Conceptualising Intercultural Contact in the Supervision of Indigenous Student Teachers

This article was downloaded by: [University of Texas Libraries]On: 26 November 2014, At: 17:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Intercultural StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjis20

Conceptualising InterculturalContact in the Supervision ofIndigenous Student TeachersKay Martinez , Peter McNally , Frank York , Donna Rigano &Gail JosePublished online: 03 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Kay Martinez , Peter McNally , Frank York , Donna Rigano & Gail Jose(2001) Conceptualising Intercultural Contact in the Supervision of Indigenous StudentTeachers, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 22:3, 307-321, DOI: 10.1080/07256860120094028

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07256860120094028

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjis20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07256860120094028

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07256860120094028

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2001

Conceptualising Intercultural Contact inthe Supervision of Indigenous StudentTeachersKAY MARTINEZ, PETER MCNALLY, FRANK YORK,DONNA RIGANO & GAIL JOSESchool of Education, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia 4811

ABSTRACT James Cook University is the site of an off-campus, community-based pro-gram of teacher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living in remoteparts of Queensland, Australia. Known as the Remote Area Teacher Education Program(RATEP) it has had considerable success, but some unsolved problems persist. Fieldcomponents of the program include a practicum in the second last year in urban schools.This study set out to explore the opportunities and challenges faced by the RATEPIndigenous students and by their school-based teacher educators during the course of thesepractica sessions in urban schools. Utilising a framework that conceptualises interculturalcontact as boundaries rather than borders, differences and similarities between and withinparticipants’ experiences of the intercultural aspects of the practicum were identi� ed. Theresearch has illuminated many areas for action, which have already led to changingpractices in the RATEP program. In addition, this research has indicated a need for muchmore knowledge and understanding about intercultural supervision of student teachers froma minority group.

The Context of the Research

James Cook University (JCU) has been at the forefront of Indigenous teachereducation since the 1970s. An early innovative on-campus program incorporatingintensive instructional support was transformed in 1990 into the Remote AreaTeacher Education Program (RATEP), an off-campus, community-based programof teacher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living inremote parts of Queensland. Several major funding partners joined with JCU in theRATEP program: state and national departments of education, and a regionalcollege of technical and further education where RATEP students complete a 2-yearentrance diploma course. RATEP students study their university courses via variousforms of interactive technology at centres established with necessary hardware—in-teractive CD-ROM, video, teleconferencing, internet access. A teacher-coordinator

ISSN0725-6868print/ISSN1469-9540online/01/030307-15 Ó 2001Centre for Migrant and Intercultural StudiesDOI: 10.1080/07256860120094028

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

308 Kay Martinez et al.

(an experienced classroom teacher acting as tutor) is employed at each RATEP siteto assist the students in their university studies. Although the RATEP program hasbeen in place for only one decade and enrols only small numbers of students, it hashad considerable success. At the end of 1999, 72 students had graduated, most ofwhom were teaching across the state, including 34 in the Torres Strait Islands. Fieldcomponents of the program take place mostly in the students’ communities. How-ever, practicum in their second last year is in urban schools in Townsville, for twomajor reasons: to offer students this different teaching context, with experiencedsupervising teachers and large school populations with all the attendant organisa-tional structures; and to satisfy critics that these graduates are competent (like allteacher education graduates) to teach children in all contexts. With assistance fromnational government, RATEP students’ travel and accommodation costs are pro-vided for these practica. A teacher-coordinator is also employed to accompany thestudents in Townsville during these urban practica, to provide assistance. As part ofthe preparation for this practicum, the Indigenous students and their school-basedteacher educators come together for a 1-day workshop, specially funded in recogni-tion of the complexities of teaching and supervising across cultures. The 2000Australian Senate report underscores that ‘Indigenous Australians represent adiverse range of cultures and backgrounds, from the people of the Torres StraitIslands to those of Central Australia’ (p. 2). The small cohort of RATEP studentsinvolved in this study exemplify such diversity, with students coming from com-munities including: an island near Townsville, an Aboriginal rural desert com-munity, and an isolated island community in the Torres Strait. The students alsovaried with respect to their previous experiences of urban life: some had neverpreviously travelled outside their communities, others had lived and completedschooling in urban centres and had now relocated to remote communities. Theteachers in this study were also a diverse group, particularly with respect to previousknowledge and experience of Indigenous cultures. None of them were themselves ofAboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent, none spoke any Indigenous languages,and only one mentioned prior experience of living in an Aboriginal community.

