in Latin America: Documenting Indigenous Teachers Teaching Science in Southern Mexico
Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation
Authors Grino, Paulina
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.
Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 19/01/2022 14:26:51
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/636524
SCIENCE TEACHING AND INDIGENOUS EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA:
DOCUMENTING INDIGENOUS TEACHERS TEACHING SCIENCE IN SOUTHERN MEXICO
By
Paulina Grino Morales, M.A.
___________________________
Copyright © Paulina Grino Morales 2019
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
THE DEPARTMENT OF TEACHING, LEARNING & SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WITH A MAJOR: TEACHING & TEACHER EDUCATION, SCIENCE EDUCATION
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2019
Acknowledgements
Como todos los demás logros en mi vida, comienzo por agradecer a mis abuelos, y en particular a mi abuela Laura quien probablemente fue la primera en introducirme a las ideas desobedientes. Agradezco y reconozco a mi mamá y mi papá quienes me motivaron a leer y escribir y a interesarme siempre por el conocimiento. Sus expectativas sobre mi futuro educativo e intelectual han determinado este camino, tal y como lo reporta la literatura. Le agradezco infinitamente a Amaya, mi más leal compañera.
Le agradezco a cada uno y una de mis amigos y amigas, sin excepción, que han estado conmigo firmes en este proceso. En particular a la comunidad estudiantil en Tucson, AZ. Sin ustedes esta tarea habría sido imposible. Gracias por soportarme, por alimentarme, distraerme, armar sesiones de trabajo, lectura y escritura y estar conmigo en momentos de profunda desilusión, y por supuesto también por celebrarme.
Agradezco a la Maestra Erika, maestro Felipe, maestra Vicky, y maestra Beo cuya participación en este trabajo fue fundamental, emotiva, significativa y fue más allá de cualquier expectativa que yo haya podido tener. Junto a ellos, a mi comité académico, Dra. Sara Tolbert, Dra. Vanessa Anthony-Stevens, Dr. Alberto Arenas y Dr. Jeremy García, y a Dra. Corey Knox, mantuve conversaciones que no solo sostienen este trabajo, sino que también reafirman y alimentan mis ideales profundos de justicia social. Infinitas gracias para ustedes.
Por último, quiero agradecer a Alyssa & Dennis y al desierto de Sonora por recibirme, deslumbrarme, e inspirarme, no solo a mi, sino que también a mi más leal compañera, por tantos momentos durante este periodo.
Dedication
A todas las mujeres de mi familia que vieron truncada su educación: los peldaños que ustedes construyeron conducen a este trabajo.
A mi hija Amaya.
“What knowledge do you privilege?”
-Margaret Kovach (2009)
Table of Content
Table of Figures ... 10
ABSTRACT ... 11
Prologue ... 13
Introduction: “The curriculum had to begin in the community” ... 18
Theoretical Frameworks: from the U.S. to Latin American ... 19
Multicultural, Indigenous, Intercultural, and Community Education ... 20
Research Question ... 24
Mode of Inquiry ... 25
Conceptual Framework ... 27
Multicultural Education and the Beginning of Intercultural Education ... 28
Culturally responsive pedagogies. ... 31
Focus on identifying the tension between WS and IK in the classroom. ... 33
Focus on teaching strategies to incorporate IK in science classrooms. ... 34
Focus on teachers’ perspectives when incorporated IK into science classrooms. ... 35
Indigenous Education and Native Science ... 37
Science Education and Non-western Students ... 40
Intercultural Education ... 41
History of intercultural education. ... 42
Bilingual intercultural education: general conflicts and challenges. ... 45
Implementation of bilingual intercultural education: some cases. ... 47
Intercultural education and science education. ... 49
Conclusions on intercultural education. ... 51
Community Education ... 52
Mexican teachers’ identity and history of resistance ... 54
Mexican educational system. ... 58
Conclusions ... 59
Research Methodology ... 61
The Project ... 61
Research Questions ... 61
Research Design ... 62
Role of researcher. ... 64
Reciprocity. ... 65
Positionality ... 66
Negotiating Methodologies: Decolonizing Educational Research ... 67
Research Sites: Indigenous Towns ... 69
Zapotecs: a Oaxacan Civilization ... 71
Plan para la Transformación de la Educación de Oaxaca, PTEO. ... 73
Escuelas Autónomas Zapatistas ... 77
Professional Development Program, PD ... 80
Research Participants ... 81
Data Collection ... 82
Data Analysis ... 86
Coding and themeing strategy. ... 87
Common Themes ... 89
Report of Research Questions ... 90
Strategies for Validity ... 91
Teachers’ Identity ... 92
Felipe: “Que el Zapoteco sea la lengua que se estudie en la escuela” ... 92
Becoming a teacher – the chronological story. ... 92
El Zapoteco. ... 95
Becoming a teacher: challenges ... 98
Felipe’s teaching and teaching practices: “yo necesito que sean unos niños investigadores” ... 100
Classroom and classroom dynamics ... 100
Teaching practices and resources ... 105
Teaching challenges. ... 116
Vicky’s Teacher Identity: “Yo quiero ir a estudiar y quiero ser maestra” 120 Becoming a teacher – the chronological story. ... 120
Leadership: “pues era increíble como de ser maestra pasé a ser directora”. ... 124
Gender theme. “’Ella va a ser la directora´. Yo digo: ¿y qué voy a hacer con 22 compañeros?” ... 128
Vicky’s Teaching Practices ... 131
Classroom and classroom dynamics: description and a general view. ... 131
Teaching practices: “la cultura, el territorio, son elementos que ayudan mucho para trabajar con los niños”. ... 135
Teaching practices and resources. ... 138
Teaching challenges. ... 142
Beo: “Yo quiero que haya estas posibilidades, no quiero ver niños más
dedicados a estar siempre trabajando sin esperanza” ... 143
Becoming a teacher – the chronological story. ... 143
Teacher identity and community wellbeing. ... 146
Beo’s Teaching Practices: “Después de que ya preguntan qué quieren saber, definimos dónde con quiénes, y cómo podemos investigar” ... 149
Classroom dynamics. ... 149
Teaching practices. ... 152
Teaching challenges. ... 156
Discussion and Implications ... 163
De-colonizing Practices ... 163
Teachers’ Pedagogies ... 165
Pedagogy and Language ... 169
Teachers’ Challenges ... 171
Community and parents expectations. ... 171
Teachers’ expectations. ... 174
Implications for Science Education ... 175
Conclusions ... 180
Place as Pedagogy ... 182
Community as Resource for Teaching ... 183
Report on Research Questions ... 185
RQ.1 How do indigenous elementary teachers from Oaxaca teach science? ... 185
RQ.2 How does their science teaching reflect on local and indigenous paradigms for teaching science? ... 186
RQ.3 What obstacles have teachers encountered in the process of teaching science?
