Formal and Informal Indigenous Education

2014 ◽  
pp. 77-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Wotherspoon
Keyword(s):  
2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Mateos

This paper analyses the ways transfer of the discourse on interculturality and intercultural education, as it has been coined and shaped by European anthropologists and pedagogues, towards educational actors and institutions in Latin America. My ethnographic data illustrate how this intercultural discourse is currently transferred through intellectual networks to different kinds of Mexican actors who are actively “translating” this discourse into the post-indigenismo situation of “indigenous education” and ethnic claims making in Mexico. On the basis of fieldwork conducted in two different institutions in the state of Veracruz, the appropriation and re-interpretation of, as well as the resistance against, the European discourse of interculturality are studied by comparing the training of “intercultural and bilingual” teachers through the state educational authorities and the notion of intercultural education, as applied within the so-called “Intercultural University of Veracruz”.


Author(s):  
Stacey Kim Coates ◽  
Michelle Trudgett ◽  
Susan Page

Abstract There is clear evidence that Indigenous education has changed considerably over time. Indigenous Australians' early experiences of ‘colonialised education’ included missionary schools, segregated and mixed public schooling, total exclusion and ‘modified curriculum’ specifically for Indigenous students which focused on teaching manual labour skills (as opposed to literacy and numeracy skills). The historical inequalities left a legacy of educational disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Following activist movements in the 1960s, the Commonwealth Government initiated a number of reviews and forged new policy directions with the aim of achieving parity of participation and outcomes in higher education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Further reviews in the 1980s through to the new millennium produced recommendations specifically calling for Indigenous Australians to be given equality of access to higher education; for Indigenous Australians to be employed in higher education settings; and to be included in decisions regarding higher education. This paper aims to examine the evolution of Indigenous leaders in higher education from the period when we entered the space through to now. In doing so, it will examine the key documents to explore how the landscape has changed over time, eventually leading to a number of formal reviews, culminating in the Universities Australia 2017–2020 Indigenous Strategy (Universities Australia, 2017).


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Vanessa Van Bewer ◽  
Roberta L Woodgate ◽  
Donna Martin ◽  
Frank Deer

Learning about the historical and current context of Indigenous peoples’ lives and building campus communities that value cultural safety remains at the heart of the Canadian educational agenda and have been enacted as priorities in the Manitoba Collaborative Indigenous Education Blueprint. A participatory approach informed by forum theater and Indigenous sharing circles involving collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health care professionals ( n = 8) was employed to explore the above priorities. Through the workshop activities, vignettes were created and performed to an audience of students and educators ( n = 7). The findings emerging from the workshop illuminated that Indigenous people in nursing and higher education face challenges with negotiating their identity, lateral violence and struggle to find safe spaces and people due to tokenism and a paucity of physical spaces dedicated to Indigenous students. This study contributed to provoking a greater understanding of Indigenous experiences in higher education and advancing reconciliation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. e265-e269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari A. B. Chew ◽  
Vanessa Anthony-Stevens
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-184
Author(s):  
Lorrin Ruihi Shortland ◽  
Terry Locke

This article reports on what happened when a Rumaki pūtaiao kaiako (Science) teacher at a New Zealand high school trialled the use of creative narratives with her Year-10 students as a way of developing their understanding of the human digestive system. These students were members of the school's Māori immersion unit, and creative narratives were in part utilised as a bridge between science discourse and the cultural knowledges these students brought to their learning. In this case study, students developed ‘Tomato Pip’ narratives through four versions, which told the story of a tomato pip travelling through the human digestive system. Word-count data based on these versions and from a summative test were analysed and correlations found between test scores and three categories of word-count total (total words, total science words and total discrete science words). A discourse analysis of one student's narratives identified two distinct voices in these texts: the personal narrator and the emerging biologist. Questionnaire and focus-group data indicated that the use of creative narratives was both motivational to these students and effective as a bridge into science discourse mastery. It is argued that the findings have implications for disciplinary literacy theory, Indigenous education and science instruction.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Schimmel

AbstractThe right to an education that is consonant with and draws upon the culture and language of indigenous peoples is a human right which is too often overlooked by governments when they develop and implement programmes whose purported goals are to improve the social, economic and political status of these peoples. Educational programmes for indigenous peoples must fully respect and integrate human rights protections, particularly rights to cultural continuity and integrity. Racist attitudes dominate many government development programmes aimed at indigenous peoples. Educational programmes for indigenous peoples are often designed to forcibly assimilate them and destroy the uniqueness of their language, values, culture and relationship with their native lands. Until indigenous peoples are empowered to develop educational programmes for their own communities that reflect and promote their values and culture, their human rights are likely to remain threatened by governments that use education as a political mechanism for coercing indigenous peoples to adapt to a majority culture that does not recognize their rights, and that seeks to destroy their ability to sustain and pass on to future generations their language and culture.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (35) ◽  
pp. 065-080
Author(s):  
張耀宗 張耀宗

<p>本文主要目的在於從《臺灣蕃人事情》報告,來看日治初期官方原住民教育政策之形成。《臺灣蕃人事情》是民政部事務囑託伊能嘉矩和粟野傳之丞呈給民政長官後藤新平的覆命書,此覆命書係為實施蕃人教育預作準備。本書大部分內容由人類學調查所組成,可作為從人類學的角度看待教育的特殊視角。在蕃人教育措施準備上,覆命書中提及針對各族原住民「開化發達」的程度不同,給予適當之教育措施。對照日本總督府隨後原住民教育政策之發展,覆命書確實有其若合符節之處,也有差異之處。會有差異之處的原因,在於殖產部門所管轄的原住民區域,發展出與文教部門不同的原住民教育措施。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>The main purpose of this article is to analyze the relation between the formation of the official indigenous education policy in the early period of Japanese colony and the report &ldquo;The History and Custom of Taiwan Indigenous Peoples &quot;. &ldquo;The History and Custom of Taiwan Indigenous Peoples &ldquo;was the official report for the Chief of the Civil Affairs, Goto Shinpei, by two officials of Department of Civil Affairs, Ino Kanori and Suo Chuanji. The purpose of survey was the preparations for educating indigenous peoples. Most part of this report was based on field study, which could help to see education from an anthropological perspective. For establishing an education system for indigenous peoples, it divided to the different levels of civilization of each different ethnic group of indigenous peoples, and then gave each an appropriate education. Comparing the subsequent development of the indigenous education system that Taiwan Governor’s Office of Japanese initiated, it found there were some similarity and difference between the official report and the practical policy. The reason for the difference based on the development of indigenous educational policy that was different from the educational unit in the indigenous areas under the jurisdiction of the developmental department.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document