Unsolved Problems

Particular problems associated with these urban practica persist. All participantshave found them very challenging and, it is our experience that these urban practicafor RATEP students are often extremely stressful. It was also our experience that theworkshop sessions were sometimes rendered complex and delicate, in part by thecultural and power differentials that exist between most supervising teachers and theRATEP student teachers, particularly those with little prior experience of urbanschooling. The authors of this paper—university-based teacher educators and anIndigenous teacher administrator—were keen to understand more fully the � nertexture of lived experiences for all involved. We are aware of the very large body ofliterature on multicultural education and multicultural teacher education. We alsoare familiar with the extensive body of literature on preservice teacher educationsupervision. However, little research has been documented in this area of cross-cul-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Conceptualising Intercultural Contact 309

tural supervision. Wong and Wong’s (1998) study of multicultural supervision incounselling developed a 60-item questionnaire to assess supervisors’ ‘multiculturalcompetencies’ with respect to knowledge, attitude, skills, and relationship. While thestudy is of some interest to our own work in that it argues strongly for specialistpreparation of counsellors supervising students of cultures other than their own, webelieved we � rst needed fuller information about the issues involved in supervisingRATEP Indigenous student teachers, before we could look at assessment of thesupervising teachers. Accordingly, our project set out to explore more fully theopportunities and challenges faced by the RATEP Indigenous students and by theirschool-based teacher educators during the course of these two practica sessions inurban schools. The research project also explored ways in which all participantscould be better prepared and supported for this work.

These problems associated with the urban practica for Indigenous students re� ectmuch broader issues in Indigenous education in Australia. A major problem is theunder-representation of Indigenous teachers in the workforce. The 1998 Senateinquiry into the status of teaching identi� ed nationwide problems of preparation andretention of Indigenous teachers. The 2000 Australian National Senate Report onIndigenous teacher education documents consistent calls over the past two decadesfor increasing the number of Indigenous teachers in Australia. This report alsolaments ‘the lack of good statistical information’ about actual participation (p. 105),with incomplete � gures from some states for government-employed teachers, but noreliable whole population � gures. What this recent report con� rms is that ‘At almostall levels, educational participation and achievement rates for Indigenous peopleremain behind those of the non-Indigenous population’ (Senate Report, 2000, p. 2).In 1996, the Indigenous population numbered around 390,000, 2% of the Aus-tralian population. Less than 0.01% of post-school education staff were Indigenousin 1995, with the majority in non-teaching positions (p. 105). In Queensland, thestate where the current research was conducted, the state employer (responsible forschooling around 70% of the state’s children) employs 33,563 teachers, just 1.4% ofwhom are Indigenous, where Indigenous people make up 2.9% of the total statepopulation. The Queensland education authority has recently released a strategicpolicy to address this and other problems associated with Indigenous education inthe state (Education Queensland, 2000).

For Indigenous Australians, inequitable representation and success start early inthe education chain. In a 1996 National School English Literacy Survey, 70% ofYear 3 students met performance standards in reading and writing; less than 20%of students in the Indigenous sample met the readings standard, and less than 30%met the writing standard. Education Queensland (2000) reports that in 1997,retention rates to matriculation for Indigenous students were 46%, compared with73% for non-Indigenous Australians. The report also documents disproportionatelyhigh levels of school disciplinary absences and secondary school attendance forIndigenous students. Completion rates for higher education courses are 14% forIndigenous Australians, 24% for non-Indigenous Australians. It is also clear thateducational disadvantages for Indigenous Australians are deeply embedded withinmuch broader social, economic and political contexts that shape being Indigenous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


in contemporary Australia. Indigenous education, health and legal services remainsources of national shame. Race relations are still a major political divide. Issues ofland rights and reconciliation are � rmly on the agenda as un� nished nationalbusiness. For us as researchers, the location of our university in a region with higherthan national average proportion of Indigenous people adds to our motivation tobetter serve Indigenous education. Not only does the present research re� ect ourpolitical commitment to a national and global society which is more socially just, italso has strong, pragmatic value at the local level. It re� ects an ongoing commitmentto making a difference to the lives of all children, especially in North Queensland.

Data from the Study

Thirteen RATEP students were interviewed in groups following both the May andJuly practica sessions. Thirteen school-based teacher educators were interviewedindividually following the 2-week May practicum and in a group interview followingthe 3-week July practicum. An interview with a school-based Professional Experi-ence Coordinator was also conducted in August. Initial drafts of the analysis andcompilation of the report were distributed to all participants. Supervising teachers’written responses are included, along with students’ written responses and tapeddiscussion by teleconference. Written re� ections from each RATEP student teacheras well as prac reports written by the supervising teachers were also part of thedatabase. Indigenous research assistants were employed to interview the RATEPstudents and to conduct the teleconference discussion of the preliminary report.Copies of the ensuing draft were circulated to all participants, again with assistancefrom an Indigenous researcher, and permission sought for its release. Feedback fromthat round of consultation has also been incorporated into this paper.