... 187
RQ.4 How have teachers tried to overcome such obstacles? ... 188 Bibliography ... 189
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Maps of the Americas ... 15
Figure 2: Map of Mexico ... 16
Figure 3: Map of Chile ... 17
Figure 4: overview of the three research sites ... 70
Figure 5: Zapotec settlements in Oaxaca (Whitecotton, 1984b) ... 73
Figure 6: Equidistant axes for socialization and construction of knowledge ... 75
Figure 7: Taller Estatal de Educación Alternativa, TEEA. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 respectively ... 77
Figure 8: Felipe's classroom. Resources for teaching: model of the human organs ... 101
Figure 9: Felipe's classrom. Classroom configurations and sitting arrangement ... 101
Figure 10: students' work. Nervous system ... 115
Figure 11: Students' work. Digestive system ... 115
Figure 12: Students' work. Circulatory system ... 116
Figure 13: Students' work. A model of the heart ... 116
Figure 14: Vicky's classroom ... 132
Figure 15: Vicky's classroom: resources for teaching ... 134
Figure 16: Vicky's classroom. Students' work ... 134
Figure 17: Vicky's classroom. Rules for the classroom ... 134
Figure 18: Vicky's classroom. Resources in Zapoteco language ... 134
Figure 19: Beo's classroom. Students' work. Modeling tools ... 150
Figure 20: Beo's classroom. Classroom's rules ... 150
Figure 21: Beo's classroom. Configuration and teaching ... 150
Figure 22: Beo's classroom ... 150
Figure 23: Beo's classroom. Students' work ... 156
Figure 24: Beo's classroom, students' work ... 156
Figure 25: National standards and community knowledge integrated in the classroom ... 167
Figure 26: stages of teaching ... 168
ABSTRACT
This research project examines indigenous teachers in rural schools located in a state in southern Mexico, particularly when teaching science. The incorporation of indigenous ways of understanding nature into science classrooms has been of discussion in the field of science education, mainly due to the marginalization and low performance of indigenous students in science. The literature in this field has documented recommendations to teach science to these students that are generally based on teaching strategies that connect indigenous knowledge to science knowledge. Most of these recommendations have been designed within the Western world and are highly conceptual, which leaves some aspects to explore, e.g. what happens in science classrooms beyond conceptual recommendations, and what frameworks serve education and research in Latin America, particularly in science education. This project documents what teachers do in science classrooms, acknowledging their role as experts in their communities.
This project provides a perspective on multicultural education, culturally relevant pedagogies, and indigenous education as frameworks developed in the U.S., and intercultural education developed in Latin America and currently implemented in the region as bilingual intercultural education, in relation to science education.
Based on preliminary studies and by using an interpretive qualitative study, this project used ethnographic methods to document teacher practices implemented to teach science in southern rural Mexico. Data collected was in form of interviews, classroom observations, field notes, and pictures, from three elementary schools and three indigenous teachers. Research methodology implemented attempted to challenge traditional and hegemonic ways to conduct research with indigenous populations, and particularly women. In doing so, I engaged in teachers’
regular work life such as planning, teaching, and weekly meetings, in addition to engaging with teachers’ family life such childcare and domestic duties.
Findings showed: first, negotiations teachers do between their perspectives about the natural world and the national standards in regard to content and way of teaching. Secondly,
resources used for teaching are language, community members, and nature, as well as textbooks, encyclopedias and similar resources. Third, within such resources, Zapotec culture and language is embedded, therefore teaching science results in articulating both indigenous culture and science.
Finally, findings uncovered some of the challenges teachers face, one of them being having to negotiate with community members and particularly parents whose educational expectation about their children differed from teachers’ expectations. While teachers believe and implement an education that aligns with indigenous values and culture, e.g. actively using native language in the classroom, parents expect a more conventional education that allows their children to access to new educational, social and economic opportunities.
This study illuminates teaching strategies that have been implemented to teach science in rural areas, in a field that has been focused on theoretical recommendations and exemplary teaching. Beyond differences between indigenous knowledge and science, this project examined such differences from Oaxacan teachers’ perspectives.
Prologue
I have been working with science educators for almost fifteen years, and particularly with in-service elementary teachers for over ten years. As a chemist, I used to believe that the issue in science education in my home country, Chile, was the lack of pure science knowledge. I worked developing science curriculum, workshops, professional development programs, in-class support, and so on. My work has always been grounded on underserved schools, where, I believed this lack of science knowledge was strongest and more visible.
During my graduate school course work, I worked for a professional development program designed for Mexican indigenous educators, as a science instructor. It was then when I felt a different aspect among the teachers I was working with, and particularly in regard to their discourse about science. To learn about this, I conducted small research projects, fundamentally to support my research-training. This project aimed to learn about teachers’ previous experiences in science education, as students and teachers. As conducted this project more than once, my perspective on them was to learn about Mexican education. I knew very well the Chilean urban context and what the teachers I used to work with, knew, and did in their classrooms. However, I knew very little about Mexican and rural education.
To conduct these projects, I used concepts from two frameworks: indigenous education in the U.S., and culturally responsive pedagogies, both widely used in the U.S. to conduct research with indigenous population and minorities in general. My interest kept growing as I realized the experience these teachers had in science education had a different focus and purpose. Having conducted these short projects helped me not only to explore the research associated to the education of minorities in the U.S., but it also allowed me to apply to a small research grant for graduate students through the Department of Latin-American Studies, that provided the resources to actually travel to southern Mexico.
I spent about three weeks in Oaxaca. I quickly learned that frameworks I was using did not reflect on the context where these teachers worked. In other words, I was not looking at these
teachers with appropriate lenses. After conducting research on similar frameworks in Latin America, I became more familiar with intercultural education, a framework mostly used in Latin America as Bilingual Intercultural Education (BIE). This framework conceptualizes classrooms as places for cultural exchange, yet its implementation does not reflect on such definition.
