Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

ISSN: 1359-866X (Print) 1469-2945 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

Getting started: exploring pre-service teachers’

confidence and knowledge of culturally responsive
pedagogy in teaching mathematics and science

Lisa O’Keeffe, Kathryn Paige & Samuel Osborne

To cite this article: Lisa O’Keeffe, Kathryn Paige & Samuel Osborne (2018): Getting started:
exploring pre-service teachers’ confidence and knowledge of culturally responsive pedagogy
in teaching mathematics and science, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, DOI:
10.1080/1359866X.2018.1531386

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1531386

Published online: 13 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=capj20
ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1531386

ARTICLE

Getting started: exploring pre-service teachers’ confidence

and knowledge of culturally responsive pedagogy in
teaching mathematics and science
Lisa O’Keeffe, Kathryn Paige and Samuel Osborne
School of Education, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recent changes to the Australian Curriculum reinforce the need Received 1 November 2017
for all educators to value the cultures and perspectives of Accepted 29 July 2018
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The disproportio- KEYWORDS
nately high levels of educational disadvantage experienced by Teacher education;
many of these students has prompted the Australian Institute for mathematics and science
Teaching and School Leadership to introduce two teacher stan- education; AITSL standards
dards aimed at improving awareness of Aboriginal and Torres 1.4 and 2.4; culturally
Strait Islander cultures and histories, and enactment of pedagogies responsive pedagogy
that support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student learning.
We describe a pilot study focussed on one cohort of final year
mathematics and science primary/middle pre-service teachers
(PSTs) as they navigate these standards. We explore PSTs’ self-
reported knowledge and confidence before and after targeted
interventions designed to cultivate cultural responsiveness.
Although the findings suggest an increase in PSTs’ perceived
confidence, further work is needed towards what could be con-
sidered culturally responsive pedagogies for early career mathe-
matics and science teachers.

Introduction
The Australian Curriculum seeks to prioritise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content
through two curricular strategies: (1) a focus on Aboriginal cultures and identities
embedded in each of eight learning areas and (2) a cross-curriculum priority that
requires students to “engage in reconciliation, respect and recognition of the world’s
oldest continuous living cultures” (ACARA, 2017). Furthermore, the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) includes two standards which are
specifically relevant to the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;

CONTACT Kathryn Paige kathy.paige@unisa.edu.au University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001
A word on terminology:
In this paper we move in and around complex and contested politic and knowledge contexts. One aspect this is played out
in is terminology. It is our university’s policy that being located in South Australia, “Aboriginal” is the preferred term of
reference to Australia’s original inhabitants. Where Torres Strait Islander communities or people are included, the term
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander” is applied. Where national policies and programs are discussed, the preferred
Commonwealth Government all-encompassing term “Indigenous” is applied. This is also used within internationally
recognised and accepted contexts such as for global references to Indigenous peoples or issues, Indigenous Knowledges,
Indigenous scholarship and so on.
© 2018 Australian Teacher Education Association
2 K. PAIGE ET AL.

namely that educators should have professional knowledge in the following domains
(AITSL, 2011):

Standard 1.4: Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Standard 2.4: Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to
promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

According to these standards, on successful completion of their initial teacher educa-

tion, graduates are expected to:

Standard 1.4: Demonstrate broad knowledge and understanding of the impact of culture,
cultural identity and linguistic background on the education of students from Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds.

Standard 2.4: Demonstrate broad knowledge of, understanding of and respect for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and languages.

However, these policy documents provide few practical strategies to indicate how
PSTs and early career teachers should integrate these key priorities into their teaching
practices.
As teacher educators, we sought to explore the degree to which pre-service teachers
(PSTs) do or do not feel competent and confident in their knowledge of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. We worked from the assumption that the
levels of PST confidence in engaging AITSL Standards 1.4 and 2.4 will impact on how, or
if, these priorities are integrated into teachers’ everyday teaching practices once quali-
fied. This assumption is based on various literatures, including the work of Coffey and
Lavery (2015), which indicates that the confidence of PSTs impacts on their willingness
to work beyond their comfort zone and that of Deer (2013) who discusses the appre-
hension that PSTs often feel when attempting to include Aboriginal perspectives in their
teaching.
The Australian government has committed to various strategies intended to “close
the gap” (Turnbull, 2016) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous student achieve-
ment. These measures focus on student attendance rates, literacy and numeracy bench-
mark testing results (NAPLaN – see http://www.acara.edu.au/assessment), school
completion, and transition to employment or further study. However, in relation to
teachers and teaching strategies, much of the work to date has centred on the provision
of professional development for in-service teachers. Price (2015) and Rigney (2011a,
2011b, 2011c)) suggest that both in-service and pre-service teachers need to take into
account Indigenous people’s ways of knowing and culture in positioning their work as
educators. However, in teacher education programs, most attention is paid to the basics
(Anderson & Atkinson, 2013), resulting in limited engagement with (a) the knowledge,
skills and tools needed for negotiating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content and
(b) the pedagogical considerations for effectively teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander students. Little attention is paid to the deeper and more nuanced aspects of
what is termed “culturally responsive pedagogy” and how this is enacted in the
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 3

classroom (Brayboy & Castagno, 2009; Guenther, 2015; Nakata, 2011; Perso, 2012),
despite this being the first recommendation in Moreton-Robinson, Singh, Kolopenuk,
and Robinson’s (2012) report Learning the lessons?: Pre-service teacher preparation for
teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In recent years, a growing body of
research has investigated issues and possibilities for teachers and preservice teachers
engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, curriculum content and
communities (Harrison & Murray, 2012; Lowe, 2017; Munns, Martin, & Craven, 2008).
Nakata (2013) builds on previous writing (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b; Nakata, Nakata, Keech, &
Bolt, 2012) in arguing that the process of knowledge negotiation, enacting decolonial
goals and pedagogies towards self-determination and the place of Indigenous participa-
tion within education institutions is both contested and political. He reminds us that this
is a complex site of learning and knowledge production that requires careful reflection
to avoid mistaking the “need to be united in efforts to overcome disadvantage with the
need to be united in our thinking about how to achieve this goal” (Nakata, 2013, p. 292).
According to Paige, Hattam, Rigney, Osborne, and Morrison (2016), culturally responsive
pedagogies utilise students’ cultural “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992), affirm cultural identities, position students at the centre of education
and nurture sense-making through inclusive pedagogic relationships and interactions in
school communities. This draws on the seminal works of Mexican and African American
scholars (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll et al., 1992) advocating for minority communities
and inclusion of their knowledges and cultural assets towards educational justice in
engaging with schooling in the United States of America. Although the focus was not
originally Indigenous students, the argument for de-colonial and more recently, cultu-
rally responsive pedagogies have been taken up by Indigenous scholars across the globe
(Castagono & Brayboy, 2008; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 2012) in calls for Indigenous epis-
temologies, ontologies and cosmologies to be recognised and prioritised within Western
research and education spaces.
Indigenous scholars’ calls for recognition and justice in Western education has led to
further reflection on the role of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing within
Western Science, and more specifically within school based STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) programs (e.g. Hauser, Howlett, & Matthews, 2009;
Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013). Parsons and Carlone (2013) explain that
the patterns of behaviour, language, space and time which characterise school cultures
typically reflect the values and beliefs of the “culture of power” (Delpit, 1993, p. 121).
Collectively, this means that students from outside the culture of power must negotiate
unfamiliar language and social contexts as a pre-requisite to school success. Delpit
(1993, p.122) argues that “those with power are frequently least aware of – or least
willing to acknowledge – its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its
existence”. Disrupting unequal power distribution in classrooms begins with the training
of PSTs and the professional development of in-service teachers (Madden, 2015).
However, as cautioned by Castagano and Brayboy (2008) and later by Marx (2016),
superficial treatments of Indigenous issues in teacher education and in-service profes-
sional learning cannot broach the deep and nuanced dimensions of cultural competen-
cies required to unsettle the culture of power. For the purposes of this project, the focus
was largely limited to building confidence, engagement and tools for teaching
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and content within a mathematics and
4 K. PAIGE ET AL.

