The Role of Culture, p. 1
The Role of Culture in Culturally Compatible Education
Tasha R. Wyatt
Inerisaavik: The Institute for Arctic Education
P.O. Boks #110
3900 Nuuk, Greenland
MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED TO: Journal of American Indian Education
The Role of Culture, p. 2
Abstract
In spite of colossal efforts to transform educational spaces for culturally and linguistically
diverse learners, undesirable ideology still manages to appear in transformed classrooms. This
article demonstrates how despite a commitment to culturally compatible education, reform
leaders in Greenland interpreted a model of effective pedagogy developed by the Center for
Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) in ways that promoted a continued colonial
perspective in the Greenlandic schools. By analyzing reform leaders’ interpretation of two
CREDE Standards, this article shows that in spite of the research on how to use appropriate
pedagogy in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, Danish reform
leaders interpreted contextualization and modeling in a way that undermined the cultural and
political goals of Greenland’s reform.
The Role of Culture, p. 3
The Role of Culture in Culturally Compatible Education
Introduction to Greenland
In the 1970’s and earlier, Greenland’s school system was largely a copy of European
models developed in Denmark and Scandinavia and reflected little of the Greenlandic culture
(Olsen, 2005). Several reforms were initiated in the 1970s and early 1990s that made slight
adjustments to the educational system already in place, but had little impact on classroom
instruction (Olsen, 2005). Atuarfitsialak, Greenland’s latest educational reform, is by far
Greenland’s most comprehensive efforts at change. Its purpose is to shift from the European
model of schooling and build a system using the “cultural competence and educational needs of
Greenlandic students” (Olsen, 2005, p. 1).
Strengthening Greenlandic identity has been a priority for Greenlanders since the
abolishment of Greenland’s colonial status in 1953, but even more so with the establishment of
Home Rule in 1979. Advocates for Home Rule saw education as a means to strengthen
Greenlandic cultural and national identity (Goldbach & Winther-Jensen, 1988). One participant
explained that it was a political value of the 1970s through the 1990s that the design of activities
in Greenland had to be Greenlandic: “As a nation we had to improve our identity by working
with our language and culture” (Interview with Kaali Olsen, March 3, 2006). This
“Greenlandization” was carried forward into the development of Atuarfitsialak so that the new
school system was designed to fit “the culture, language, and history of Greenland” (Interview
with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). The result was the adoption of Principles for Effective
Teaching and Learning developed by the Center for Research on Education Diversity and
Excellence (CREDE) as a means to assist in the development of culturally compatible
education.
The Role of Culture, p. 4
Culturally Compatible Education. The culturally compatible hypothesis (Jordan & Tharp,
1979) assumes that culturally-based differences between the home and school may lead to
“conflicts, misunderstandings, and ultimately failure for those students” (Ledlow, 1992, p. 23).
This hypothesis suggests that for some groups of students, transition to school is difficult
because these differences are too overwhelming to overcome. Further, if these differences were
minimized, then all students would have an equal opportunity to achieve success (Baker, 1997;
Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994b). The null form of this hypothesis is the existence of a
universal approach to instruction that is effective in any setting.
In designing culturally compatible education, initiators are faced with how to define
culture and how it will be understood and used in education. Often, indigenous groups shift the
language of instruction to be more culturally compatible (Todal, 2003; Yamauchi, Ceppi, &
Lau-Smith, 2000). For example, Ke Kula Kaiapuni, a K-12 public school program in Hawaii
was established as an attempt to revive the Hawaiian language after colonialism nearly wiped
out its use (Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 2000). Kaiapuni students are instructed in
Hawaiian and participate in a curriculum infused with Hawaiian values. Similarly, in New
Zealand, Maori parents felt the public school system was not compatible with Maori culture and
belief systems (Smith, 2000). Their efforts resulted in range of alternative schooling innovations
that have focused on Maori language and cultural revitalization.
The most promising initiatives have approached culturally compatible education at the
level of pedagogy by paying particular attention to the role assistance plays in cultural
expression (Tharp, 2006). The Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) in Hawaii has
produced some of the most compelling evidence for how culture can be used in education of
diverse learners (Ledlow, 1992). Researchers interested in identifying Hawaiian students’ low
academic achievement and high dropout rate, employed anthropologists to study Hawaiian
The Role of Culture, p. 5
students’ social organization and sociolinguistic patterns. Their observations resulted in a
program specifically designed for Hawaiian students’ social and linguistic needs (Tharp &
Dalton, 2007). Standardized tests indicated that students’ literacy and reading skills were
improved as a result of participating in this program (Au & Jordan, 1981).
To test whether the KEEP program was universally applicable or culturally specific,
researchers transferred the identical pattern of classroom organization into Navajo classrooms.
Tharp and Dalton (2007) wrote “In surface appearance, the Hawaiian and Navajo classrooms’
common pedagogical system made for instant recognition as sister programmes” (p. 56). Yet,
there were more subtle differences in teaching that rendered the program ineffective for Navajo
students. Tharp (2008) argues that the differences between the two are a direct result of cultural
patterning in interaction between teacher-student and student-student expressed in the
classroom.
Tharp (1989) wrote that in the natal Hawaiian culture, collaboration, cooperation and
assisted performance are commonplace, but in the Navajo classroom, students are not
accustomed to these types of interaction patterns. Navajo students didn’t solicit feedback or
assistance from others as was often seen with Hawaiian students. Other sociolinguistic
differences included Navajo children requiring longer speech turns and wait times between
turns, whereas Hawaiian children overlapped their speech and participated in co-narration
(Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Additionally, peer interaction required smaller groups and same-sex
grouping in Navajo society.