Despite my own theoretical discussion, this research project has always had the same purpose: documenting teachers’ science teaching practice in rural and indigenous contexts as much of these practices are highly underserved in academic literature. Indigenous teachers of elementary education in rural environments face different realities than those who work in urban environments. These differences go from teacher education to actual communities such as school environments, students, resources and so on. Within this framework, my general research
question has been: how do indigenous teachers teach science in indigenous classrooms? This projects also attempted to connect theoretical frameworks developed along the Americas in regard to indigenous education.
I began this journey as an immigrant woman. I traveled from Santiago, Chile to Tucson, AZ to mainly pursue graduate school. During my Ph.D. coursework, I studied multiple
frameworks that study the educational experience of underrepresented and marginalized
communities in the U.S. From Tucson, AZ, I traveled to Oaxaca, Mexico to conduct this project, after which I came back to U.S. These trips have allowed me to study and use frameworks that theorize and conceptualize education outside of the U.S. The following are maps to locate geographically Chile and the city of Santiago, Mexico and the state of Oaxaca, and the U.S. and the state of Arizona.
Figure 1: Maps of the Americas
Figure 2: Map of Mexico
Figure 3: Map of Chile
Introduction: “The curriculum had to begin in the community”
I became involved in the Chilean educational system as a former scientist, supporting elementary teachers planning and enacting science lessons. By doing this work, I observed the great social and economic disparities within educational communities, as well as the ones in accessing to scientific knowledge. Later, I worked with rural Mexican elementary teachers, teaching a science methods course as part of an academic and professional development program.
In teaching this class, we discussed goals for science education, reviewed different teaching approaches for it, and developed various science lesson plans to enact them in elementary schools. As cohorts of teachers were participating in this course, I could observe a special and different focus that these teachers placed on science.
Sensing these differences was not enough to adapt my practice as a science methods instructor, and I conducted brief research projects that also served as a researcher-training opportunity. The goal of this initial study was to explore participants’ experiences in science education. Some of the findings of this project showed that, in general, participants’ experiences in science teaching are related to some extent to their local communities, and some practices of these communities. This resonates with theoretical conceptualizations of indigenous knowledge, a term that has been described in the literature as practices that are locally developed within a native community and that are in high concordance to the natural conditions that exist in such a community (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Shizha, 2008). After my brief study and despite the exploratory but interesting findings, I had more questions than answers. Thus, I managed to continue investigating my students’ (who were teachers) previous experiences in science education, by conducting a second study. The goals of this second study were: first, to explore participants’ teaching experiences; and second, to keep building on this theoretical
conceptualization of indigenous knowledge. Findings from this study showed a discussion among teachers about the cultural relevancy of the national curriculum that currently exists in Mexico (Grino, 2015). For some participants, this curriculum is not relevant for indigenous population in,
which, from their perspective leads to the loss of language and culture. To elaborate, some educators expressed that centralized curricula were not representative of rural communities, and that “[school] curriculum had to begin in the community”. For other participants, their work as teachers was to be able to connect the national curriculum to local communities within school classrooms, as one of the participants said: “our job is to put [the national curriculum] in context”.
These research projects were framed within American indigenous education, and current theoretical discussions about the conceptualization of science and indigenous knowledge within the field of education. These academic and theoretical discussions have explained the
marginalization and underrepresentation of indigenous students in science and science-related careers. The main argument is that the disconnections that exist between science and indigenous ways of knowing are translated into the educational system, where science is taught to indigenous students in a way that is dissonant to their ways of understanding the world (Aikenhead &
Michell, 2011; Cajete, 1994; McKinley & Gan, 2014). Generally, research in this field has been conducted within mainstream schooling, where indigenous students represent a minority in schools.
My proposed research takes a decidedly different stance; I propose to look at the science teaching practice of indigenous elementary teachers who serve indigenous students within indigenous communities, to answer to the following research question: how do indigenous teachers teach science in indigenous classrooms? The purpose of this project is documenting classroom practices that have been marginalized within western educational research. Findings will illuminate teachers’ negotiations between western science and indigenous ways of knowing and understanding nature in school classrooms.
Theoretical Frameworks: from the U.S. to Latin American
This research project was initiated during a very unique moment of my life. I was teaching a science method course to indigenous Mexican teachers in an U.S. university in the context of a professional development program while completing my doctoral coursework as a
Chilean and international graduate student. As a consequence, the frameworks I used were indigenous education and science education in America (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Cajete, 2000; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; McKinley & Gan, 2014) and culturally responsive pedagogies (Gay, 2010b; Ladson-Billings, 1995; McKinley & Gan, 2014), all of which are frameworks developed within the U.S. context.
Contextualizing this research in Oaxaca, allowed me to explore frameworks in Latin America where, intercultural education has been widely used particularly during the last 20 years.
This model was designed to implement education and conduct research with indigenous population (Williamson & Flores Silva, 2013), whereas in the U.S. frameworks such as
multicultural education (Banks, 2015b; Sleeter & Grant, 2009) and culturally relevant pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 1995) are more frequent to conduct research with marginalized populations. In the state of Oaxaca, there is a strong teacher movement whose intellectuals have theorized schooling as community education (educación comunitaria) and Comunalidad (Maldonado Alvarado, 2010, 2016; Martínez, 2002). Both of these terms conceptualize the use of rural
community practices, largely rooted in indigenous perspectives, in elementary school classrooms.
Therefore, this dissertation includes perspectives on multicultural education in the U.S. and intercultural and indigenous education in Latin America.
Multicultural, Indigenous, Intercultural, and Community Education
I will briefly introduce what multicultural, indigenous, intercultural and community education have been conceptualized as and its relationship to science education. It has been widely accepted that the multicultural education movement has been developed in the U.S. as a consequence of the Civil Rights Movement and the need of including African-American students into mainstream schooling (Banks, 2015b; Sleeter & Grant, 2009). Scholars have argued that multicultural education is a broad theoretical framework that aims to include not only ethnic diversity but also cultural, gender, and social diversity (Grant & Sleeter, 1986; Williamson, 2004). Beyond prescribed curriculum and pedagogies, multicultural education encourages school
communities to find their own ways to live within a multicultural environment (Grant & Sleeter, 1986; Sleeter, 2001).