science teacher education frame. The students were largely new to Aboriginal Education
and the focus was to introduce them to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories,
communities, knowledges and implications for them as future educators teaching
towards social and educational justice in Australian schools. The worthy aim of working
towards deep, respectful and competent engagement with culturally responsive peda-
gogies was beyond the scope of this project.
The daily struggles that many Indigenous students face in negotiating dual contexts
of language, culture and epistemology is amplified in mathematics and science class-
rooms. For example, despite a push for integrating culturally responsive pedagogy into
New Zealand (NZ) schools, Averill et al. (2009) suggest that there is limited evidence of
cultural responsiveness in NZ mathematics classrooms. In an Australian context,
Matthews, Cooper and Baturo (2007, p.249) emphasise “the power of mathematics
and the opportunities it brings for advancement lie in symbolic understanding”, a
sentiment in stark contrast to the policy context of Closing the Gap (Turnbull, 2016)
where measurements of minimal benchmarks in standardised English language literacy
and numeracy tests frame the terms and conditions of policy progress and “success” in
Indigenous Education. Indigenous and equity-minded scholars have argued that beyond
the acquisition of the mechanical aspects of basic literacy and numeracy skills, critical
skills and higher order thinking are central to moving students from the social and
educational margins (Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003; Nakata, 2011).
While the Australian Curriculum prioritises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cul-
tures and knowledges in its cross curriculum priorities, mathematics and science curri-
cula privilege a Western scientific and mathematical framework which is rooted in
historical and epistemological traditions that, until relatively recently, are unfamiliar to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is a risk of portraying Western
science and mathematics as a neutral or culture-free (Harding, 1992; Walls, 2004) knowl-
edge space, thereby ignoring or denying the challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students as they negotiate between Western knowledge frameworks and
their own epistemological and ontological systems. Aboriginal scholar Marianne
McLaughlin (2012) engages the concept of “crossing cultural borders” to highlight the
struggle involved in negotiating and mastering the cultures of Western science and
mathematics which, Hackling, Byrne, Gower, and Anderson (2015) argue, have their own
culturally-embedded language and ways of generating, testing and representing ideas.
Focusing on the Australian context, this paper is based on the premise that pedago-
gies that value Indigenous knowledges and cultures should be central to science and
mathematics programs involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous students preparing to
become teachers (AAS, 2016; Hackling et al., 2015; Harslett, Harrison, Godfrey,
Partington, & Richer, 2000). In this regard, the Indigenous concept of “Country” can be
an important starting point. This term refers to land in geographical terms, but more
specifically, points to the deeper cultural and knowledge foundations that “place”
Indigenous peoples within the locations of geography, history, law/lore and culture,
kin and reciprocal obligation and responsibility to the land and each other (Nakata,
2011, p. 5). This foundation allows a re-orientation of Western scientific (disciplined)
inquiry (Nakata, 2007a), instead working from holistic (transdisciplinary) Indigenous
Knowledges (Paige, Lloyd, & Osborne, 2018a). Many of the principles of a culturally
responsive pedagogy are key elements of good teaching practices in general (Au, 2009;
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 5

Ladson-Billings, 1995): recognition of individual difference, catering for a range of

learning styles, student centredness, teacher enthusiasm, high expectations of students
and positive attitudes towards them. In addition, accommodating the cultural context of
individual students is a key priority. In the science classroom, dynamic and inclusive
practice should also include facilitation of effective hands-on activities, participation in
classroom discourse and connecting science activities to students’ experiences (Hackling
et al., 2015). The Primary Connections programme (AAS, 2016) provides a teaching and
learning guide for incorporating Indigenous perspectives in science teaching. However,
the effective use of such a document is dependent on PSTs having a solid grounding in
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues and communities and orientation to peda-
gogical considerations and opportunities, which is the starting point for this research.
Nakata’s (2011) application of the “cultural interface” (Nakata, 2007b) is a useful guide
for negotiating this complex space which we discuss below.
In this study, we focus on PSTs’ readiness for teaching Aboriginal students and
curriculum content in mathematics and science classrooms. Specifically, how do PSTs
rate their own knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures,
and how do they rate their confidence in integrating this knowledge into their mathe-
matics and science teaching? The AITSL standards require that all PSTs can identify their
own progress in relation to each of the standards and their sub-components. Standards
1.4 and 2.4 refer specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. Rather than
speculating about PST confidence in relation to these particular standards, this study
seeks to measure self-reported confidence and gain a better understanding of the
knowledge base that underlies confidence levels. The study focuses on mathematics
and science due to the teaching specialisations of the authors; however, we recognise
that strengthening teacher capabilities for AITSL standards 1.4 and 2.4 encompass all
areas of curriculum and community engagement.

The researchers
Indigenous scholars highlight that academic institutions and their representatives often
perpetuate deficit assumptions and misrepresentations of Indigenous communities,
knowledges and values (Bishop, 2011; Grande, 2004; Nakata, 2007a; Rigney, 1999;
Smith, 2012). The voices of Indigenous scholars are vital sources for reorienting the
assumptions and perspectives of “outsider” researchers in Indigenous research and
education spaces (Martin, 2008). As non-Indigenous teacher educators, charged with
helping to educate a primarily non-Indigenous teaching workforce (Matthews, 2012), we
acknowledge our position as “outsiders”. It is imperative that we are responsive to the
voices of Indigenous scholars and, in doing so, hope to lead by example for our
students.
The authors of this article are two academics with expertise in mathematics and
science education and one academic with a background in Indigenous education. As an
early career academic, Lisa comes to the research with an international perspective as a
recent “arrival” from Ireland. She brings an inquiring and questioning approach, under-
standing that this space is very new and unfamiliar territory. Kathryn comes to the
research with forty years’ experience in education. She was raised in Berri in the South
Australian Riverland and visited Gerard Mission1 as a young child. Her first appointment
6 K. PAIGE ET AL.

was at Murray Bridge Primary School, a school with a high proportion of Aboriginal
students, and here she was invited by Elders to run what was called the Nunga
Homework Club, which she did for several years. Sam has worked in Aboriginal educa-
tion since 1995, including seven years as a remote educator and school Principal. Since
2009, he has worked in remote education research among a range of other research and
evaluation roles, including interpreting for Aboriginal corporations across central
Australia.
As white educators, the Indigenous education space is difficult terrain. We have
struggled with writing our place in this article and questioned whether it is best left
to others. We also acknowledge that some may view our work as contributing to a
cacophony of “whitenoise” (Lampert, 2003). However, we believe that there is an
imperative to ensure that the next generation of teachers is well prepared to teach
both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students effectively as well as being confident to
incorporate Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing across learning areas. We also
acknowledge that, while there are important methodological considerations required for
ethical engagement as “outsiders” in this space (Guenther, Osborne, Arnott, & McRae-
Williams, 2015), working towards an approach that strengthens the aspirations of
Indigenous students and communities is inevitably a shared endeavour.