Framing the Research: conceptualising intercultural contact as boundariesnot borders

This research began as an attempt to explore the issues surrounding cross-culturalsupervision. It seemed like a fairly transparent matter of investigating Indigenousstudent teachers and Anglo supervising teachers working within the structures ofpreservice teacher education practicum in moderately large urban mainstreamschools. However, the complexities and subtleties revealed through the interviewsand written responses have made it clear that such a framing would be naive andsimplistic, and totally unsuited to our current knowledge and experience of whatErickson (1997) describes as ‘intercultural contact’. Erickson’s theorising of culturein society and in educational practices has been extremely helpful in coming tounderstand the research � ndings. His argument that ‘[E]very person and everyhuman group possesses both culture and cultural diversity’ (p. 34) was especiallyrelevant to participants of this study—the diverse group of Indigenous RATEPstudents and of teachers described above. Erickson warned that a focus on visibledifferentiating features (in our case, Indigenous and non-Indigenous) would haveignored implicit and invisible aspects of culture, risked labelling and stereotyping,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and constructed processes of ‘projective othering’ (p. 45) and cycles of ‘mutualmisattribution’ (p. 41) associated with ‘cultural romance or cultural tourism’(p. 46). McTaggart (1999), in his description of cross-cultural participatory actionresearch, similarly warns of the risks of exploitation involved when ‘others’ arerepresented through imposed ‘categories, homogeneity, and stereotyping’ (p. 497).Gilbert (2000), in describing the ‘deepening divides’ in Australian education, echoessuch a position in her poststructuralist analysis of the oppositional logic implied inbinaries such as Indigenous—non-Indigenous. She argues that they set up a questfor simple oppositional solutions, sliding over differences and ambiguities, and inturn leading to ‘the construction of narratives of blame’ (p. 3).

Determined to avoid such simplistic positions, we have found that workingsensitively in this research has demanded constant re� exivity, looking and listeningcarefully, quiet and long consultation, and frequent reminders that we should notessentialize culture, but rather ‘emphasise the variability of culture within socialgroups and the continual presence of cultural change as well as cultural continuityacross time’ (Erickson, 1997, p. 47). As we re� ected on our own and our colleagues’practices, we became aware that we frequently fell into the trap of constructingcultural differences as � xed, so establishing impenetrable cultural borders (p. 48). Atthe other end of the spectrum, a culture-neutral, individualistic approach also failedto adequately represent the complexities. As Cochran-Smith (1995) makes dramat-ically clear, ‘colour-blind’ responses to cultural difference offer no solutions to thechallenges of multicultural education. In our own study, we cannot (nor do we wishto) deny patterns of cultural difference between the school-based teacher educatorsand the student teachers. The teachers are formally educated adults who speakEnglish as their � rst language and work in urban schools, constantly living theculture of educational power. The student teachers are Indigenous Australians manyof whom currently live in remote small communities, and for whom English is athird or fourth language. In order to respect ‘the diversity and similarity (that)always accompany one another in the real stories of people in human groups’(p. 47), Erickson urges us to work towards more subtle conceptualisations ofcultures that are themselves constructivist—taking into account invisible, implicit,and constantly changing cultural features. In doing so, he suggests we construct � uidmeeting boundaries across cultures, rather than solid borders that divide us.

The site of the current research—the practicum—is a site of very high demand forall student teachers. Erickson (1997, p. 55) reminds us that schools, as ‘collectionsites for diversity of voice and identity’ make huge demands of classroom studentsin asking them to ‘try on new discourses, new ways of speaking and thinking, newways of being a self, and to appropriate them as their own’. We believe that studentteachers on practicum face parallel demands, as they enter diverse professionalteacher discourses while struggling to develop and take up their own teacheridentity. High-stake assessment of their performance on practicum represents amajor barrier to professional entry, and adds to the degree of dif� culty and demandfor all student teachers. In the context of this research, we consider that the studentteachers’ Indigenousness contributed yet another twist. Erickson (1997), along withother writers such as Ladson-Billings (1999), McTaggart (1991) and Zeichner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(1996) have also drawn attention to the parallels between cultural power relations ineducational practice and in the wider society. In contemporary Australia, as dis-cussed above, being Indigenous frequently means struggling against education,health and legal disadvantage. Erickson argues that when cultures are in con� ict insociety, those con� icts will be mirrored in schools, and further in individual citizens.North Queensland, where the current research is located, is often characterised asracially inhospitable territory. It is clear to us that being an Indigenous studentteacher living in a remote community and entering a North Queensland city forpracticum involves a higher than normal degree of professional risk-taking.