In the case of Latin America, multicultural education has supported the development of theoretical frameworks that have allowed the study of diverse population into school systems such as intercultural education (Bertely Busquets, 2004; Dietz, 2012; Gonzalez Apodaca, 2009;
Quilaqueo & Torres, 2013). In Chile, to give an example, intercultural education has been implemented as bilingual intercultural education, a framework that served as ground to
implement bilingual education (Spanish – indigenous language) with indigenous students (Lopez
& Küper, 2000b; Riedemann Fuentes, 2008). Other countries in the region, such as Mexico and Peru have also implemented intercultural bilingual programs; however the impact of those has been questioned, mainly because these programs have tended to be highly structured limiting teachers’ agency over what they teach or what strategies teachers implemented in their classrooms (Lopez & Küper, 2000b; Programa Educacion Intercultural Bilingue & Mineduc, 2011; Williamson & Flores Silva, 2013).
The indigenous education movement in the U.S. was rooted in the marginalization of indigenous peoples and efforts to eradicate native cultures (Garcia, 2011; Stewart, 2008). Early stages of this movement were focused mainly in language reclamation: its practice in schooling and educational research within indigenous contexts. Current perspectives on indigenous education are focused on re-writing the history of indigenous peoples from their own stance. In other words, the current indigenous education paradigm provides a framework to de-colonize history and reclaim native languages and culture into schooling (Garcia, 2011; Lee, 2011).
Indigenous education in the U.S. stems from scholars and activists; in Latin America, however, intercultural education has been developed by international cooperation agencies and adopted by public educational authorities in each country in the region (Riedemann Fuentes, 2008; Williamson & Flores Silva, 2013). This has determined the high level of prescription of intercultural education curriculum when implemented in schools, intercultural schools, however
have also served as places of resistance for teachers to organize themselves, use indigenous languages, or reclaim culture (López & Sichra, 2008).
The discussion about science education and indigenous students in the U.S. and Northern hemisphere has been around the marginalization of these students from science education and related careers. Theoretical disconnections between science -conceptualized as Western science and Indigenous knowledge or native science have explained such marginalization arguing that indigenous students would not participate of both paradigms due to such disconnections
particularly manifested in science classrooms (Cajete, 1999; Middleton, Dupuis, & Tang, 2013).
In response, the literature has suggested developing bridges between indigenous ways of understanding the world and science within the classroom for students to be able to learn science and participate in both worlds. In this body of literature, there are well-documented
recommendations and ways to connect science to indigenous knowledge in the classroom (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Wall Kimmerer, 2002); there are also well documented teaching strategies that incorporate indigenous ways of understanding nature and western science (Lee, Yen, & Aikenhead, 2011; May Goulet, 2005; Ogunniyi, 2007a, 2007b, 2011; Savage et al., 2011), however the majority of these research projects have been conducted where indigenous students represent a racial minority leaving underrepresented in literature how science teaching is actually practiced among indigenous communities.
Therefore, issues of access and participation of indigenous students into science education have been described and conceptualized by frameworks developed mainly within the Western hemisphere such as culturally relevant pedagogies and indigenous education. As mentioned previously, in Latin America, intercultural education has been the most recent framework to describe such differences.
Indigenous education in Latin America has taken another form and has also evolved in time. Intercultural education was implemented as Bilingual Intercultural Education, and it is currently an effort to transform hegemonic education into one that includes indigenous education
with a particular focus on bringing indigenous students into schooling (Loncon Antileo & Hecht, 2011; Lopez & Sapón, 2011). Fundamentally, intercultural education is thought of as an ongoing dialogue among participants to enrich educational practices and avoid cultural dominance. The primary goal of this model has been to educate rural and/or indigenous students in Spanish language (Williamson & Flores Silva, 2013). More recently, this goal has changed to reclaim and revitalize indigenous cultures and languages by, for example incorporating curriculum materials in indigenous languages (Dietz & Mateos Cortes, 2011).
Looking into Oaxaca, Mexico, a state with 35% of indigenous population and a strong teacher movement (Bautista Martinez & Briseno Maas, 2010) local scholars have conceptualized community education and the term Comunalidad (Maldonado Alvarado, 2010; Martínez, 2002) as a theoretical framework to support the claim for an education that is with and for the
indigenous people of the state. In other words, indigenous and local people have developed this framework for the education of their people. Community education has been defined as a group of educational experiences that acknowledge the community as knowledge holder, thus it proposes to articulate schools and communities to educate people (Maldonado Alvarado, 2010, 2016). Comunalidad has been conceptualized as the philosophy that indigenous people of
southern Mexico carry; this philosophy is centered in the community and guides the lives of these people (Maldonado Alvarado, 2010).
Within this framework, science education becomes the study of nature particularly, how the community relates to the natural world (Direccion de Educacion Indigena Oaxaca, 2011).
Furthermore, school curriculum framed within community education, has conceptualized science education as the study of “interaction with the world”. This name suggests the study of
community members’ interactions with the environment (Direccion de Educacion Indigena Oaxaca, 2011). How this study has been designed and implemented in schools classrooms by teachers is not known or documented.
This dissertation project is attempting to document how science teaching occurs in indigenous communities located in the state of Oaxaca Mexico. Beyond theoretical differences between native science and Western perspectives of understanding nature conceptualized within the Western world, this dissertation project proposes to examine such differences from
indigenous communities perspectives to keep building on this discussion, also within Latin American frameworks. Beyond exemplary teaching strategies to incorporate indigenous knowledge into science classrooms, this project attempted to document daily teaching practices implemented to teach science and illuminate practices of indigenous teachers in rural Mexico that have been underrepresented in academic literature. In the light of a school reform that aims to be responsive to indigenous communities, cultural backgrounds and language diversity, I sought to understand the teaching practices of indigenous teachers and its relationship with local knowledge and practices.
Research Question
This dissertation began by identifying a theoretical conflict. As briefly explained, literature within Indigenous education and science education suggests developing bridges between indigenous ways of understanding the world and science within the classroom for students to be able to learn science. In this body of literature, there are well-documented recommendations and ways to connect science to indigenous knowledge in the classroom
(Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Wall Kimmerer, 2002); however, such recommendations have remained conceptual and, how indigenous teachers teach science, and negotiate different perspectives remains unknown.
As I explored conceptual frameworks to develop this dissertation, I identified that much of these conflicts can be found within intercultural education or community education, in the case of Oaxaca (Direccion de Educacion Indigena Oaxaca, 2011; Martínez, 2002). Structured
curriculum, teaching approaches, conceptual analysis of science and indigenous ways of
understating nature appear in the literature as resources for teachers however, the actual teaching
practice and analysis and conceptualization of such practices are needed in order to facilitate science learning and more importantly, to provide access to science knowledge and move into a more equal science education.