The research environment

Over the last decade the authors have attempted to integrate Indigenous perspectives
into the Bachelor of Education courses offered at the University of South Australia through
a transdisciplinary approach to science and mathematics curriculum courses (Borgelt,
Brooks, Innes, Seelander, & Paige, 2009; Paige, Lloyd, & Chartres, 2008; Paige, Lloyd, &
Smith, 2016). Our university campus is built on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people,
who are the continuing custodians of the land with a connection spanning over
40,000 years. This important local history provides opportunities for PSTs to begin to
engage with a wealth of complex critical social issues; such as how the land was used and
by whom before the university was built, and to what extent Indigenous knowledges are
acknowledged, practiced and integrated into communities today.
During the first three years of the Bachelor of Education program, we endeavour to
introduce PSTs to both Indigenous and Western knowledge perspectives; for example,
by exploring alternatives to Western constructs of time and incorporating Aboriginal
(Kaurna) calendars, and by identifying historical and cultural connections to place on
campus when learning about local soils and rocks. By acknowledging the epistemolo-
gical, ontological, axiological and cosmological components that frame both Indigenous
and non-Indigenous histories and knowledge systems, a more nuanced understanding
Indigenous knowledges emerges. For example, PSTs learn how non-Western concep-
tions of the night sky, geometry and constellations provide Indigenous peoples with a
natural calendar and compass, and draw on ancient and continuing cosmological/
epistemological narratives where story and science intermingle (Curnow & Paige, 2006;
Nakata, 2011; Paige & Hardy, 2014). In the Primary Middle Programme, we also have a
particular focus on educating for sustainability (a second cross-curriculum priority) which
has also been a helpful lens through which to integrate Indigenous perspectives. While
this may suggest the PSTs get considerable exposure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 7

Islander content, these activities are distributed over the four-year undergraduate pro-
gramme and hence the combined focus is sparse.
For those PSTs with limited lived experience of Indigenous peoples and their cultural
and knowledge systems, the diversity and complexity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander histories, geographies, languages, cultures and colonisation experiences can be
overlooked. Instead, there is a risk that these PSTs may develop a somewhat binarised
and simplistic understanding of the “cultural interface” (Nakata, 2007b).
We support Nakata et al.’s (2012) position in arguing the need for more nuanced and
complex pedagogical approaches, including a process of carefully positioning emerging
educators at the interface with the skills and pedagogical tools to negotiate the
inevitably contested and dynamic spaces they will encounter as practitioners in
Indigenous education spaces. Nakata (2011) explains that the inclusion of Indigenous
perspectives in curriculum content sits well within the general capability of “intercultural
understanding” (p. 5). PSTs are not required to be experts in both “Indigenous and non-
Indigenous worlds of knowledge”, but must recognise the complexities of “all of the
disruptions, discontinuities, continuities, and convergences of knowledge in this space”
(p. 5). Nakata insists that educators require professional development in key aspects of
Indigenous curriculum content and Indigenous student engagement. This includes the
selection and timing of Indigenous content, understanding the difference between
Indigenous perspectives and Indigenous content, and reflecting on the inevitability
that “Indigenous perspectives will emerge in the intercultural space of the classroom
and that they will be contested” (p. 7). Nakata (2011, p.7) adds that with prudent
management, “conflict . . . is always an opportunity for exploring complexities”.

The study
Australian Indigenous scholars including Ford (2005), Nakata (2011), Harrison & Murray
(2012) and Lowe (2017) and have identified factors that help PSTs and early career
teachers build confidence and competence in their understandings of Indigenous ways
of knowing. For example, a critical disposition helps teachers to challenge their own
assumptions, while inquiry-based teaching locates students within questions of interest
to their own lived experience, drawing on Indigenous content, perspectives, narratives
and community resources are important pedagogical considerations when working with
Indigenous students (Arbon, 2008; Nakata et al., 2012; Yunkaporta & McGinty, 2009).
As identified in the foreword, we believe it is important for all teachers/educators to
be willing to engage with ways of thinking and knowing that differ from their own.
Furthermore, mathematics and science teaching can only be enhanced by understand-
ing cultural underpinnings and differences. Hence, the aim of this research is to explore
whether small targeted interventions, with PSTs in their final year, can improve their self-
confidence in integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and knowledge
into their mathematics and science teaching.
Following the School of Education’s Professorial appointment of an Indigenous scholar
with over 20 years of experience in Aboriginal Education, we were challenged to foreground
and question our own teaching practice within a teaching/research nexus. Having worked
and researched with PSTs for over a decade the authors worked to better understand PSTs’
8 K. PAIGE ET AL.

knowledge and confidence in engaging Aboriginal students and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander curriculum content in mathematics and science teaching.
This study was guided by the following research questions:

(1) How confident are final-year pre-service teachers in terms of strategies for teach-
ing Aboriginal students? (AITSL Standard 1.4)
(2) How confident are final-year pre-service teachers in their understandings of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and cultures relevant to teaching
mathematics and science? (AITSL Standard 2.4)
(3) How confident are final-year pre-service teachers in integrating their understand-
ing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures in classrooms
that include Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander students.
(4) What impact, if any, do three minor interventions have on their levels of knowl-
edge and confidence?

This research employs case study design to focus on a cohort of final-year under-
graduate PSTs enrolled in a Bachelor of Education (Primary/Middle). All PSTs (n = 31)
in a mathematics and science pedagogy final year course2 (taught by two of the
researchers) were invited to participate in the study. Ethics approval was granted for
the study from the Human Research Ethics Committee. Participation was voluntary and,
following the informed consent process, the final sample size was 28 (with three PSTs
opting out). This sample consisted of 26 PSTs who could be described as white
Australian, one of whom had extensive experience of living and working in Aboriginal
communities, and two Asian international students.
The researchers embedded three specific workshops into the pathway course. As part
of their normal coursework, all PSTs were required to attend these workshops and
undertake self-reviews of their professional knowledge in relation to the AITSL standards
(see Table 1 below). The workshops intended to trigger reflective thinking and discus-
sion of PSTs’ understandings and knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
histories and cultures. The workshops were conducted over a 13-week semester as
follows:

(1) Week 5: An interactive workshop on the topic of culturally responsive pedagogy

for mathematics delivered by an HDR student who was an advisor on the ACARA
cross-curriculum priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This
workshop was intended to challenge PST perceptions of culturally responsive
pedagogy for primary school mathematics through hands-on practical activities.
(2) Week 8: Prior to the second workshop, PSTs were required to participate in
activities centred on community engagement with Aboriginal artefacts and cul-
ture. These activities included visiting Tandanya (a local Indigenous Arts centre)
and the South Australian Museum’s Australian Aboriginal Cultures Gallery. The
subsequent Week 8 workshop consisted of an in-class discussion, led by a local
non-Aboriginal expert on Indigenous representation in the Arts, during which the
PSTs considered the various representations of Indigenous knowledges and cul-
tures and the impact on them as PSTs.
Table 1. Self-review knowledge survey.
Professional Knowledge
Rate your knowledge*
Experienced Keeping Need to How is this If this is not evidenced as part of your
Know students in/happy my eye spend more evidenced in teaching practice, what do you consider
and how they learn High quality with on this time on this your practice? you need to do to strengthen this area?
1.4 Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander students.
Rate your knowledge*
Know the content and how to teach it High quality Experienced Keeping Need to How is this If this is not evidenced as part of your
in/happy my spend evidenced teaching practice, what do you consider
with eye on more in your you need to do to strengthen this area?
this time on practice?
this
2.4 Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people to promote reconciliation between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
*PSTs were asked to select one of the four responses and then to elaborate on this in one of the two comment boxes on the right-hand side.
ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
9
10 K. PAIGE ET AL.