We have attempted to capture a sense of how risky it all is. We focus ondifferences in ways cultural aspects of the practicum were experienced by thestudents and by their teachers, and differences within those groups. We aim not tocolour neatly within the lines, or build cultural borders where travellers will bechecked out by custodians of the dominant culture. Rather, we hope to paint amessy, � uid scene, where colours and textures merge and meld, and all travellersmove freely across blurred boundaries.

Intercultural Contact: differences and similarities between and within par-ticipants’ experiences of the intercultural aspects of the practicum

For this paper, we gather those data which revealed to us that teachers and RATEPstudents were conscious of cultural differences between them as two distinct groups,and those data that make it clear that there was also considerable diversity withineach group. We also attempt to capture some of the complex sensitivities ofcommunication between the groups.

Most of the supervising teachers indicated that they took on the role of supervisingRATEP students because they had Indigenous students in their own classes andthey hoped that the RATEP students would provide positive role models for them.Supervising teachers also wanted to provide their classroom students with anopportunity to experience a different culture. Some supervising teachers expresseda desire to provide the RATEP students with a quality school experience. A numberof supervising teachers had no speci� c desire to take on RATEP students; they werejust willing to take on any preservice teacher, believing that supervision served torefresh their own teaching practices. Early interviews with the teachers indicated thatthey were not expecting this supervising experience to be any more challenging thanothers experienced with on-campus students, apart from some anticipation that theRATEP students might need some help with language and handwriting. Most werelooking forward to encountering a different cultural perspective:

I thought it sounded interesting to see a student come in and have thechildren in the class also experience another culture and someone fromoutside of Townsville, so for the children’s bene� t in my class as well asmine, I just think it makes life more interesting to invite people into theclass room.

While the supervising teachers generally intended being able to treat the RATEP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


student as any other student teacher, some RATEP students seemed more self-con-scious of their own cultural difference, and generally considered they neededspecialised support and guidance from their supervising teacher. For one RATEPstudent, it was the teacher’s prior experience of Aboriginal people that made forsuccess in the supervisory relationship:

I got along with him straight away but he stipulated to me that the onlyreason he understood our culture was because he’d worked for some yearswith Aboriginal people. But he said before then he didn’t have an under-standing of our ways.

RATEP students placed great importance on the supervising teachers’ role inshaping the practicum experience for them as Indigenous students. Some expressedconcern that some teachers had become wearied and impatient over the course oftheir teaching career and therefore did not make ideal supervising teachers:

We need to go to [supervising teachers] that could give us some ideas,some encouragement, some advice and vice versa because those teachershave been teaching for too long, they’re too laid back, too into the systemand they’re just too relaxed.

In a small number of cases, a large number of small problems built up to createnegative practicum experiences for the RATEP students—problems which theyalmost always attributed to cultural differences, rather than personality:

What I was expecting to get out of prac sort of didn’t happen straight away.I think that probably, personally my prac teacher and I could probably geton all right in general conversation but as far as professional in the workingrelationship I think it’s been very dif� cult. Because it’s not the personalitiesit’s I think lack of understanding I suppose not between individual people,but probably cultures I guess.

Students saw a need for more awareness and acceptance of the Aboriginal culture bynon-Indigenous teachers, and expressed a belief that many supervising teachers didnot fully appreciate the extent of the cultural differences between supervisor andteacher. Further, some students felt quite strongly that intercultural contact andlearning was only ever one way:

Now could they come to our communities and cope straight up? Teachersthat have been teachers six years and they come here and they’re like � shout of water too. And I think the supervising teachers have got to realisethat it’s not a lack of ability. These RATEP students in their own com-munities could cruise through doing a prac here because they know theirpeople.

By contrast, most of the supervising teachers seemed to perceive most problems asindividual issues, rather than cultural issues for their Indigenous students. During aworkshop activity, the list of attributes the supervising teachers generated for theirModel Student Teacher described a caring, bright, personable and outgoing student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


who is con� dent and mature. After the practicum, when they described studentteachers’ problems, it was frequently in terms of non-assertiveness, prior schooling,shyness, self-consciousness or lack of con� dence, which they saw as individualisticand personal, rather than as relating to Indigenous culture. Grif� ths (1998, p. 142)suggests that such a position is in itself endemic to Western culture: ‘We in the Westlive in a social context that puts great store on the individuality and agency ofindividuals.’ It appears that for supervising teachers, where cultural issues did arise,particularly early in the practicum, these referred mainly to visible culture. Manywere disappointed that the student did not take the opportunity to incorporate morecultural aspects into planning:

Sometimes I feel that [my RATEP student] lacks con� dence to bring thatculture in. But she still has her cultural exchange but again probably not asmuch as I would have liked.

Such disappointment is in keeping with the fact that many teachers were motivatedto host RATEP students because of their desire for cultural exchange and modellingwithin their classrooms.

