Preparing Culturally Sustaining/Revitalizing Educators: Lessons From Field Experiences in Alaska Native Village Schools

• In Event: Examining Issues of Language, Culture, and Power Through Culturally Sustaining and Revitalizing Pedagogies

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes
The presentation will consider the preparation of educators to teach in culturally sustaining/revitalizing ways. It is based on a study that examined the placement of 60 preservice teacher interns in Alaska Native village schools. The presentation will describe the schooling context, specifically themes related to school-based language and culture, as presented by preservice teachers and discuss the meaning of these findings for teacher education programs that aim to prepare culturally sustaining/revitalizing educators.
Theoretical Framework
Culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy (CSRP) is the organizing framework. Developed by McCarty and Lee (2014), CSRP expands on scholarship in culturally responsive education and culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) (Paris, 2012). Culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy incorporates CSP’s salient themes of race, language, and social class and the goal to promote and sustain cultural and linguistic pluralism (Paris & Alim, 2014).
To address the context of Indigenous education in the United States, CSRP expands the emphasis from “sustaining” to “revitalizing” languages and cultures that have been disrupted by colonization. Also, a distinguishing feature of CSRP is the assumption that tribal sovereignty is integral to education policy and practices involving Indigenous students. In summary, CSRP contains three key components: 1) attend directly to asymmetrical power relations and the goal of transforming legacies of colonization; 2) reclaim and revitalize what has been disrupted and displaced by colonization, and 3) recognize the need for community-based accountability (McCarty & Lee, 2014)
Methods and Data Sources
Qualitative methods—document analysis and focus group interviews—were used to examine preservice interns’ experiences in Alaska Native village schools and the meaning of those experiences. It was guided by two primary questions:
What happened when preservice teachers encountered schools where Alaska Native languages were spoken and taught?
What are implications of these findings for teacher education programs that aim to prepare educators to enact culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogies?
Analysis consisted of a systematic review and coding of the data that led to the identification of major themes.
Results
Findings included descriptions of instructional practices in classrooms teaching Indigenous languages and cultures and themes presenting the schooling contexts as spaces of crisis, struggle, and hope. Interns reported culturally sustaining/revitalizing practices in many Indigenous teachers’ classrooms as well as noting concerns about the loss of Indigenous languages and cultures and ongoing presence of colonizing practices in schools.
Significance
The results were useful for program development at the University of Alaska Anchorage and relevant for other teacher education programs that prioritize culturally sustaining/revitalizing education. Implications for teacher education include pedagogies that intentionally address cross-cultural contexts and support preservice teachers’ transformative learning.
References
McCarthy, T. L., & Lee, T. S. (2004). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous
education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101-124.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy?
A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.

Author

• Timothy E. Jester, The University of Alaska - Anchorage