What is evidence based practice?

Evidence based practice (EBP) is the use of current best information in making decisions by integrating individual expertise with the best available research based evidence. Mullen and Steiner (2004) define it as “any practice that has been established as effective through scientific research according to a clear set of explicit criteria”. Webb (2001) argues that “evidence-based, rational model of decision making does not fit the realities of individualized, contextualized practice, especially nonmedical practice, wherein problems are less well defined” (Webb, 2001 as quoted in Mullen et. al, 2004). The main criticism of EBP is twofold, it relies on availability of robust studies in any particular field, and, because scientific research involves comparisons of the means of control groups and experimental groups, results are not necessarily directly applicable to individuals. Mullen et. al, counters these criticisms in contending that even flawed research design can be allayed if the limitations of the design are understood, and  that the likelihood of success (or failure) can be determined, whereas, unproven interventions cannot.  The 'Three Circles of Evidence Based Practice model incorporates research with the combined expertise and wisdom of the collaborative team.

Tika: Research Knowledge

• Search for, select and evaluate the research evidence that is relevant to our key question and desired outcomes.

• Use practice knowledge to inform research knowledge.

What is culturally sustaining practice?

Culturally sustaining practice, be it teaching, RTLB, or other profession, is practices that "...integrate cultural values and perspectives to motivate children's [mathematical]  understandings and achievement (Averill et. al., 2009). They describe teachers' using students 'cultural capital', "culturally located expertise, knowledge, interests and experiences" (Averill et. al., 2009) to promote learning. Conversely, they can ignore it, decreasing motivation and in doing so, creating another barrier to learning. 

Moll et. al. (1992) use the term 'funds of knowledge' rather than cultural capital. They conducted qualitative research to examine this social capital in the homes of students from a school in Tucson, Arizona. Teachers were involved in the collection of qualitative data by conducting interviews with families, alongside the researchers. Using this information, teachers planned units of work that utilised the knowledge and skills inherent in the day-to-day lives of households. This study highlighted the need to 'know' your students, and this means knowing them in more than the classroom context, which is in keeping with 'Ecological Systems' model. It means knowing their families, their communities, their strengths and interests, their knowledge and skills. The study takes this knowledge one step further, in not only acknowledging and valuing this wealth of expertise, but also in using these 'funds of knowledge' as meaningful learning contexts for students. My experience has been that New Zealand teachers go to great lengths to achieving these goals by providing opportunities to know their students in a range of different contexts (eg. attending weekend sporting events, school camps, watching students perform at community events etc.) and providing opportunities to meet whānau in informal situations (school picnics, meet and greet evenings, etc.) so that opportunity is made for deeper connections. The teachers/researchers in this particular study, over the course of multiple interviews, had a rich opportunity to make these connections. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that most teachers don't have. Having said that, I know that most of the teachers and schools I have had the privilege to work in, adhere to these values and do their best to achieve these relationships. I look back on many years of teaching and doing my best to not only acknowledge the 'funds of knowledge' of my students possess, but also inviting them to share their knowledge and skills with the class (Appendix 5), learning cultural histories and traditions at the same time. Knowing your students begins with being interested in who they are and is the cornerstone of strengths based practice.

Bobbie Hunter talks about culturally sustaining practice in terms of being "taught in ways that sustain them in who they are culturally". She discusses ways of knowing and learning as being cultural grounded. This might include, for example, giving students a voice, not only so they can show what and how they know, but so they can co-create knowledge and understanding with one another. The teacher needs to be skilled in listening and noticing students understanding and correspondingly adjusting teaching (dynamic assessment) rather than requiring students to demonstrate this in a predetermined form. 