The general research question that guides this project is how do indigenous teachers teach science in indigenous classrooms? In particular, the following two research questions are more specific in relation to the context where this project took place: RQ1) How do indigenous teachers from Oaxaca teach science? and RQ2) how does their science teaching reflect local and indigenous paradigms for teaching science?
Mode of Inquiry
I conducted an interpretative qualitative study using ethnographic research methods to document how indigenous teachers negotiate among local knowledge and perspectives about the natural world, when teaching Western science. This study is based on previous explorations conducted with Mexican indigenous teachers from Oaxaca, and consequently; it took place in the same state where I could reach contacts to gain access to participants and school communities.
Particularly, I was interested in examining lesson plans, resources for teaching, and how their science teaching is characterized in the classroom along with providing participants’
perspectives on both, lessons plans and enactment. By conducting this project, the field would gain an understanding of the ways in which indigenous teachers teach science, particularly in the site where this project has been conducted.
Data was collected in the form of classroom observation, field notes, interviews, and pictures from three research sites. This process happened over a three – week period followed by transcription of interviews, and qualitative analysis that allowed me to interpret this set of data.
Findings have been organized by research participant, from which I discussed common themes that emerged from the analysis.
Generally speaking, the three teachers who participated in this project have strong indigenous identities; similar stories about how and why they became teachers, and strong beliefs
about how science teaching should occur in the classroom in regard to the use of language and community as resources for teaching. Furthermore, their struggles and challenges seems alike and highly related to the current conditions of indigenous education in the state, therefore their negotiations as classroom teachers are often between indigenous perspectives of education and school and community educational authorities.
Conceptual Framework
This dissertation project examined science teaching among indigenous communities, as this topic has been widely documented in the literature due to the marginalization and
underrepresentation of indigenous students in science (McKinley & Gan, 2014). The literature in this field has shown a disconnection between science -Western science, and traditional ways of understanding nature or native science (Abrams et al., 2014; Cajete, 2000). This body of literature, however has mainly been contextualized in western countries such as the U.S. and Canada (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008), and some countries in Africa (Hewson & Ogunniyi, 2011; Ogunniyi, 2007a). This field includes perspectives on Multicultural Education, Culturally Relevant Pedagogies, and Indigenous Education.
In Latin America, Indigenous people have an extensive variation of history, culture, communities, relations, and languages within the continent. To begin attempting defining this term, it becomes necessary to acknowledge the vast variety of diverse peoples before colonialism more than 500 of years ago (Báez-Jorge, 1993; Peyser & Chackiel, 1994). Governmental and non-governmental institutions have worked on criteria to identify indigenous populations, some of them are: language spoken, self-identity and the self-sense of belonging to a group, and geographical location (Peyser & Chackiel, 1994) and that had been self-governance before colonization (Grande, San Pedro, & Windchief, 2015). Struggles and conflicts are the result of, on the one side constant marginalization that have driven indigenous people to economic poverty, language loss, and school marginalization among other issues. On the other side, the constant forced inclusion into European cultural frames, through for example, language and schooling that has kept indigenous people from defining their own systems (Grande et al., 2015).
The education model that has been implemented for indigenous people in Latin America has been called, in most contexts, intercultural education. Intercultural education, conceptualized indigenous education in Latin America, model that has been implemented in most countries as bilingual intercultural education. Most research in this field has been conducted with a focus on
language and on the results of top-down policies that developed and gave structure to this intercultural education model (Loncon Antileo & Hecht, 2011; Lopez, 2009b).
As this research project is situated in Oaxaca, southern Mexico, I am also including a framework that has been developed by the indigenous teacher movement from this place, and that is currently being implemented (Maldonado Alvarado, 2016). This model of education, educación comunitaria, has been based on indigenous ways of living, and aims to base schooling on
indigenous cultures (IEEPO, XXII, & C.E.D.E.S.22, 2013; Maldonado Alvarado, 2016).
Finally, I am presenting a section on teacher identity in Mexico, according to historical events, placing focus on Oaxacan and indigenous teachers and the history of resistance against educational reforms.
Multicultural Education and the Beginning of Intercultural Education
As broader framework, multicultural education in the U.S. has been defined as the practices developed to redress injustices against and include the experiences of minorities within school system. Researchers have discussed multicultural education from different stances, including educational practices such as teaching, and research practices that use this framework (Banks, 2015a; Dietz, 2012; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter & Grant, 2009). Among the general conclusions from these analyses is that multicultural education has evolved overtime starting by addressing race and then culture, gender, social class, and other minority groups in order to include them in mainstream education (Sleeter & Grant, 2009).
Historically, multicultural education has its origin after the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, African American population and other minorities demanded an education more relevant and aligned to them, setting the beginning of multicultural education in schools (Banks, 2015b;
Dietz, 2012; Sleeter & Grant, 2009). The general goal of multicultural education had been to include diverse population into mainstream education. Naturally, this goal has evolved according to history and has continued to change, widening and adapting to current conditions. Banks (2015) developed this idea on transformation situating the unit of change as the school
environment and all of its components, such as educational policy, school culture, teaching strategies, languages spoken in school, community, counseling program, school curriculum, assessment, instructional materials, and staff (p.57), so that different cultures are represented within the school avoiding promoting hegemony of a single group.
Multiculturalism in the discipline of science advocates for the inclusion of non-western views into science to enrich scientific practice by incorporating diverse views, languages, thoughts, and cultures into science. When thinking of multiculturalism in science education, the latter includes diverse students perspectives to enrich, rather than transforming science teaching, by improving students’ learning. We must acknowledge, however that science taught in schools aims to teach and learn basic scientific principles that govern the natural world; that reflect on science that have been developed in the western world (Lee & Buxton, 2010a). As a consequence, under this paradigm science teaching reflects on western perspectives, which becomes
problematic when thinking of non-western students.
Much of this field of study has focused on science education for nonmainstream students, who are usually defined as students of color, students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, and English Language Learners (ELL), in addition to think of these students as the main population in urban schools within the U.S. contexts. Furthermore, this body of literature defines science as a socially and culturally constructed discipline, and advocates for the inclusion of non-western forms of knowing the natural world (Okhee Lee & Buxton, 2008) for students to be presented with an equal opportunity to explore and learn science.