Erickson (1997, p. 40) argues that, in addition to such visible features, ‘implicitand invisible aspects of culture are also important’. He offers as example:

When we meet other people whose invisible cultural assumptions andpatterns for action differ from those we have learned and expect implicitly,we usually don’t recognise what they are doing as cultural in origin. Rather,we see them as rude or uncooperative. We may apply clinical labels to theother people—passive, aggressive, low self-esteem.

Erickson argues further that culture can only be de� ned in reference to some otherculture. As discussed earlier in this paper, this process of ‘othering’ can lead tonegative cultural stereotypes when dominant knowledge and perspectives are valuedabove those of a minority. Erickson de� nes a ‘second-culture’ where ‘culturallymainstream ways of speaking and writing represent a language and culture of powerthat minority students need to master for success in the wider society’ (p. 48). Ourreading of the data suggest that such two-way out-of-awareness issues of invisibleculture were also of considerable consequence in the supervisory relationships of ourstudy.

For their part, the RATEP students were particularly aware that they were usingEnglish as a second language and many stated they that were very self-consciousabout using the correct words, particularly in the area of maths:

The big challenging experience was the language because you had to usecertain languages for certain lessons that required a different bank oflanguage. I wasn’t too sure of what language to use because I felt uncom-fortable. I read a lot of books such as the maths dictionary, source booksetcetera to make me understand.

Several supervising teachers reported issues about language and communicationwithin supervisory relationships and in the classroom. In one case, the supervising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


teacher was concerned that students in the classroom were having dif� culty under-standing some of the directions from the RATEP student teacher. Such a concerncan be a major dilemma for supervising teachers, torn between wanting to supportthe student teacher and having prime responsibility for the learners in their class-room. However, for the most part, problems of communication did not involvechildren; they were between the RATEP student teacher and their supervisingteachers, and frequently involved the tendency for RATEP students to hold backfrom asking questions during discussions. Some supervising teachers, unaware ofthis tendency, assumed all was well until a situation arose where it became clear thatthe student had not fully understood something, leading to a frustrating situation.Several supervising teachers quickly developed strategies to meet the student teacherneeds. They took time to write down important elements of lesson planningdiscussions, provided extra textbooks, broke down explanations into small steps, andfrequently checked for understanding, and in some cases, supported the RATEPstudent through a slow, step-wise approach before they felt comfortable with thewhole class situation. One of the teachers outlined speci� c steps she took tomaintain a positive relationship by ensuring clear lines of communication:

To start with I actually felt fairly frustrated. We couldn’t get the communi-cation going. She was extremely quiet and you know she nodded her headbut whether she understood it or not came to light a day later that she wasnodding and saying yes but she didn’t understand what I was saying and Iwas double checking for understanding … Finally after a couple of days Iactually sat her down and I wrote it all down for her bit by bit, step by stepfor the whole of the next week and that worked well.

In their written re� ections on the practicum, the RATEP students made strongrecommendations for such supportive practices on the part of supervising teachers.In addition, the RATEP students also looked to an understanding of culturaldifference as a way of dealing with the issue:

I think it would be important for a supervising teacher to have a back-ground knowledge of any Indigenous people … just because we nod ourhead saying yes we understand doesn’t necessarily mean that we do, socheck for understanding and that it is all clear.

A comment by one RATEP student made it clear that not all supervising teachershad responded with sensitivity to the language and communication issues:

Maybe without realising that they [urban teachers] do it, they look at youas if you’re a little bit mentally handicapped because you don’t talk the waythey do … They’re not willing to accept Aboriginal English, the way wespeak and things like that, the way we pronounce words … Well theyshould sort of be able to accept that that’s our [accent], the same as if theyhad a Greek teacher there or Japanese teacher.

Despite this very negative comment, overall most RATEP students enjoyed theirpracticum experiences, and spoke positively of their teachers:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


I’ve been really lucky in my prac, I’ve got a really good teacher and just hissupport has really strengthened me and helped me. Given me con� dence.

But perhaps more importantly, the students perceived that the urban school experi-ence served broader purposes. They were conscious of the need to provide youngpeople in their community with positive role models and they welcomed theopportunity to be treated as professionals. In particular, being treated as profession-als in the urban schools was of great educative signi� cance for them: ‘I think itempowers us to be able to go back into our community with a more professionaloutlook and ignore the people that are saying it can’t work’. This was especiallyappreciated by students who had not always experienced support from their owncommunity in their pursuit of a career. Orr and Friesen (1999) in their stories ofearly First Nations graduates of the Northern Teacher Education Program inCanada capture similar tensions for women who had been teacher aides in their owncommunity and who then bridged the gap to become ‘� rst professionals’ (p. 233) intheir community. The RATEP students perceived that, in their own communityschools, they were often treated very differently from on-campus students who cameto complete practicum or begin to teach:

At home we’ve been referred to as Mickey Mouse Teachers and that. But[at the urban school] they treated us like professional colleagues.