Not at all Circle the most appropriate rating Very

Confident Confident

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Why did you rate your confidence as such?

Figure 1. Example question from student reflection survey.

(3) Week 13: The final workshop was delivered by an Anangu educator working in the
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in the very remote north-west of
South Australia. This session focused on experiences of teaching in the local
(Anangu) community school. The session was also supported by a local facilitator
of the Anangu Tertiary Education Program and was primarily focused on narratives
of his teaching in general with some connection to both mathematics and science.

The research focuses on two themes:

● PSTs’ perceptions of their knowledge in relation to AITSL standards 1.4 and 2.4.
● PSTs’ perceptions of their confidence in relation to teaching Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students.

Knowledge
PSTs were asked to complete a self-review survey based on AITSL Standards 1.4 and 2.4
(see Table 1). The survey was administered twice during the semester: prior to the
interventions in Week 1 and after the interventions in Week 13, enabling a comparison
between pre- and post-intervention responses.
The pre-intervention self-reviews were completed electronically and PSTs
emailed these directly to the researchers during class time; this ensured that the
PSTs had an electronic version to refer to throughout the semester. Post-interven-
tion self-reviews were completed in hardcopy and submitted during the final
workshop. Following each of the three interventions the PSTs were encouraged
to re-engage with their self-reviews, adding and editing comments based on their
experiences. Of the 28 participants, 17 completed all pre- and post-intervention
survey items.

Confidence
In a Student Reflection Survey, PSTs were also asked to rate their confidence on a
number of points including knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures,
bringing Indigenous knowledges and cultures into teaching, relating this to
Mathematics and Science, and appropriate pedagogies for inclusion of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander students. Responses to these statements were recorded on a 10-
point scale, with the option of additional open-ended comments for each statement
(Figure 1).
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 11

Findings
All data was coded for confidentially (pseudonyms used throughout) and thematic
analysis was undertaken.

Knowledge
The number of participants who responded to each Knowledge survey question is
indicated in Table 2 below. As a number of participants did not respond to this part
of the data collection during the pre-intervention phase it would be inappropriate to
present a mean change in response over time. However, for both AITSL Standard 1.4 and
2.4, the quantitative data indicates a reduction in the number of participants who felt
they Need to spend more time on this. Of interest, of the two PSTs who rated themselves
in this category for Standard 1.4 in the post-intervention phase of testing, one was an
international student (Tina).

Standard 1.4
In relation to AITSL Standard 1.4, the average scaled post-intervention response was 2.4,
suggesting PSTs were mostly Keeping my eye on this. As evident in Figure 2, three PSTs,
(Kate, Deb and Carol) started the teaching period with a relatively high level of
perceived knowledge in regard to Standard 1.4. However, this declined post-interven-
tion, particularly for Kate. The qualitative responses that PSTs provided in conjunction
with these scaled ratings provide greater insight into their understandings; this data is
discussed below.
In their pre-intervention self-reviews, five PSTs indicated that Standard 1.4 was one
that they needed to spend more time on. Their comments suggested that they felt they
lacked experience in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Two of
the five PSTs who did not rate their professional knowledge of Standard 1.4 indicated
that this was because they had not yet taught any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
children. Responding to the prompt What do you consider you need to do to strengthen
this area? Some participants commented on their lack of experience working with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, their concerns about offending cultural
sensitivities, or the need for more Professional Development in this space. In a recent
case study examining primary school teachers’ perceptions of their capacity to meet
standards 1.4 and 2.4, Buxton (2017, p.205) notes, “An issue that was common across all
of the interviews was that teachers lacked confidence and were afraid to do or say
something that may be perceived as ‘wrong’”. However, Buxton (2017, p.205) challenges
this position, suggesting “teachers who have a willingness to do the right thing but are
afraid of getting it wrong, take an easier option”. She goes on to advocate for a
professional development focus that empowers “non-Indigenous teachers to feel they
have the efficacy to ‘say something’ and not let the fear of putting a foot wrong get in
the way” (Buxton, 2017, p.205).
To support the post-intervention reflections of our students, they were asked to
indicate How is this [Standard 1.4] evidenced in your practice? Only six PSTs responded
to this question for Standard 1.4. Two of these PSTs referred to feeling more confident
about researching ideas and making connections but acknowledged they still needed
 12
K. PAIGE ET AL.

Table 2. Professional knowledge: number of respondents.

Know students and
how they learn Survey High Quality Experienced in/happy with Keeping my eye on this Need to spend more time on this Total responses
Pre 0 4 3 5 12/17
1.4 Strategies for Post 0 5 9 2 16/17
teaching
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait
Islander students.
Know content and Survey High Quality Experienced in/happy with Keeping my eye on this Need to spend more time on this Total responses
how to teach it
2.4 Understand and Pre 0 4 2 3 9/17
respect Aboriginal Post 1 8 7 0 16/17
and Torres Strait
Islander people to
promote
reconciliation
between
Indigenous and
non-Indigenous
Australians.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 13

AITSL STANDARD 1.4

4
3
2
1
0
Kate

Jen

Amy
Eve

Deb

Tom

Louise

Joan

Ryan

Carol

Bel

Sarah

Nisa

Tess
Quinn
Lorna

Tina
1.4 PRE 1.4 POST

Figure 2. Self-review of professional knowledge pre- and post-intervention: “strategies for teaching
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students”.

more teaching experience; one other PST expressed confidence in planning for diversity.
Each of these PSTs rated themselves from Keeping my eye on this to Experienced in/happy
with. The three remaining PSTs each made direct reference to the planned interventions
they had experienced through the course. One PST commented that it was the first time
they had heard an Aboriginal educator talk.
In their pre-intervention reflections for Standard 1.4, seven PSTs responded to the
question If this is not evidenced as part of your teaching practice what do you consider you
need to do to strengthen this area? Within these seven responses there are two distinct
themes: experience and resources. In relation to experience, three of the participants
refer to needing to put learning into practice and gaining more experience with the
teaching strategies and also of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students. One PST made direct reference to using the culturally responsive mathematics
strategies discussed in Intervention 1. These participants tended to rate themselves in
the intermediate categories. The second theme was about getting access to more
resources and doing more research, with one of these responses specially referring to
attending Professional Development and reflecting more. The responses that these parti-
cipants recorded were Keeping my eye on this (two participants) and Need to spend more
time on this (one international student).