In regard to teaching science to diverse students, academic literature within multicultural education has taken different approaches. Mostly, such approaches are based on the needs of students from diverse backgrounds (racial, gender, social, and/or cultural background). There are some generalities, however; first teachers should acknowledge and deconstruct beliefs in order to become bias-free about students, particularly because teachers’ belief about races or gender could influence students’ learning and outcomes. Second, it has also been suggested that teachers
should become culturally aware and competent in regard to diverse students’ culture (Castagno &
Brayboy, 2008). As a third element, research has emphasized on the idea of building bridges between science and students through language and/or culture. In other words, implementing diverse students’ language or cultural practice that connects to scientific content during science classes, should facilitate science learning (Lee & Buxton, 2010b). The intersection of indigenous perspectives and science education within the field of indigenous education has problematized how science has been taught in indigenous schools claiming that it does not include local knowledge and practices into the study of nature. Culturally responsive schooling (Castagno &
Brayboy, 2008) has proposed a framework for teaching science to indigenous students responsively, articulating traditional epistemologies.
Bang & Medin, (2010) claimed the learning of science among non-mainstream students to be a negotiation between epistemologies, and the teaching of science the exercise of supporting the such navigation through the teaching of multilogical epistemologies. Based on their research projects conducted among Native American communities, they distinguished practices of nonindigenous parents and indigenous parents that involve different expectations about the teaching learning of science to students, revealing different conceptualizations of the
environment. They explained that whereas, nonindigenous parents expect their children to learn about how to survive in the natural environment conceptualizing it as a place to manage by taking care of it and respected, indigenous parents expect their children to fully understand they part of nature, which reveals a conception of nature to be based on relationships.
Culturally responsive pedagogies, a framework developed within multicultural education (Gay, 2010a; Ladson-Billings, 1995) offers a large body of literature specifically in regard to science education and indigenous students (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008). This literature includes recommendations on how to include indigenous students in science and science-related fields (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Brayboy & Castagno, 2008a; Bull, 2010; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Gay, 2010a; Hamlin, 2013).
Culturally responsive pedagogies.
Culturally responsive pedagogies (CRP) is a pedagogical strategy in response to the consistently marginalization that has resulted in lower academic performance of minority students when compared to mainstream students. Much of these differences have been attributed to
differences in language, values, and culture that students bring to school and that do not resonate with the language, values and culture from dominant group (Belgarde, Mitchell, & Arquero, 2002; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008). As a theoretical effort, CRP advocates for minority students and their education by stating that schooling should happen through students’ eyes to avoid alienation from school system, and achieve a more equitable access to knowledge and education (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Gay, 2010a).
By including students’ culture in the classroom, the school becomes part of students’
community, which suggests that what students learn in school is relevant and closely related to their lives (Banks et al., 2005; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Savage et al., 2011). As opposed to content being taught in an isolated and separated way, CRP suggests that teaching should happen through students’ cultural practices (Banks et al., 2005; Belgarde et al., 2002).
Within the field of indigenous education, CRP has been described as a pedagogical technique to improve the education of indigenous students. As opposed to other pedagogical strategies, CRP is encouraged not only by indigenous scholars and tribal leaders but also by non- indigenous scholars who advocate for students’ racial identities and cultural values to be included in schooling (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008).
The large body of theoretical literature devoted to CRP in relation to indigenous students or indigenous education evidences ways in which western schooling has not met indigenous students expectations and educational needs. On the contrary, traditional schooling has
contributed to the loss of indigenous knowledge, language, and culture, resulting in the alienation of students either from their communities in order to success in education, or alienation of these
students from schooling in order to maintain their culture (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Castagno
& Brayboy, 2008).
A culturally competent educator, a concept more developed by Castagno & Brayboy, (2008) in their literature review about culturally responsive schooling among native youth, suggested that is a fundamental teacher attitude to be implement CRP in classroom. A culturally competent educator is an educator who acknowledges his or her own race, culture and identity, and is able to work respectfully with students from other races, cultures, or identities. They argued that “[b]ecoming a culturally competent educator is a constant learning process that requires flexibility and adaptability on the part of the educator depending on the particular students and contexts with which they are working.” (p.947).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogies proposes a shift on the educational paradigm (Lee, 2011).
Instead of posing an education within the western paradigm promoting western values, CRP encourages education to be framed within indigenous epistemologies to promote indigenous values, culture and language (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Lee, 2011). The inclusion of indigenous perspectives into education supposes the representation of indigenous peoples in a society that has been ignoring such perspectives. Implementing CRP translates into a
transformative education, where students are central to it, instead of subject of western culture (Lee, 2011).
Self-determination and particularly tribal self-determination and sovereignty are the base of incorporating indigenous perspectives into science classrooms. This approach to indigenous and science education, is through the lens of culturally relevant pedagogies and indigenous epistemologies. The work on this field is significant in terms of suggesting and recommending pedagogies for the teaching of science to indigenous students. From my perspective, however, the framework limits the development of schooling from indigenous epistemologies, by focusing heavily on the pedagogical aspects of teaching science to indigenous students, rather than focusing on recommending indigenous practices for the teaching of science.
As mentioned, there is an important body of literature in science education and indigenous education that addresses student learning, curriculum implementation, teacher education programs, and teaching science. For the purpose of this literature review, I will briefly describe what empirical research in this field has reported about teaching science among
indigenous students. In general, research in this area has been focused on three areas; first documenting the theoretical dichotomy between indigenous ways of understanding nature and science developed in the western world (Hamlin, 2013; O’Hern, 2010). A second focus on research had been in regard to strategies to develop a bridge between indigenous and western science (Lee et al., 2011; May Goulet, 2005; Ogunniyi, 2007a, 2007b, 2011; Savage et al., 2011), and third understanding classroom teachers’ perceptions about teaching indigenous science (Chinn & Hana‘ike, 2008; Michell, 2007a; Shizha, 2000, 2008)
Focus on identifying the tension between WS and IK in the classroom.
Hamlin (2013) and O’Hern (2010) conducted studies to explore the dichotomy between IK and WS in classrooms. Hamlin, (2013) examined how TEK could be identified in the
community to create culturally responsive science experiences for Maya students. The researchers conducted a mini-ethnography to identify where TEK is present in the community as practices that could be used by the teacher in order to connect schooling and community. As a result, Hamlin (2013) presented a framework and steps to follow by teachers to determine knowledge and practice of the community that can be used in schools classrooms.
O’Hern (2010) in his doctoral dissertation explored the dichotomy of WS and IK among urban and rural school communities in Kenya, Africa, by documenting teaching practices and conducting interviews with teachers and students. Researchers concluded that, despite traditional knowledge being present in rural communities, it was not part of the instruction in schools under study. Furthermore, the dichotomy between WS and IK as expressed by teachers and students through interviews revealed the marginalized perspective of IK when compared to WS. As in Mexico and other countries, national standards and curriculum are implemented in Kenya, which
mandates what is taught in schools, limiting opportunities for teachers to develop meaningful connections between science and indigenous knowledge.
