportunities where students and teachers deliberately perpetuate, foster and sustain cultural knowledge, practices and language.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis project, which employed a mixed-methods case-study design, involved gathering quantitative and qualitative data from teachers, school leaders, principals, students, and their families within 12 schools during the 2020 school year (Table 1). Case study is considered a qualitative method, distinguishable by its use of multiple data sources (Yin 2003), but with the potential for integration of qualitative and quantitative data (Baxter & Jack 2008). It is the convergence, or integration, of multiple data sources that “adds strength to the findings as the various strands of data are braided together to promote a greater understanding of the case” (Baxter & Jack 2008, p. 554). In this case study, we examined the specific interventions that made the biggest difference to Māori student engagement in learning. The data gathering coincided with and was affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic, when schools in New Zealand were impacted by extended lockdown conditions. The project adhered to ethical principles and practices, including informed consent, protection of vulnerable students, anonymity, and confidentiality, as outlined by iwi (tribal) protocols and the University of Auckland Code for Human Ethics (Approval Number: 024166).
Data Sources: Data were drawn from three sources. Firstly the Kia Tu Rangatira Ai Survey which included separate questionnaires for students, whānau and teachers which were administered in all 12 schools and were completed by over 3,000 participants (Table 1). The survey was completed between February-September, 2020. Data from the questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics on the quantitative data (e.g., mean scores). Qualitative data in the open-ended questions were thematically analysed using a culturally responsive and pedagogical lens with a second analysis carried out to identify key themes.
Secondly, interviews were conducted with each of the school leaders in the twelve schools to understand the extent and effectiveness of deliberate interventions at each school level that would support the social and academic outcomes of Māori students.
Finally, two focus group interviews were conducted. The first with 22 leaders and teachers to collaboratively analyse the data gathered during the survey and interview phases of the project. The second focus group consisted of 22 Māori-medium teachers who were themselves fluent speakers of Māori language and who conducted their curriculum teaching in Māori. This focus supported a strong Māori perspective and response to the findings. These focus group conversations were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analysed using open-ended thematic analysis to identify themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDeveloping a localised culturally appropriate curriculum was considered by school leaders to be extremely important in order to engage students in their learning. They described a commitment to developing curriculum which incorporated learning about local histories, Māori role models, extended use and understanding of Māori language by school staff and connections to local communities.
School leaders were focused on reducing inequity by supporting initiatives that improved the health and wellbeing of their students. Leaders of schools that experienced the greatest inequity discussed “food in schools” programmes that ensured all students had access to healthy school breakfast and lunch, and investment in healthy play options such as cycle tracks, adventure playgrounds, and new physical education gear. During the pandemic related lockdown conditions in New Zealand, school support for families extended beyond the school gate to ensure students had access to learning materials, food and school holiday programmes such as swimming lessons.
School leaders noted challenges for students and their teachers arising from inequity around the use of digital technology. The notion of technological poverty is a national and international trend that was made increasingly visible during the lockdown requirements of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The survey results clearly revealed that Māori parents have high
This project has relevance for international educational researchers and communities as the design has provided an opportunity to consider the types of interventions that will support culturally diverse education communities facing challenging circumstances to flourish and thrive.
ReferencesCastagno, A., & Brayboy, B. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54308323036
Choi, K., Giridharan, N., Cartmell, A., Lum, D., Signal, L., Puloka, V., Crossin, R., Gray, L., Davies, C., Baker, M., & Kvalsvig, A. (2021). Life during lockdown: a qualitative study of low-income New Zealanders' experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online), 134(1538), 52-68. https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/life-during-lockdown-a-qualitative-study-of-low-income-new-zealanders-experience-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-open-access
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College.
Highfield, C., & Webber, M. (2021). Mana Ūkaipō: Māori Student Connection, Belonging and Engagement at School. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56, 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00226-z
Mirza, U. M., Richter, A., van Nes, E. H., & Scheffer, M. (2019). Technology driven inequality leads to poverty and resource depletion. Ecological Economics, 160, 215-266.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 0013189X12 441244
Webber, M & Macfarlane, A. (2018). The transformative role of tribal knowledge and genealogy in indigenous student success. In L. Smith & E. McKinley (Eds.), Indigenous handbook of education (pp. 1049–1074). Springer.
Webber, M., McKinley, E., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2016). Making it personal: Academic counselling with Māori students and their families. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.001
McKinley, E., & Webber, M. (2018). Whāia te ara whetu: Navigating change in mainstream secondary schooling for indigenous students. In E. McKinley & L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of indigenous education (pp. 1319–1346). Springer.
|
