Curriculum Analysis
While there are similarities in curriculum between educational jurisdictions, there are also important differences. Although our research is most concerned with measuring how effectively students are learning what FNMI leaders, elders and educators feel is important to learn, we are also interested in how well students are learning what Ministries of Education-mandated documents purport they are being taught. We will analyze curriculum (including curricular guides) and textbooks used in K-12 schools prior to designing the questionnaire to ensure that a component of curriculum-related knowledge is on our questionnaire. We analyze the curriculum paying close attention to contradiction within and between texts, courses, and grade levels, the subtle (or not so subtle) insertion of settler voice and values, silences and misinformation, and undermining strategies including placement, juxtaposition and decontextualization (Anderson, 2012; Bannerji, 2000; Bickmore, 2006; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Lipsitz, 1998; Ng, 1993; Schick & St. Denis, 2005; Willinsky, 1998).
Questionnaire Design
The first version of the questionnaire was developed in consultation with local FNMI people, educators and academics and in part based on the questionnaire developed by (CAAS, 2004). We ran it in geography and education classes at Queen’s University and after further consultations we moved to an on-line questionnaire to improve the feasibility and reach of the study. This second version was piloted with a 100% survey of all first-year students at Queen’s (A. Godlewska, et al., 2013). The Queen’s survey was the starting point for the Memorial University survey but underwent significant modification as a result of a co-design process with specialists in the university and in six FNMI communities across Newfoundland and Labrador (totaling consultations over 60 people). Our knowledge and the quality of the survey increased exponentially through these co-design meetings as the questions, wording, and our thinking were challenged and new questions emerged. The process we followed taught us that the best way to reach FNMI knowledge holders was through the university’s Aboriginal education officer, who had the necessary contacts and credibility with communities and could translate academic and community concerns back and forth. This third version of the survey was delivered to all first-year students at Memorial University in 2013. In keeping with our policy mandate of knowledge sharing, the data generated by the survey were delivered to Memorial for internal program review, as were publications generated through our analysis of the curriculum and the Memorial data. The fourth version of the questionnaire was developed through a similar process of co-design with 10 universities in Ontario (Guelph, Lakehead, Laurentian, Laurier, McMaster, Ottawa, Queen's, Toronto, Trent, Windsor) from October 2013 to August 2014 and was disseminated to 42,000 first year students in September and October. Consultations were of two kinds: 1) negotiation with the universities to secure their cooperation and participation (including securing ethics approval, institutional research approval, fitting the survey to the institution, and gaining general administrative support). 2) The content co-design sessions involved over 200 FNMI council members and knowledge holders from cities and reserves near these institutions, as well as academics, staff members and students. The test portion of the Ontario-wide questionnaire has 36 test questions across 6 subscales (governance, culture, geography, history, current events and provincial curriculum), and includes questions on self-assessment of knowledge, sources of knowledge, interest level, social attitudes and demographics, with many text boxes for possible comment.
We followed the same co-design process in British Columbia (2016-2017). We also resurveyed exiting-year students at Queen's University in 2018 to see what students have learned from university (Godlewska et al., 2019). Based on our past experience, it is vital to work with FNMI councils and knowledge holders to capture regional and cultural experiences which differ substantially across Canada.
Survey Implementation
Implementing the survey requires negotiation with universities to gain, ideally, a 100% sample of their first year and fourth year students and a resurvey 3 or 4 years later (to allow cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis). We maintain contact with the universities to track any curricular, co-curricular, space or administrative initiatives relevant to FNMI education. Finally, the university will provide us with key information the students cannot give us: e.g. the postal code of the high school from which they graduated, which allows us to trace students’ education back to school boards. In each university the Aboriginal education (or resource) office, the research ethics committee, privacy officers, equity officers, the office of institutional research and planning and the educational hierarchy must deem the research important and pass all aspects of it. Implementing the survey has multiple functions, it: engages universities and FNMI communities together in the challenge of educating Canadians about FNMI issues, itself educates students who receive the answers to the questions, provides data to each university which it can use to effect curricular and co-curricular reform, and provides us with data for analysis.
Survey Analysis
Arguably, we already know that students know little about FNMI issues, but do we know what best predicts this knowledge: education (what kind, at what levels, where), social attitudes, gender, age, identity, where they grew up, etc.? We use quantitative and qualitative analysis methodologies to assess students’ knowledge of FNMI issues.