In addition to documenting a disconnection between WS and IK, these two research projects attempted to document the relation between these two concepts, WS and IK, to local communities, particularly when projects explored IK within community.
Focus on teaching strategies to incorporate IK in science classrooms.
Research in including indigenous perspectives into science lessons has found that strong and relevant relationships between educators and community as well as including community members into lesson are important to successfully teach science. Lee et al. (2011) conducted a study about how IK could be incorporated in science focusing on student learning by developing a lesson about the concept of time in Taiwan. This lesson included elders to bridge community to schooling, element that was reported as a key factor for the success of the lesson in terms of student learning. Savage et al., (2011) documented teachers implementing pedagogies to develop
“culturally responsive classrooms and schools” (p. 185) as part of a teacher professional develop program. This research team found that strong relationships between teachers and students makes teachers connect content to students more effectively.
Another interesting case is what Ogunniyi (Hewson & Ogunniyi, 2011; Ogunniyi, 2007a, 2007b, 2011) and his research team have conducted in South Africa regarding science teaching.
Their research uses argumentation as a teaching technique taught during a professional
development course with teachers. The study evaluated the results of implementing the strategy in the classroom with students. They have studied teachers’ worldviews and their effect when teaching science (Ogunniyi, 2011), teachers’ stances and perspectives when engaging in this strategy (Ogunniyi, 2007a, 2007b), and challenges and opportunities in engaging in this practice (Hewson & Ogunniyi, 2011). In general, they have found positive results from implementing argumentation teaching technique when teaching science.
From this set of research experiences, it can be concluded that including an important member from the community translates into a more relevant teaching practice supporting the process of bridging science to IK. Also, the promptness that teachers have in regard to community including relationship between teachers and community members impacts the development of such bridge. Finally, a teaching technique that allows teachers to know and connect with community, results on effective science teaching. Therefore, the importance and relevancy of community when teaching science within school classrooms appears to be a relevant support for the bridge to connect science and IK; whether this importance is shown through teachers, or community members, or a pedagogy.
Focus on teachers’ perspectives when incorporated IK into science classrooms.
The third focus of research conducted with teachers teaching is placed on teachers’
perspectives, perception, and stances in regard to the incorporation of IK into science teaching.
Shizha (2000) & (2008) conducted studies in rural schools in Zimbabwe to explore how teachers incorporate IK and languages in science teaching. Mostly, his findings showed teachers’ fears and concerns and overall reluctance of using native languages and incorporating IK when teaching science. These fears and concerns, she argued, stemmed from state standardization in addition to the systemic and social pressures to be part of dominant culture that had long existed in the country. What it is interesting about these studies is that they analyze teachers without much intervention than the researcher presence in addition to give voice to research participants through interviews and opportunities to reflect upon their teaching, features that have not been the norm.
A similar research experience was conducted by (Michell, 2007) in his doctoral
dissertation project with Cree communities in Canada. By constructing teachers’ narratives about previous experiences that impacted their current teaching strategies, he addressed the research question how native teachers come to teach science the way they teach? What he found was that teaching approaches used by Native Cree science teachers are responsive to the Cree community and particularly to indigenous-based science as defined by the community.
Along the same lines Chinn & Maika‘i Hana‘ike (2008) conducted a study whose focus was one of the co-authors, David, a middle school Native Hawaiian science teacher and its success in student achievement when compared to other minority students in other schools in the state. David showed how his expectations in regard to his students being able to use science content and connect it to their lives; and expectation in regard to himself to be a role model as a native teacher with his students. Researchers emphasized David’s teaching strategies that gave students opportunities to connect science concepts to domestic tasks.
Both, the teacher and students shared some-how the same culture, which allows the teacher to be the ethnic role model he argued to be in addition to have a strong relationship with students and high expectations for them. These features have been reported in the literature as fundamental to successfully implement culturally relevant pedagogies (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008). In addition to teachers’ expectation about students’ performance, teachers’ ability to connect to community (students or members of community) and teaching techniques that articulate science connect to local community practices (such as domestic tasks) suggests a connection between IK and community.
Another example where the community is strongly involved in schooling, is the case described by Bang, Medin, Washinawatok, & Chapman, (2010). In this example, the authors provided detailed descriptions of the way by which the research team developed ways of integrating the community through a research project, that also respect self-determination and land sovereignty of the native tribes involved in the project. Emphasizing that the process of developing partnerships between community members has not been straightforward and has face numerous challenges, the process is evolving into one that all the parties are represented and active members, including “teachers, elders, parents, community experts, researchers, and youth”
(p.4). When compared to other examples, what seemed to have shifted and what authors emphasized is 1) setting clear goals with all the parties involved, 2) setting the university as the main organization, which shift in order to provide degrees of autonomy to other members. This
work also emphasized on the importance of recognizing different expertise, and the position each participant is taking up within the research project.
By a taking a multi-logical stance in regard to the understanding of science and the study of the natural world, Bang, Warren, Rosebery, & Medin, (2013) conducted an analysis of science research in regard science education and, particularly the design of educational science programs.
The authors argued that it becomes relevant to understand the relationships between natural and the scientific culture in order to facilitate teaching, particularly for nonmainstream students. This is, is teaching science from a multi-logical perspective.
Indigenous Education and Native Science
Indigenous education has developed as an effort to decolonize the education indigenous populations have been subject of. Historically, indigenous schools were an effort to assimilate indigenous population into western American society. It is through schooling that languages, and economic, political and social systems were transformed into western ways of living, leading to loss of cultural knowledge (Garcia, 2011; Stewart, 2008).
Through the process of Americanization, indigenous people went through devastating practices that eradicated languages and cultures, such as documentation of inferiority, boarding schools, prohibition of speaking native languages, school curriculum and teaching practices determined by white and colonial people as well as the control and leaderships of such schools (Garcia, 2011; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006).
Currently, indigenous education claims for self-education, sovereignty and self- determination (McCarty, 2005). Although there is consistent marginalization of indigenous students; today, the indigenous education movement has achieved important miles stones toward a responsive education for themselves, such as tribally controlled schools that has allowed
leadership to be in the hands of indigenous people facilitating revitalization of language (Brayboy
& Maughan, 2009; Cajete, 1994; Garcia, 2011).