RATEP students were also appreciative of teachers who themselves were verycommitted and enthusiastic about teaching, and those who made extra efforts toassist them, especially with the logistics of transport and access to resources.

This is not to suggest that all teachers were excellent in the students’ eyes, or thatall RATEP students were uncritical of their teachers. It would be inappropriate tosuggest homogeneity in either group—supervising teachers or RATEP students, orto suggest that the ‘second-culture’ power differential silenced the Indigenousstudent teachers into compliant approval. One of the students reiterated the concernexpressed above by one of her peers about teachers who have had many years ofexperience, and added a particular concern about lack of explicit long-term plan-ning. Another RATEP student was very critical not just of the teacher’s supervisorypractices, but also of the ways she related to children in the class:

At the moment I’m � nding it very hard because the teacher doesn’t sit withme and go through my lessons with me. Oh she does in some cases but it’sjust verbally speaking and not going through my lessons with me. I foundher attitude towards the children just turns you off … it sort of offended meand I just didn’t feel comfortable.

Indicating another aspect of the invisible culture of urban schooling, many supervis-ing teachers reported that their RATEP student was a little intimidated by the largestaff rooms and did not interact greatly with other staff members. If other RATEPstudents were present, they tended to gravitate towards each other and spend theirlunch times together, or else they spent time with the children in the playground.Nor did there appear to be very much mingling with other JCU preservice teacherswho were also at the school. Again in this area, practices varied among supervising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


teachers: some went out of their way to ensure that the student was introduced toall staff and made to feel comfortable; others let their student � nd their own way. Insome cases the RATEP student was quite happy to mingle with staff, but this wasnot the usual case:

She’s not keen on going to the staff room again. It is intimidating for a pracstudent so you don’t blame them for that. If she needs to do photocopyingshe prefers not to do it at lunchtime. She doesn’t want to be there whenthere’s a whole group of people there. … From my impression ‘Letitia’ and‘Lizzie’ just stuck together and didn’t mix with the others.

It seemed that, despite some shyness and discomfort with teachers, RATEP studentswere comfortable with the children of these urban schools:

‘Ted’ tended to sit there but sometimes he didn’t come to the staff roomat all. About half the time he would walk around the playground and talkto the kids. I don’t know whether that was just because he enjoyed beingoutside or whether he felt a bit uncomfortable in the staff room.

Positive relationships between RATEP student teachers and urban school studentswere a clear feature of the research. It seems that no matter how large theintercultural factors may have loomed for some supervising teacher–RATEP pairs,there were many positive outcomes for children in classes. In almost every casesupervising teachers reported that their classroom students responded very well tothe RATEP student teachers:

They responded well considering my class has a record of not respondingwell to supply teachers and lay teachers and things like that. They just feltcomfortable, they were much the same as they are with me. They’re willingto ask questions and ask for help and they’re also very willing to get praisefrom ‘Lizzie’ and go up and show work and have her mark it and thingslikes that.

It appears that the teachers reported greatest enjoyment on the part of the childrenwhen the RATEP student talked about their own communities:

The kids would go to her, they would use her name, she would walk themto various classes, they would respond to her management tech-niques.… She talked about � shing and some of the practices that thepeople [in her community] use and it really appealed to a lot of the boyswhen she was talking about � shing and things like that so they warmed toher.

These positive statements were made mainly after the � rst phase of the practicum inMay. After the July practicum, supervising teachers began to raise some concernsthat RATEP students were severely disadvantaged during their practica becausethey were so unfamiliar with mainstream schooling. However, the teachers againseemed to avoid attributing these problems to cultural differences; rather they sawthem as relating to course structure and logistics, such as being away from home.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


General consensus was that a great deal of extra support was required by many ofthe RATEP students, and that time was dif� cult to � nd, especially in cases wherethe student teacher was rushing off to catch a bus after school.

In summary, the data revealed some general patterns of difference between theRATEP students and the urban supervising teachers, along with considerabledifferences within each of those groups in their responses to intercultural contact.The nett effect was one of blurred slippery overlapping edges rather than clearlyde� nable separation.