Standard 2.4
The average scaled post-intervention response to AITSL Standard 2.4 was 2.66. This is
slightly higher than for Standard 1.4, suggesting that the participants were less comfor-
table with their knowledge of Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students than with their abilities to Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians (see Figure 2 above and Figure 3 below).
As evident in Figure 3, only three of the participants rate Standard 2.4 in the lowest
category pre-intervention. One PST offered a response to how Standard 2.4 is evidenced
in her practice:

Supported learning in special Reconciliation Week activities in our Cultural Learning Centre and
when an Aboriginal elder spoke to the class about traditional culture. Participated in discus-
sions on the development of Individual Learning Plans for Indigenous students (Bel).
14 K. PAIGE ET AL.

AITSL STANDARD 2.4

5
4
3
2
1
0
Kate

Jen

Amy
Eve

Tom

Ryan
Deb

Joan

Carol

Bel

Sarah

Nisa

Tess
Lorna

Louise

Quinn
Tina
2.4 PRE 2.4 POST

Figure 3. Self-review of professional knowledge pre- and post-intervention: understand and respect
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous Australians.

However, eight participants did not provide a pre-intervention rating for this statement
and, of this eight, the only detail provided was by Tina: “I will need to improve this”.
In the post-intervention self-review, eight of the participants responded to the
Standard 2.4 statement, indicating that they believed their teaching had some elements
of this standard. Four of this cohort responded that the content and experiences offered
in the pathway course and specific experiences and this has contributed to their knowl-
edge, “Feel like I now know more about Indigenous people and their culture” (Jen). Two
participants referred to previous teaching experiences, which might imply that the
course did not impact on how they think about Standard 2.4. However, both Eve and
Bel commented that the information workshops provided in the pathway course had
helped to develop their understanding of some of the complexities.

Confidence
The third research question, How confident are final-year pre-service teachers in integrating
their understanding of Indigenous knowledge and culture in classrooms that include
Indigenous students?, is addressed through the four sub-questions in Table 3, which
shows the pre- and post-intervention self-ratings for the PSTs. Participants were also
asked to elaborate on their confidence ratings, and these elaborations address research
question four (What impact, if any, do three minor interventions have on these PSTs’ levels of
knowledge and confidence?). After the interventions, there appeared to be a small positive
shift in PSTs’ self-rated confidence, as evidenced in Table 3. However, given the small
sample size, this can only be considered in conjunction with the participants’ qualitative
responses. Their initial self-ratings ranged from 2 to 9 on a scale from 1 to10. Within this
range, we have categorised the PSTs into three groups based on their self-rating; from 1 to
3 (low confidence), from 4 to 6 (mid confidence) and 7 or more (high confidence). Each of
these categories is explored to provide insight into the PSTs’ experiences.

Low confidence
Across the four survey questions, four PSTs consistently rated themselves as having low
confidence. Two PSTs who had been raised overseas commented several times that their
understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures was derived solely from
their University study. For example, Quinn, an international student, wrote: “I only
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 15

Table 3. Self-rated confidence pre- and post-intervention.

Pre Post
Question N (μ) (μ) Difference
How confident are you in your own knowledge of ATSI culture? 17 5.12 6.18 + 1.06
How confident would you be in bringing ATSI knowledge and culture into your 16 5.09 6.06 + 0.97
teaching?
How confident would you be in teaching students with an ATSI heritage? 17 4.82 5.89 + 0.95
How confident would you be in teaching learning experiences which integrate ATSI 19 4.44 5.71 + 1.26
knowledges and cultures in a classroom environment which includes students with
an ATSI heritage?
*ATSI represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

learned some Indigenous culture in a course at Uni, knowing Kaurna people are ? the
Indigenous people of Adelaide”. Not surprisingly, given the low starting point of these
four PSTs at the pre-intervention survey stage, all four demonstrated positive increase of
more than 2 across all four questions. Typically, however, they acknowledged their need
to learn a lot more, for example: “I think I still need to do a lot of research before I bring
Indigenous knowledge and culture into my teaching”.
Jen, whose confidence rating for bringing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowl-
edges and cultures into your teaching was 1 in the pre-intervention survey, exhibited the
largest score increase of +5. In her post-intervention reflection, Jen indicated that she is
now “somewhat confident but [she has] not hands-on experience with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander cultures”. A gain of +5 is the largest across any of the confidence
self-rating items and suggests a considerable perceived growth in thinking. Of interest
here also is Bel who has experience working with AIME3 and who scored herself at 3 in
the pre-intervention confidence survey. However, she also exhibited a large post-inter-
vention gain of +4. Her post-intervention refection seems to point to her valuing her
experiences more now, “I have had previous experiences teaching Aboriginal children. The
strategies we have learnt would help extend these experiences”.
The question which appeared to be of greatest concern for the PSTs was How
confident would you be in teaching learning experiences which integrate Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander knowledges and cultures in a classroom environment which includes
students with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage? The majority of the post-
intervention comments related to the need to experience working with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in the classroom. A total of seven (out of 17) PSTs rated
themselves as having low confidence (i.e. before the interventions). The two PSTs raised
overseas were again in this category. Six of these seven PSTs rated their confidence as 3
and two of these PSTs (Bel and Jen) had post-intervention scores that increased from 3
to 7. Jen made specific reference to the pathway course assignments supporting her:
“After completing my transdisciplinary unit I feel more confident in integrating learning”.
Unlike others Tina’s (an international student) confidence remained low. She was the
only PST in the low-confidence category who exhibited a negative score change post
intervention, commenting in her post-intervention reflection: “I will need more support &
resources”, which suggests that the more culturally aware she became the more she
realised she had to learn. Similarly, Sarah, who presented the smallest positive score
change (+1) added, “I am afraid I might say the wrong thing and offend someone”.
16 K. PAIGE ET AL.

Mid confidence
The number of PSTs who fell into the mid-confidence category, when averaged across
the four survey questions, ranged from 7 to 11, with the highest number relating to
Question 3, How confident would you be in teaching students of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander heritage? The main reasons cited by the PSTs for this mid-range of
confidence centred on awareness of having some knowledge but needing to know
more, and lack of teaching experience. Many of the PSTs in this cohort demonstrated
little movement in post-intervention confidence scores. Post-intervention comments
include: “I feel I gained some good knowledge of culture but still have no experience
teaching” (Louise) and “not experienced but willing” (Ryan).
However, this lack of score change may not necessarily indicate a lack of change in
PSTs’ thinking; rather, the scaling system may not be robust enough, or PSTs may have
over-estimated their confidence during the pre-intervention phase because they did not
yet fully understand the complexity of the issue. For example, in relation to Question 3
(How confident would you be in teaching students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
heritage?), five PSTs demonstrated no change between pre- and post-intervention
scores, but this lack of change was not always consistent with their qualitative responses
(see Table 4).
In response to question 3 (How confident would you be in teaching students of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander heritage?) three PSTs demonstrated a negative overall change, two
of which started out in the high confidence category and the other, Kate, started with a self-
rating of 6. Kate began by saying “I think I am knowledgeable enough to teach them however I
am a bit scared of offending them/their culture”. This suggests that Kate has an awareness of
her responsibilities but an element of unsureness. In her post-intervention reflection, Kate
specifically refers to needing more teaching experience. She is not alone in voicing her
concerns about offending. For example, Amy (in her pre-intervention response) stated that
“I am concerned about teaching it “wrong” or “offending” and “it would be easier with no
students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage (don’t want to say something wrong/
offend)”. Eve indicated that her confidence (6 at pre-intervention survey) was based primar-
ily on the experience she had working in a school with a “large no of Indigenous children,
[she] studied relevant subjects at Uni, [she is] interested in working with Indigenous students so

Table 4. Example of mid-confidence PST responses.

