Supporting the Cultural Identity Development of Indigenous Youth: Findings from an Indigenous Educators’ Community-Of-Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I am not an expert on Alaskan education, but from what I know the contention of the article about Indigenizing education to better support Indigenous students is well supported and the article is well referenced. I question the use of the unqualified use of the word “many” in line 199 when there are only 16 participants in the study reported. At the bottom of page 3 the article notes participants “read and discussed two books and several articles on decolonization and Indigenizing education. I think mentioning the titles of those books and articles (perhaps in a footnote) would strengthen the article. In think the article could also be strengthened some by citing a few more general and “classic” resources on Indigenous education that I think support the position being taken by the authors. In particular, I am thinking of L. M. Cleary and T. Peacock’s Collected wisdom: American Indian education (Allyn & Bacon, 1998). I also think the article could be strengthened by including some of the Alaska related research of Oscar Kawagley and Ray Barnhardt that I also think is congruent with the position taken by the authors, including possibly:

 

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (Eds.), (2010). Alaska Native education: Views from within. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, Center for Cross-cultural Studies, University of Alaska.

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23.

Kawagley, A. O. (2003). Nurturing Native languages. In J. Reyhner, O. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco, & L. Lockard (Eds.). Nurturing Native languages (pp. vii-x). Northern Arizona University. https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/NNL/

Kawagley, A. O. (2006). A Yupiaq worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit, 2^nd ed. Waveland.

 

On a minor note, Angelina Castagno’s last name is misspelled in note 21 on page 19 and in note 35 the word “Educating” should start with a capital letter as per APA style. Are the names of the participants in the article pseudonyms? If not they need to have given permission for their names to be used.

 

Author Response

Authors’ Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

Comment 1: I question the use of the unqualified use of the word “many” in line 199 when there are only 16 participants in the study reported. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have changed the word “many” to “several” on line 273 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: At the bottom of page 3 the article notes participants “read and discussed two books and several articles on decolonization and Indigenizing education. I think mentioning the titles of those books and articles (perhaps in a footnote) would strengthen the article.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have added the names of the books to lines 163-165 in the revised manuscript and added the full citations in references 30-31.

Comment 3: I think the article could also be strengthened some by citing a few more general and “classic” resources on Indigenous education that I think support the position being taken by the authors. In particular, I am thinking of L. M. Cleary and T. Peacock’s Collected wisdom: American Indian education (Allyn & Bacon, 1998). 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have added recently published, as well as seminal references on Indigenous education on lines 163-165 (citations 30-31), lines 181-183 (citations 33-45), and lines 713-715 (citations 62-65).

Comment 4: I also think the article could be strengthened by including some of the Alaska related research of Oscar Kawagley and Ray Barnhardt that I also think is congruent with the position taken by the authors, including possibly:

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (Eds.), (2010). Alaska Native education: Views from within. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, Center for Cross-cultural Studies, University of Alaska.

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23.

Kawagley, A. O. (2003). Nurturing Native languages. In J. Reyhner, O. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco, & L. Lockard (Eds.). Nurturing Native languages (pp. vii-x). Northern Arizona University. https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/NNL/

Kawagley, A. O. (2006). A Yupiaq worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit, 2^nd ed. Waveland.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have included works by our mentors Dr. Ray Barnhardt and Dr. Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley on lines 182-183 of the revised manuscript (citations 41-42). Note: some of the authors have taken courses taught by Drs. Barnhardt and Kawagley and all have read and been influenced by their outstanding work on Indigenous education in Alaska.

Comment 5: On a minor note, Angelina Castagno’s last name is misspelled in note 21 on page 19 and in note 35 the word “Educating” should start with a capital letter as per APA style.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have made the correction to citation 29 in the revised manuscript and have double checked the APA style on all citations.

Comment 6: Are the names of the participants in the article pseudonyms? If not, they need to have given permission for their names to be used.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have added language clarifying the ethical framing of this research project on lines 136-144. All participants provided signed informed consent to use their quotations and to publish their real names in the article; this was approved the University of Alaska Institutional Review Board.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is relevant and valid. However, the way the writers choose to approach it adds little to the field of education sciences, since it does not engage theoretically with either decolonial scholarship (recent with several developments regarding native people representation and inclusion in educational texts, for instance) or with pedagogical concepts such as wild and green pedagogies, so relevant for explaining the relevance of earth connection that the authors argue for. Hence, I think the empirical material should be reframe and analysed from other angles. Finally, it would be important to have more insight on the strategies and code book reasoning (how did you reach the coding categories) and to explain the ethical framing of the study, since it is not clear if these are the real names of the teachers? Did you explain that anonimity was not assured?

Author Response

Authors’ Reply to Review Report (Reviewer 2)

 

Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. Questions for General Evaluation 1.         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? (Reviewer’s evaluation: Must be Improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comments and have added to the theoretical framing on lines 181-183  of the revised manuscript and added citations on using heritage language  [33-34], basing lessons upon cultural stories [35-36], Land education [37-40], and teaching through cultural values [41-45]. Additionally, we have included a graphic (Figure 1,line 125) to illustrate the conceptual framework of our project; we describe the framework in lines 107-128. 2.         Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? (Reviewer’s evaluation: Can be Improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out and urging us to be write this section with greater clarity. We have added the conceptual framework on lines 107-128, the ethical framing on lines 136-144,  and data analysis details on lines 175-188. 3.         Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (Reviewer’s evaluation: Must be improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe that adding the conceptual framework on lines 107-128 and returning to the metaphor of the twined cedar rope in the discussion (lines 685-689) clarifies the authors’ arguments and makes them more compelling. 4.         For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? (Reviewers evaluation: Must be Improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified that this research is purely qualitative on line 136. 5.         Is the article adequately referenced? (Reviewer’s evaluation: Must be improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added 26 references  (citations 25-31, 32-45, 52, 57, 62-65) clearly situating our research within the existing body of literature. 6.         Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? (Reviewer’s evaluation: Must be improved) Authors’ response: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe our results are thoroughly supported by the results and we have strengthened the links to the literature as noted in #5 above. Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comment 1: The topic of the article is relevant and valid. However, the way the writers choose to approach it adds little to the field of education sciences, since it does not engage theoretically with either decolonial scholarship (recent with several developments regarding native people representation and inclusion in educational texts, for instance) or with pedagogical concepts such as wild and green pedagogies, so relevant for explaining the relevance of earth connection that the authors argue for. Hence, I think the empirical material should be reframe and analysed from other angles. Response 1: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the framing of our research. While we agree there is some connection to wild and green pedagogies, especially in our results around Land education, the authors respectfully suggest that our research is more closely aligned with Indigenous pedagogies including Land education, heritage language education, teaching through cultural values, and storywork. Comment 2: …it would be important to have more insight on the strategies and code book reasoning (how did you reach the coding categories)? Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment and have added language clarifying how the code book was developed, initially informed by the reading on Indigenous education, and then modified through the reflexive thematic analysis process. Please see lines 175-188. Comment 3: …and to explain the ethical framing of the study, since it is not clear if these are the real names of the teachers? Did you explain that anonimity was not assured? Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your point and have taken steps to clarify the ethical framing of our research. We added language stating that all participants provided signed consent to have their quotations used and to use their real names in all publications resulting from this research. See lines 136-144.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article was improved and I have now no further suggestions.