Rejecting an Alternative Frame: conceptualising intercultural contact aswashout by the dominant culture

In those ways, we believe this research has shed some light on the complexitiesinvolved in intercultural supervision of student teachers from a minority group.However, in addition to the current research � ndings documented in this paper, webelieve many less visible aspects are also involved, and that much further researchneeds to be conducted if we are to arrive at an understanding of interculturalsupervision. Malin (1994) alerts us to a ‘possible clash in perceptions of whatconstitutes good and appropriate teaching’ (p. 113) between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians; and we believe this could be a fundamental underpinning ofresearch in this area of intercultural supervision. She argues, that as a result of theseculturally different perceptions:

Some cultural minority group teachers have reported that they feel as ifthey have to suppress their cultural identity and behave as people from themajority culture, that is like ‘white teachers with black faces’. (p. 95)

In ways similar to Malin (1994), Wenzlaff and Thrond (1995) report that it ispossible that success for Native students in America is measured by their willingnessto forsake their own cultural identity. Wenzlaff and Thrond cite several studiesrevealing that Native students in America encounter dif� culties in making culturaladjustments to predominantly white institutions. They argue that assimilation intomainstream society while attempting to maintain cultural identity creates enormouscon� icts for minority group students. Their research shows that, while the resolutionof this con� ict can be empowering for some Native students, it is extremely disablingfor others. The RATEP program at JCU with its community-based centres goessome way to ensure that the social and academic burdens of studying are eased forremote area Indigenous students. However, the urban practica of our study highlightdramatically the challenges of intercultural contact.

Hesch (1994) presents a similarly bleak view of the prospects for aboriginalteachers in Canada. He claims that ‘Eurocentric “effective teaching” ideology andhumanistic supervision’ (p. 31) collude as instruments to ensure Aboriginal interns’‘incorporation within hegemonic teaching practice’ (p. 36). Hesch presents analarmingly violent view of the impact of supervisory practices on the emergingteacher identity of Aboriginal interns. He describes supervisors’ ‘harping’ as anassault on such formative identity; classrooms where the teacher is not satis� ed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


unless the intern reproduces the supervisor’s practices; and ideology and structuresthat constrain and control interns and children in disciplined environments.

Conclusion: changing practices to avoid cultural washout and improvetwo-way learning

It is dif� cult for us to interpret our � ndings as total washout of the Indigenousculture. Our research has let us hear diverse voices of RATEP students: angrilyrailing against being yelled at as if ‘mentally handicapped’; while also wanting toenter and be pro� cient in the teaching practices of the dominant schooling cultureand to be treated as a professional within that culture. We have also heard the voicesof supervising teachers wanting to help Indigenous student teachers and children,being frustrated by their own inabilities to offer appropriate support, and acknowl-edging the hurdles Indigenous Australians must jump in Australian society. How-ever, we are reminded that behind these participant voices are also the powerful,shaping, embedded ideologies and historical structures that require us not to enterand leave the research naively assuming individual agentic good intentions willprevail.

We believe this research allows us to draw some tentative conclusions and toindicate areas for further research. First, for teacher education programs for Indige-nous student teachers living in rural and remote communities, we assert thepotential value for all participants of including at least one practicum in an urbansetting. This research has given us glimpses of professional empowerment for thestudent teachers, genuine cultural learning by urban teachers, and open reciprocitybetween Indigenous student teachers and urban children. However, the research hasalso indicated aspects of the practica which must be addressed to capture thesebene� ts and avoid the cycles of othering, stereotyping, frustration and blame thatappear to lie just beneath the surface.

The logistics of the urban practica deserve close attention: accommodation mustbe conducive to professional preparation, and transport arrangements must facilitatetime for students and teachers to engage in professional dialogue. The curriculumfor the urban practica must include an early phase with a clear goal of professionalorientation to the culture of urban schools, particularly those less visible aspects.The initial focus should not be on classroom pedagogy, but on the formal andinformal systems and structures and patterns of practice that our study revealed asa major need for RATEP students. Specialist experienced school-based mentorsmay be most helpful in these roles.

Selection and preparation of appropriate school sites, and of supervising teachers,preferably with some experience of Indigenous people and communities, remainmajor challenges. Several of the school-based teacher educators in this study haveindicated that they too have learnt a lot and developed greater understandings aboutwhat it means to be Indigenous student teachers in urban schools in NorthQueensland. One of them, in her response to a previous draft of this paper,commented that her involvement in the research and her reading of the collecteddata had ‘highlighted why we don’t always reach Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Islander children in our own classes. We need much greater cultural understandingin how to make our classrooms better meet those students’ needs.’ Along withseveral others, she has volunteered to work as mentor for RATEP students to helpmake explicit the often taken-for-granted assumptions and practices associated withurban school cultures and curriculum. Building a pool of such teachers in sitessensitive and committed to Indigenous preservice teacher education is vital and slowwork. Further research is required to identify more clearly the characteristics ofthose teachers and sites that will best serve two-way cultural learning. Guidelines forsensitive matching of student teacher and supervising teacher similarly requirefurther investigation. This study has begun to capture some of the supervisorypractices of these exemplary teachers; much further research is needed in this area.