Pre-intervention
Sarah Average confidence rating: 4.75
I feel that I can always improve my knowledge to
improve my confidence. At the moment I feel that
teaching stuff like history would be easy for me
because I have done HASS and Aboriginal education
but I still need to improve my knowledge about
culture.
Tess Average confidence rating: 2.25
I would research and create learning experiences
which are appropriate and help students
understand.
Lorna Average confidence rating: 4.75
I need to do more reading/research in the given
topic.
Post-intervention
Average confidence rating: 5.5
I feel like I need more understanding of Indigenous
culture. It would be useful to firstly invite guest
speakers.
Average confidence rating: 4.5
I have learnt more strategies such as not having a
pre-conception and respecting & involving their
culture and learning.
Average confidence rating: 6
If I were teaching Indigenous culture, I would be a
lot more confident in researching to gain
understanding prior to teaching a class.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 17

have done additional reading, [visited] art exhibitions and talked to artists”. After the inter-
ventions, Eve scored herself at 8 (+2) and indicated that the guest speakers had helped her
to tie all of her experiences together to better link it to education. This focus on teaching in
the post-intervention responses is somewhat expected as the emphasis in this pathway
course is on teaching and preparation for teaching, hence it is not surprising that by the end
of the course much of their thinking is tied directly to themselves in the classroom.

High confidence
Unsurprisingly, the number of PSTs who rated themselves as having high confidence
was the smallest group, ranging from 2 to 4 PSTs. One PST, Deb, had significant previous
experience of Aboriginal cultures as she had grown up in an Aboriginal community
where her mother was a teacher. However, Deb typically demonstrated a negative
change in scores over time. For example, responding to the question How confident
are you in your own knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures? She
initially scored her confidence at 9.5, but this subsequently dropped to 9 and her
comments suggest a more nuanced understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander cultures: “Because I grew up surrounded by Indigenous cultures, I put 9 instead
of 10 because I don’t know about all cultures – only mine and some in SA”. This perceived
reduction in confidence was also exhibited by other PSTs, which again suggests some
initial over-inflation of confidence or the initial lack of understanding of the complexity
of the issue.

Discussion
The two key themes which emerge from this data are (1) acknowledging that PSTs need
more teaching experience, particularly in culturally diverse contexts, and (2) PSTs in this
study are tentative around culturally responsive pedagogies because they are fearful/
nervous of inadvertently causing offence.
A need for more teaching experience is something that can be said of all PSTs and
early career teachers. At the time of post-intervention data collection, these PSTs were
five weeks away from beginning their final year teaching placement, having already
completed three placements in previous years. However, these PSTs lacked knowledge
and confidence in implementing culturally responsive pedagogy in the classroom; no-
one made note of having experienced this on any placement nor did they raise any
questions about what this might look like. This could potentially be an example of what
Moodie and Patrick (2017) refer to when they suggest that the AITSL standards may
narrow culturally responsive pedagogy and encourage teachers to see Indigenous
leaners as “culturally determined” and responding to these standards as addressing
“cultural content”. The findings presented here suggest that PSTs need to broaden
their understanding of Aboriginal knowledge and cultures to enable them to recognise
opportunities for meaningful integration in their teaching practices. While one can
dismiss this as being a typical issue for PSTs, to do so would be a failure on our part
to recognise a major complexity for our students. The intention and purpose of profes-
sional experience is to provide opportunities for PSTs to practice in a safe and supported
teaching environment and also to observe good teaching in action. Not surprisingly, the
PSTs reported not having experienced or seen Indigenous perspectives or taught
18 K. PAIGE ET AL.

students with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background in their classroom
experiences to date. This is likely to be as a result of Aboriginal people being under-
represented as both teachers and students in these settings but also their lack of
knowledge and experience in this complex space. The concern for us is the lack of
connection the PSTs may be making with elements of culturally responsive pedagogy,
recognition of individual difference, catering for a range of learning styles, student
centeredness, teacher enthusiasm, high expectations of students and positive attitudes
towards them (Au, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 1995) which are principles of good teaching in
general – no student is devoid of culture.
This issue also echoes one of the concerns raised by Deer (2013), how compatible is
curriculum with Aboriginal knowledge? In his work with PSTs in Canada, Deer (2013) calls
for a curriculum reform to bring Aboriginal cultures to the heart of teaching. Such an
undertaking, would provide a long term response but would not address the short term
need of graduating teachers. In the Australia Curriculum, the general capability of
intercultural understanding and the cross curriculum priority of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders have provided guidance for teachers and PSTs. There is also an intention
to include more explicit connects for teachers, for example Indigenous knowledges will
be explicitly included in the future iterations of the Science elaborations in the
Australian Curriculum. As also noted in the Canadian context (Deer, 2013) there is also
a need for resourcing professional learning to ensure meaningful change and imple-
mentation of 1.4 and 2.4 in terms of quality of engagement in the intercultural space for
all students (Nakata, 2011). For example Nakata suggests careful and thoughtful selec-
tion of Indigenous content to inform sequential development of the cross curriculum
priority is fundamental. Such resources will be invaluable to PSTs to begin the process of
mutual awareness and understanding. It may also go some way to allay some of the
fears/anxieties that these PSTs note in regard to not wanting to cause offence. In the
context of New Zealand, Averill et al. (2009) suggest that a lack of teacher confidence
and awareness in this field is a widely shared concern. This view is supported by
Castagano and Brayboy (2008) and Marx (2016), who describe it as a critical factor in
teacher education. However, the reality for these PSTs, as identified in their qualitative
responses, is that many are concerned with the fundamentals and practicalities of
teaching and may well see cultural responsiveness as an “additional” focus rather than
a core element of their teaching responsibilities. Educators preparing to work in
Australian schools with diverse student populations need to grapple with their under-
standings of the epistemological foundations of Western scientific knowledge (Nakata,
2007a; Smith, 2012), its associated assumptions, which, unless addressed, will inevitably
redistribute epistemological and practical inequality in classrooms and schools (Fraser &
Honneth, 2003).
It is important to note that the PSTs appear to be genuinely interested in creating
inclusive and supportive learning environments in order to make a difference; this
enthusiasm is reflected in comments such as “Not experienced but willing”. However,
they express an underlying hesitance because they do not want to appear culturally
insensitive or make an embarrassing faux pas, a finding consistent with Buxton’s (2017)
study. This again suggests the need for significantly more work in moving towards
competence in developing culturally responsive pedagogies for the various cultural,
geographic and schooling contexts teachers may encounter Aboriginal students in
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 19

(Madden, 2015). Many of the PSTs commented about being aware that there is a wide
range of cultural beliefs and practices that vary with location and language groups,
indicating an understanding of the complexity for early career teachers developing
confidence to learn to teach.
Questions around how do we teach about (other) cultures? Is it ever possible for
teachers to teach about some else’s cultures outside the stereotypes and generalisations
that currently pervade the curriculum and professional practice are continually being
raised. Teachers need to reflect that Indigenous perspectives will emerge in the inter-
cultural space of the classroom and that they will be contested (Nakata, 2011 p.7). This is
a complex space and selection of content becomes the critical point. Marx (2016)
highlights, addressing these fears and concerns is crucial in order to support PSTs in
gaining cultural and communicative competency. That being said, six of the cohort
(which is six more than the previous year) included a focus on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander knowledge, culture and/or connections in their preparatory planning for
their final placement – suggesting that there has been some shift in the levels of cultural
awareness for these PSTs and ourselves.