There has been much discussion about culturally responsive practice in subjects deemed by many to be culture free, Science and Mathematics in particular. I recently discussed this with a colleague, a chemistry teacher. He argued that the process of developing knowledge through science requires avoiding bias of any kind, including any particular cultural perspective. At it's very best and most effective, he argues, Science is culture free. If it must be framed culturally, then Science is it's own culture: a worldwide culture of inquiry open to any human where contributions are judged on the quality of the work done and not on nationality, race, gender or any other cultural identity. Within Science, the most humble and the most exalted meet on equal terms and the best thinking ends up being recognised and upheld. Where people find something to criticise about the processes of Science, these are almost always where people have failed to live up to the high ideals of Science and allowed prejudice, greed, bias, etc. to corrupt the process, so not really criticisms of Science at all. [Name redacted] uses an example of the way in which allowing a cultural perspective to play a part in the Scientific process occurred in the Soviet Union. The political masters decided that genetic theories in agriculture were more correct from a communist/Marxist perspective (partly to create a point of difference with the West) and wasted huge amounts of time and money pursuing these ideas when a culture free approach would have moved them on to ideas proven to be correct almost immediately. A culture may inspire the direction of scientific research or set goals in the hope that Science may achieve them but the culture should play no part in the Science itself. He goes on to argue that there is no 'Italian Science' , no 'Argentinian Science" no white or black or male or female Science, Māori or Pacific Science, etc.. There is Science carried out by people with these identities and a nation, identity group or culture can rightly be proud to claim that their culture has produced a good scientist but the good scientist does not draw directly on their group identity to do the good science. In fact, they have to move beyond it to prevent it from intruding.

Having said this, I know that [Name redacted] uses te reo Māori and includes culturally appropriate pedagogies (Averill et. al., 2009) in his classroom. Thus, the misunderstanding occurs in failing to see culturally responsive practice more broadly than the narrow, contextual framework: how can I come up with contexts that integrate Māori culture with the content of the chemistry curriculum? Acquiring the required depth of understanding and knowledge requires partnerships with Māori and Pacific educators, scientists and communities, and working collaboratively to not only find contexts that are authentic but to also reconsider assessments, pedagogical approaches, structural components, etc. (Averill et. al., 2009). In processing the ideas generated through this discussion and readings on this subject, I believe that the problem lies with a lack of understanding by the teaching fraternity generally, of what 'culturally responsive' means and looks like in practice, particularly in these subject areas. With more time, I would like to explore whether research has already been done in this regard. Considering the case of Science with my Science teacher hat on, it is a matter of separating the scientific process, which, I agree is sacrosanct and therefore set apart from culture, and exploring other ways that Science can be taught in a culturally responsive way through considering all aspects of culturally responsive practice. For example, the science of the water cycle in itself is culture free, but it can be taught and explored in a multitude of ways that could be responsive or not.  Because it is so value laden, assessment is a change that could make a meaningful difference in education, moving towards more culturally responsive and mana enhancing practices. 

By using the He Pikorua framework, we can ask ourselves if the assessment method is culturally affirming, strengths based and collaborative. Is it gathered across contexts and from the perspectives of all members of the team? Does it consider the different ecological layers to gain a comprehensive picture of all the factors and systems affecting the child? Are we being mindful that the child belongs to the whānau, community and school and not to us. Our role is to bring voices together: nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi.

In my practice thus far, I have  followed the three circles of evidence based practice. There are a number of things that I will do differently in the future. Firstly, to talk about which assessments and why with the the whole team and proceed with consensus. Secondly, to use the wayfinding tool as a lens to determine the best assessment tool for the purpose rather than relying on a standard set of tools - to make sure it is purposeful in the first instance. I have on occasion undertaken an assessment and afterwards, asked myself why. Thirdly, I will make the most of opportunities to do more observing, listening and connecting, and to do less talking.

References

Readings

Averill, R., Anderson, D., Easton, H., Maro, P. T., Smith, D., & Hynds, A. (2009). Culturally Responsive Teaching of Mathematics: Three Models from Linked Studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 157–186.

Black, P., & William, D. (2003). “In praise of educational research”: formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623.

Bourke, R. & Mentis, M. (2014) An assessment framework for inclusive education: integrating assessment approaches, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21:4, 384-397.

Luis C. Moll , Cathy Amanti , Deborah Neff & Norma Gonzalez (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, Theory Into Practice, 31:2, 132-141.

Macfarlane, S., & Macfarlane, A. (2013). Culturally responsive evidence-based special education practice: Whaia ki te ara tika. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(2).

Media

He Pikorua in Action. (2021). Ministry of Education. New Zealand https://hepikorua.education.govt.nz/he-pikorua/