When examining the literature in science education among indigenous schools, concepts
such as Indigenous Knowledge (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Chinn, 2009), and Native Science (Cajete, 2000) become relevant in addition to theoretical conflicts between these concepts and science, conceptualized as western Science emphasizing its origin (Aikenhead &
Michell, 2011; Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Brayboy & Castagno, 2008b; Cajete, 1994; Chinn, 2009). These conflicts have been developed to explain the constant lower academic achievement among indigenous students in science, leading to the underrepresentation of indigenous
populations in scientific fields. From indigenous education perspective, science education represents a way to colonize indigenous knowledges, and in order to decolonize it, science
education needs to be transformed into teaching indigenous ways of living in nature in an effort to reclaim that knowledge (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Chinn, 2009).
Native science (Cajete, 2000) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (L. Carter &
Walker, 2008; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000) are two constructs associated particularly to the natural world within a given ecological setting; whereas Indigenous Knowledge (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008), Indigenous Ways of Knowing (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011), and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Tippins, Mueller, Van Eijck, & Adams, 2008) are more general concepts that include how knowledge and practices have been constructed.
Literature on this field has documented differences between the nature of knowledge from indigenous and western perspectives. In general, this body of literature has stated that whereas in the western paradigm the word knowledge is thought of as an object to have and use, in indigenous paradigms the conception of knowing has been associated to experiences
(Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Cajete, 1994; Smith, 1999). In addition, the concept of nature has also been compared. In western culture, nature is thought of as “a collection of objects and energy” (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011, p.65), a static place that needs to be understood. On the other side, indigenous people conceive the idea that nature is “dynamic, ever-flowing river of creation” (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011, p.65) in which life happens. Therefore, the conception of
IK in regard to nature is also different from how it is conceptualized in western culture (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011).
Native science has been routinely compared to science, referred as WS, to emphasize its origin. Researchers have suggested that both, Native and WS are concerned with understanding how the natural world functions and how people make sense of their surroundings (Aikenhead &
Michell, 2011; Brayboy & Castagno, 2008a). Contradictorily, there are well-described differences between the two constructs that are mainly related to how knowledge is developed, organized, and communicated (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005). For example, Brayboy & Castagno, (2008a) suggested that native science emphasizes interrelationships among living organisms leading to being conceptualized as laws of interdependence (Cajete, 2000).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has also been compared to WS (Aikenhead &
Ogawa, 2007; Hamlin, 2013), however TEK has been conceptualized as the understanding of the ecology of a given place, as it is also concerned with the study of the interrelationships that exist in a given community (Hamlin, 2013). Similar to the comparisons between Native science and WS, TEK also differs from WS in constructing, organizing, and communicating knowledge. TEK was developed by the people of a particular community in relation to their own environment, which is contradictory to WS, and its ways to generalize knowledge among different
environments (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011).
Academic literature has documented how these set of knowledges are similar and different from each other (Aikenhead & Michell, 2011; L. Carter, 2004; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000, 2005), and how these could be connected in the classroom, so that indigenous students can participate of both: indigenous ways of understanding nature, and science, conceptualized as western science. Therefore, from indigenous education perspective; science education should be concerned with both, western science and indigenous ways of understanding nature.
Pedagogically, this paradigm proposes to teach from the indigenous venue, in order to fully understand and become appropriate of that type of knowledge and practice. Indeed, the use of
native language through schooling and teaching becomes fundamental in this framework. Finally, and beyond comparisons, it results fundamental to acknowledge dynamics of IK marginalization through colonial history, particularly in regard to native languages.
Science Education and Non-western Students
Beyond similarities and differences between science and native science, an issue in science education is how to increase indigenous students participation in science. This general question has tended to focus on analyzing and recommending ways of teaching science rather than science curriculum addressed in classrooms. The literature in this field has recommended building bridges between students’ home culture and classroom culture; which have usually been conceptualized as in permanent conflict impacting students’ science learning negatively. This theoretical bridge would result on a better student science learning, and increased students participation in both cultures: school science and home (McKinley & Gan, 2014).
Thinking of science as a western practice implies that teaching science becomes cultural transmission of a dominant culture developing a learning conflict to non-western students. In this case, these students have to negotiate between their home culture and science culture. These would translate in enculturation if student’s worldview resonates with science view; assimilation if student’s worldview does not resonate with science, affecting either of the cultures in play:
home –culture or science culture. The ideal situation thus, would be that a bridge is built between both culture, resulting on students’ appropriation of their home-culture and students’ participation in science, which has also been called border crossing (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Cobern &
Aikenhead, 1997; McKinley & Gan, 2014).
Under these perspectives, culturally relevant schooling has been developed, so that non- western students can use such bridge without losing their native language and culture but being able to participate in western practices, such as science. Considering science education, the issue becomes, how to educate teachers to being able to contribute to students in building this
theoretical bridge. As mentioned, teachers need to become culturally competent in order to
support students in cultural border crossing. Some of the findings reported by research in culturally responsive schoolings shows that 1) teachers need to become aware of cultural differences between their students and classroom, 2) teachers who do not share culture with students are to experience more struggles in understanding classroom dynamics and students’
home-culture and 3) relationships and partnerships between teachers and communities becomes extremely relevant when implementing successful culturally responsive schooling (McKinley &
Gan, 2014).
This body of literature has mainly been developed in the western world, under western perspectives and frameworks; therefore, it may not necessarily interpret the context of science teachers among indigenous communities. In addition, most research has been focused on giving recommendations for successful culturally responsive teaching. Another brunch from this body of research is highlighting individuals who enact culturally responsive teaching in an exemplary way according to these documents. As a consequence, I identify two issues in regard the voice of indigenous science teachers; first, the daily practice of science teachers remains underrepresented in academic literature. Secondly, the body of literature conceptualizes teachers as individuals whose practice is solely their agency rather than acknowledging teachers as part of communities and/or an educational system that establish standards.
Intercultural Education
In Latin America, frameworks in relation to education for racial minority population have taken a different perspective and form. One of these perspectives has been intercultural education, a framework also used in Europe and implemented according to particular historical, political and economic context of each country in the region (Dietz, 2012). In general, however, educational policy and programs have used bilingual intercultural education to educate indigenous students in two languages, Spanish and their native language (Dietz, 2012; Loncon Antileo & Hecht, 2011;
Lopez & Küper, 2000a). In this section, I describe briefly the history of intercultural education, some theoretical conflicts and challenges, broadly how it has been implemented through some