Summary and conclusion

Nakata’s (2007b) “cultural interface” provides a framework for identifying the foundations
of institutional and historical knowledges and negotiating alternatives for knowledge
production, where the social, historical, political and epistemological foundations of
knowledge might be identified and discussed as a pedagogical cue for repositioning
ourselves as learner-participants at the interface. The cultural interface represents a
complex and contested space where knowledge, like languages, cultures and identities,
is constantly renegotiated and re-made. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts,
personal and community identities are never static as interactions with colonialism are
negotiated generation by generation, underpinned by traditional knowledge systems that
are located within creation stories. This collective knowledge system represents an
eternal, unchanging account of history, law and thought (Osborne, 2017). Cultural respon-
siveness needs to be placed at the centre of teacher pedagogy, rather than considered an
“optional extra”, particularly in curriculum areas such as science and mathematics, which
are conventionally dominated by Western epistemological frameworks.
This paper has focused on final year PSTs and explored initial understandings and how
this has evolved throughout the semester. The findings presented suggest that the PSTs
understand the importance of a well-prepared and considered approach to teaching
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content and students (AITLS standards 1.4, 2.4).
This is reflected in the small positive shift evident in the quantitative data, also in the
tone of the elaborations the participants provided as well as incorporating Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander perspectives in their planning. The PSTs in this study indicated that
the targeted interventions, which were intended to trigger their thinking about Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, did impact on the ways in which they
might think about making connections to all students’ life worlds and to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander knowledge and culture. The data indicates that the workshops
presented as planned interventions in this pathway course resonated with the PSTs.
20 K. PAIGE ET AL.

However, this study was only a starting point and, as expected, it has raised more
questions than it has answered. We believe more needs to be done to explore the depth
of understanding that these PSTs have to ensure that they avoid tokenistic and/or
essentialist approaches into the classroom. However, we must start the conversation
and believe that the first steps for PSTs is to identify opportunities where it might be
appropriate to embed Indigenous perspectives into their teaching practices ‘and to
build a common language and discourse for discussion about Indigenous goals and
priorities and Indigenous problems and solutions” (Nakata, 2013, p.290) . Further to this,
we – as teacher educators – need to ensure we have a consistent message about
culturally responsive pedagogies and how such approaches to teaching are for the
benefit of all students (as discussed by Hackling et al., 2015). We need to acknowledge
our role in modelling how we do this (our current example is Paige et al., 2018c, 2018b)
and sharing good practice with our students.
The narrative around educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children continues to focus on deficit, highlighting gaps in achievement. This narrative will
not change until there is significant investment, be it of time or funding, in addressing the
lack of understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and knowledges and
the potential of such investment to impact positively on education for all. This requires a
shared/consistent approach to culturally responsive pedagogy which recognises individual
difference, cultural context of the individual students and caters for a range of learning
styles Teachers need to embrace student-centred approaches with enthusiasm and have
high expectations of student learning. As academics and educators, we appreciate the
complexity around this issue and though, at times, found this to be a challenging space in
which to work, we believe that it is important that our PSTs leave our institution with an
awareness and commitment to understanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander his-
tories and culture, as well some knowledge of culturally responsive pedagogies in science
and mathematics. We acknowledge that this is only a starting point and that we need to
build on the interventions to strengthen the learning for future cohorts of PSTs. A coherent
approach from colleagues in all learning areas and the possibility of PSTs spending
extended time “On Country” would undoubtedly increase the impact.

Notes
1. Gerard Mission was established in 1945 near Loxton by the United Aborigines Mission
(UAM) to replace the Swan Reach Mission. A school and a children’s dormitory was
established. From the mid-1950s, children attended the local Winkie School. The state
government took control of the Mission in 1961. In 1974 control of Gerard Mission was
passed to the Indigenous residents and run by the Gerard Council.
2. This course is referred to as a pathway course as it is viewed as a pathway to the classroom
for these pre-service teachers.
3. UniSA runs a mentoring programme called AIME: Australian Indigenous Mentoring
Experience.

Ethics statement
Ethics approval was granted for the study from the Human Research Ethics Committee, UniSA,
application 0000035298.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 21

Notes on contributors
Dr Lisa O’Keeffe is a Lecturer in Mathematics Education at the UniSA, having also worked in the
Irish and UK contexts. Her research interests include critical numeracy, the role of mathematical
language and knowledge for learning mathematics.
Dr Kathryn Paige is a Senior Lecturer in Science and Mathematics education at the University of
South Australia. Her research interests include transdisciplinary approaches, eco justice and
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.
Dr Samuel Osborne is Associate Director, Regional Engagement (APY Lands) at UniSA. He has
worked in various roles in Aboriginal Education since 1995. He currently teaches Pitjantjatjara
language programs and is involved in research on Culturally Responsive Pedagogies.

References
AAS. (2016). Primary connections. Australian Academy of Science. Retrieved from https://primary
connections.org.au/.
ACARA. (2017). Australian curriculum and assessment reporting authority. Retrieved from http://
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
AITSL. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.
au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers
AITSL. (2014). Initial teacher education: Data report 2014. Melbourne: Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initialteacher-educa
tion/data-report-2015/data-report-2014
Anderson, P., & Atkinson, B. (2013). Closing the gap: Using graduate attributes to improve
Indigenous education. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(1),
135–145.
Arbon, V. (2008). Arlathirnda ngurkarnda ityirnda: Being-knowing-doing, de-colonising Indigenous
tertiary education. Teneriffe, QLD: Post Pressed.
Au, K. (2009). Isn’t culturally responsive instruction just good teaching? Social Education, 73(4),
179–183.
Averill, R., Anderson, D., Easton, H., Te Maro, P., Smith, D., & Hynds, A. (2009). Culturally responsive
teaching of mathematics: Three models from linked studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 40, 157–186.
Bishop, R. (2011). Freeing ourselves. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Borgelt, I., Brooks, K., Innes, J., Seelander, A., & Paige, K. (2009). Using digital narratives to
communicate about place- based experiences in science. Teaching Science, 55(1), 41–45.
Brayboy, B., & Castagno, A. E. (2009). Self-determination through self-education: Culturally respon-
sive schooling for Indigenous students in the USA. Teaching Education, 20(1), 31–53.
Buxton, L. (2017). Ditching deficit thinking: Changing to a culture of high expectations. Issues in
Educational Research, 27(2), 198–214.
Castagano, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A
review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993.
Coffey, A., & Lavery, S. (2015). Service-learning: A valuable means of preparing pre-service teachers
for a teaching practicum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 7.
Curnow, P., & Paige, K. (2006). The cosmic story board. Teaching Science, 52(2), 36–40.
Deer, F. (2013). Integrating Aboriginal perspectives in education: Perceptions of pre-service
teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 175–211.
Delpit, L. (1993). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children.
In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools
(pp. 119–141). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ford, L. (2005). Narratives and landscapes: Their capacity to serve Indigenous knowledge interests.
Victoria: Deakin University.
22 K. PAIGE ET AL.