Avenues for greater involvement of a wide range of university-based teachereducators and community leaders in these practica also need to be investigated. Forall participants, two-way intercultural learning is essential to raise awareness ofissues, to communicate effectively, and engage in practices that recognize oursimilarities and differences. Constructing and supporting opportunities for suchconversations is clearly a further requirement. In our research, the supervisionworkshops went some way to establish such communication; other ways need to bedeveloped and evaluated. Close continuing consultation with the Indigenous partic-ipants also emerged as an essential approach for all aspects of the practica.

As teacher educators, we have learnt a great deal about the complexities ofintercultural contact involved in our work with RATEP students and we hope toexpress this greater understanding through our own practices. Orr and Friesen(1999) offer much hope for RATEP and for Indigenous teacher education for thefuture. Their stories of Aboriginal teachers’ self-determination offer not just individ-ual human voices recounting success within communities, but also documentincreases in the proportion of Aboriginal teachers in the northern Saskatchewanteaching force from 3% in 1977 to 25% in 1998. In presenting these major successesagainst a background of ‘rapid and intense social, political, and educational changethat was sweeping northern Saskatchewan at the time’ (p. 223), Orr and Friesenremind us that any improvements we wish to make with RATEP must also be madeat the broader national level in Australia. We cannot seek simple educationalsolutions to complex social issues. A ‘colour-blind’ approach that treats RATEPstudents no differently from on-campus students denies the history of social,economic, educational, employment, housing and health inequalities associated withbeing Indigenous in Australia. Projective exotic ‘othering’ solidi� es borders ofdifference, reduces the educative potential of our programs, and denies our commonhumanity and our common commitment to improve schooling and life outcomes forall our children.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the contributions of the RATEP students, the school-basedteacher educators, the Indigenous interviewers, and the RATEP teacher-coordina-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


tors who shared their experiences and wisdom so willingly, to make this researchpossible.

References

COCHRAN-SMITH, M. (1995) Color-blindness and basket making are not the answers: confrontingthe dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32, pp. 493–522.

EDUCATION QUEENSLAND (2000) Partners for Success: strategies for the continuous improvement ofeducation and employment outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in EducationQueensland (Brisbane, Queensland Government).

ERICKSON, F. (1997) Culture in society and in educational practices, in: J.A. BANKS & C.A.MCGEE BANKS (Eds) Multicultural Education: issues and perspectives (3rd ed.) (Boston, Allyn& Bacon).

GILBERT, P. (2000) ‘The Deepening Divide?’: choices for Australian education, Professorial InauguralAddress (Townsville, 22 March 2000).

GRIFFITHS, M. (1998) Educational Research for Social Justice: getting off the fence (Buckingham,Open University Press).

HESCH, R. (1994) A Canadian Preparation Program for Aboriginal Teachers: instrument forincorporation. Teaching Education, 6(1), pp. 31–40.

LADSON-BILLINGS, G.J. (1999) Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: a critical racetheory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, pp. 211–247.

MCTAGGART, R. (1991) Western institutional impediments to Australian Aboriginal education.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(4), pp. 297–325.

MCTAGGART, R. (1999) Re� ection on the purposes of research, action, and scholarship: a caseof cross-cultural participatory action research. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 12(5),pp. 493–511.

MALIN, M. (1994) What is a good teacher? Anglo and Aboriginal Australian views. PeabodyJournal of Education, 69(2), pp. 94–114.

ORR, J. & FRIESEN, D. (1999) ‘I think that what’s happening in Aboriginal education is that we’retaking control’: Aboriginal teachers’ stories of self-determination. Teachers and Teaching:theory and practice, 5(2), pp. 219–241.

SENATE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEE (1998) A Class Act:report on the status of teaching (Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia).

SENATE EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL BUSINESS AND EDUCATION REFERENCE

COMMITTEE (2000) Katu Kalpa: report on the inquiry into the effectiveness of education andtraining programs for Indigenous Australians (Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia).

WENZLAFF, T.L. & THROND, M.A. (1995) The role of teachers in a cross-cultural drama. Journalof Teacher Education, 46(5), pp. 334–339.

WONG, P. & WONG, C. (1998) Assessing multicultural supervision competencies. Paper presentedat the XIVth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-CulturalPsychology (IACCP).

ZEICHNER, K. (1996) Educating teachers for cultural diversity, in: K. ZEICHNER, S. MELNICK &M.L. GOMEZ (Eds) Currents of Reform in Preservice Teacher Education (New York, TeachersCollege Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:49

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Conceptualising Intercultural Contact in the Supervision of Indigenous Student Teachers