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition?: A political-philosophical exchange.

London; New York: Verso.
Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Guenther, J. (2015, September 2). Culturally and contextually responsive schools: What are they
and why do they matter? Paper presented at the Remote Education Systems Public Lecture Series.
Armidale: University of New England.
Guenther, J., Osborne, S., Arnott, A., & McRae-Williams, E. (2015). Hearing the voice of remote
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander training stakeholders using research methodologies and
theoretical frames of reference. Race ethnicity and education, 20(3): 197-208.
Hackling, M., Byrne, M., Gower, G., & Anderson, K. (2015). A pedagogical model for engaging
Aboriginal children with science learning. Teaching Science, 61(1), 27–39.
Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and ‘strong objectivity’. Social
Research, 59(3), 567–587.
Harrison, N., & Murray, B. (2012). Reflective teaching practice in a Darug classroom: How teachers
can build relationships with an Aboriginal community outside the school. The Australian Journal
of Indigenous Education, 41(2), 139–145.
Harslett, M., Harrison, B., Godfrey, J., Partington, G., & Richer, K. (2000). Teacher perceptions of the
characteristics of effective teachers of Aboriginal middle school students. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 25(2). doi:10.14221/ajte.2000v25n2.4
Hauser, V., Howlett, C., & Matthews, C. (2009). The place of Indigenous knowledge in tertiary
science education: A case study of Canadian practices in Indigenising the curriculum. The
Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38(S1), 46–58.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.
Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lampert, J. (2003). The alabaster academy: Being a non-Indigenous academic in Indigenous
studies. Social Alternatives, 22(3), 17–23.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in
schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lowe, K. (2017). Walanbaa warramildanha: The impact of authentic Aboriginal community and
school engagement on teachers’ professional knowledge. The Australian Educational Researcher,
Online Publication, (44), 35–54. doi:10.1007/s13384-017-0229-8
Madden, B. (2015). Pedagogical pathways for Indigenous education with/in teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 1–15.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: Final report.
Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.
Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the implica-
tions for researchers. Teneriffe, Qld: Post Pressed.
Marx, S. (2016). Qualitative research in STEM: Studies of equity, access, and innovation. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Matthews, C. (2012). Maths as storytelling: Maths is beautiful. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander education: An introduction for the teaching profession (pp. 94–112). Port
Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, C., Cooper, T. J., & Baturo, A. R. (2007). Creating your own symbols: Beginning algebraic
thinking with Indigenous students. In J.-H. Woo, H.-C. Lew, K.-S. Park, & D.-Y. Seo (Eds.),
Proceedings 31st annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education (Vol. 3, pp. 249–256). Seoul, Korea.
McLaughlin, M. (2012). Crossing cultural borders: A journey towards understanding and celebration in
Aboriginal Australian and non-Aboriginal Australian contexts (Doctoral Thesis). Curtin University,
Perth, WA.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classroom. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Moodie, N., & Patrick, R. (2017). Settler grammars and the Australian professional standards for
teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 439–454.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 23

Moreton-Robinson, A., Singh, D., Kolopenuk, J., & Robinson, A. (2012). Learning the lessons? Pre-
service teacher preparation for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/learning-the-lessons-pre-ser
vice-teacher-preparation-for-teaching-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-students
Munns, G., Martin, A., & Craven, R. (2008). To free the spirit? Motivation and engagement of
Indigenous students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37, 98–107.
Nakata, M. (2007a). Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies
Press.
Nakata, M. (2007b). The cultural interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36
(Supplement), 7–14.
Nakata, M. (2011). Pathways for Indigenous education in the Australian curriculum framework. The
Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40, 1–8.
Nakata, M. (2013). The rights and blights of the politics in Indigenous higher education.
Anthropological Forum, 23(3), 289–303.
Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., & Bolt, R. (2012). Decolonial goals and pedagogies for Indigenous
studies. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 120–140.
Osborne, S. (2017). Kulini: Framing ethical listening and power-sensitive dialogue in remote
Aboriginal education and research. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in
Social Contexts, 22(Special Issue: Decolonising Research Practices), 26–37.
Paige, K., Caldwell, D., Elliott, K., O’Keeffe, L., Osborne, S., Roetman, P., . . . Gosnell. (2018c). Fresh
water literacies transdisciplinary learning for place and eco justice, final report. Australia: University
of South Australia. ISBN: 10.13135/2384-8677/2773.
Paige, K., & Hardy, G. (2014). Socio-scientific issues and educating for an ecologically and socially
just world: A transdisciplinary approach for engaging pre-service teachers in science and
mathematics. International Journal of Education for Social Justice, 3(1), 17–37.
Paige, K., Hattam, R., Rigney, L., Osborne, S., & Morrison, A. (2016). Strengthening Indigenous
participation and practice in STEM: University initiatives for equity and excellence. Report
University of South Australia.
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., Caldwell, D., O’Keeffe, L., Osborne, S., Roetman, P., & Comber, B. (2018b).
Futures in primary science education – Connecting students to place and eco justice. Vision for
Sustainability (Special Edition) Science Education Futures. doi:10.13135/2384-8677/0000
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Chartres, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: An ecological
sustainable focus for science and mathematics pre-service education in the primary/middle
years. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 19–33.
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Osborne, S. (2018a). Educating for sustainability: Theoretical and practical
insights for preservice teachers. In Price & Green (Eds), Making HASS come alive. Cambridge:
Routledge.
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Smith, R. (2016). Paths to ‘knowing places’ – And ecojustice: Three teacher
educators’ experiences. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3), 1–28.
Parsons, E. C., & Carlone, H. B. (2013). Editorial: Culture and science education in the 21st century:
Extending and making the cultural box more inclusive. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
50(1), 1–11.
Perso, T. F. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and school education: With particular focus on Australia’s
first peoples; A review & synthesis of the literature. Menzies School of Health Research, Centre for
Child Development and Education, Darwin Northern Territory.
Price, K. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education: An introduction for the teaching
profession. Cambridge: Queensland.
Rigney, L. (1999). Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial critique of research methodol-
ogies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo SA Review, 14(2),
109–121.
Rigney, L. (2011a). Indigenous education and tomorrow’s classroom: Three questions, three
answers. In N. Purdie, G. Milgate, & H. R. Bell (Eds.), Two way teaching and learning: Toward
culturally reflective and relevant education (pp. 35–48). Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.
24 K. PAIGE ET AL.

Rigney, L. (2011b). Social inclusion in education. In D. Bottrell & S. Goodwin (Eds.), Schools,
communities and social inclusion (pp. 38–49). Melbourne: Palgrave- Macmillan.
Rigney, L. (2011c). Settling Indigenous education. In M. Brigg & S. Maddison (Eds.), Unsettling the
settler state (pp. 206–211). Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed
Books.
Turnbull, M. (2016). Closing the gap: Prime Minister’s report 2016. Retrieved from http://closingth
egap.dpmc.gov.au/
Walls, F. (2004). The New Zealand numeracy projects: Redefining mathematics for the 21st
century? The New Zealand Mathematics Magazine, 41(2), 21–43.
Yunkaporta, T., & McGinty, S. (2009). Reclaiming Aboriginal place-based worldviews at the interface
of local and non-local knowledge. Australian Education Researcher, 36(2), 55–72.