Jordan (1992) concluded that the necessity to modify the Hawaiian-culturally
compatible KEEP program to a Native American, Navajo-culturally compatible supported the
idea that classrooms need to be considered for their specific cultural differences. These cultural
differences are played out most explicitly in student-teacher interaction and means of assistance.
The Role of Culture, p. 6
While all teachers of Hawaiian and Navajo students used a variety of means of assistance, Tharp
(2008) wrote that there were cultural “preferences and frequencies in the patterns of usage [that]
were sharply different in effectiveness across cultures” (p. 815). Hawaiian children responded
well to questioning, instruction, and contingency management (reinforcement to shape
behavior), where as Navajo children were most responsive to cognitive structuring and
modeling-demonstration. Culture was expressed in these educational programs through patterns
of interaction and social organization that were familiar to the individual cultural groups.
Key findings in the KEEP work include four variable cultural features recognized as
important in tailoring educational settings for cultural compatibility (Tharp & Dalton, 2007):
Motivation (individual or collective); cognition (holistic or analytic); sociolinguistics (courtesies
and conventions of conversation); and social organization (age, gender, and adult-child
relationships). According to Tharp (1989), these psycho-cultural variables need to be examined
and adjusted in the tailoring of classrooms to children of different cultures. Further, an emphasis
on language development and contextualized instruction should be included, regardless of
cultural settings.
CREDE’s Principles for Effective Teaching and Learning
Greenland’s reform leaders adopted CREDE’s Principles for Effective Teaching and
Learning to assist in creating culturally compatible education. Many of the same researchers and
educators who worked in Hawaii’s KEEP program were also employed at CREDE and involved
in the research and development of the Standards. These Standards are principles of teaching
and learning designed to assist educators in the promotion of higher level learning (Tharp,
Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). They were developed through a synthesis of 30 years of
research on effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students (Tharp,
Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000).
The Role of Culture, p. 7
The Standards derive from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory which suggests that all
higher psychological processes have their roots in social interaction. This theory suggests that
when children interact with people more experienced, they eventually appropriate symbols, such
as language, that are used in the interaction. Learning occurs when community members assist
novices in performing tasks and roles needed to be a part of the larger culture. By engaging in
activity that is familiar, children internalize this cultural knowledge and develop sophisticated
thought processes that further assist in cognitive development. Over time, children need less
assistance until eventually the learners are able to perform the activity on their own.
The first Five Standards are (a) Joint Productive Activity, teachers and students
collaborating on joint products; (b) Language and Literacy Development, teachers supporting
language development in all classrooms and subjects; (c) Contextualization, teachers making
connections between students’ prior knowledge and new information; (d) Complex Thinking,
teachers supporting students’ engagement and skills in complex thinking; and (e) Instructional
Conversation, teachers instructing though dialogue (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi,
2000). The sixth Standard, (f) Modeling, makes use of indigenous student’s preference for
learning by observation (Cazden & John, 1971). It is based on traditional ways of learning that
include modeling and observation (Hilberg, Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000). The seventh Standard,
(g) Self-Directed Activities, promotes student involvement in decision-making. Standards six
and seven were initially conceptualized only for teacher use when working with indigenous
groups (Hilberg, Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000).
Several studies have found higher enactment of the Standards is related to greater student
achievement (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). For example, in a study of bilingual
elementary classrooms, Estrada (2004) found that student achievement in English and Spanish
was strongest among students whose teachers implemented the first Five Standards to a higher
The Role of Culture, p. 8
degree. Dohery, Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003) found that compared to another school
matched on student characteristics, achievement was higher at an elementary school
implementing the Five Standards. Within the latter school, achievement was highest for students
whose teachers were more successful in enacting the CREDE Standards rated by the Standards
Performance Continuum (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003).
Several studies conducted by Saunders and Goldenberg (1999a; b) have found the
Instructional Conversation to be useful in assisting students’ thematic understanding of
literature. When the Instructional Conversation was coupled with Contextualization there was
an even greater effect for English Language Learners (ELL). Other studies have shown that
Joint Productive Activity (JPA) is positively related to Latino ELL students’ meta-cognitive
development and use of effective reading strategies (Doherty & Pinal, 2002).
Greenland & The CREDE Standards. Prior to the adoption of CREDE’s model of
effective pedagogy, Greenland’s reform leaders spent several years studying the Standards and
discussing their applicability in the Greenlandic context. Many of the participants in this study
visited the CREDE institute in Santa Cruz, California where they attended researcher-facilitated
workshops and courses. They also read related books and articles and observed laboratory
classrooms that employed the Standards. Finally, in 2004, reform leaders adopted the CREDE
model as a means of fulfilling the New School Act of 2002.
However, soon after Greenland’s adoption of pedagogical model, conflict erupted between
Danish and Greenlandic reform leaders. Reform leaders opposed each other’s interpretation of
the Contextualization and Modeling Standard that eventually resulted in Danish reform leader’s
resistance to implementation. Using grounded theory, this study aimed to understand why these
two Standards were viewed as problematic for Danish reform leaders and yet highly coveted by
the Greenalnders.
The Role of Culture, p. 9
Method
Participants
Participants included 11 key informants (Fontana & Frey, 1997; Yin, 2003) who were
selected based on their employment tenure at Inerisaavik, the institute responsible for
implementation of Atuarfitsialak. All 11 participants were involved in the reform in its initial
stages or shortly thereafter, apart from one participant who had been working for Inerisaavik for
only a few months at the time of his interview.
Four of the 11 participants worked as consultants for Inerisaavik, advising teachers on
curricular issues. Three were a part of Inerisaavik’s leadership group, responsible for making
decisions for the organization and delegating tasks to subordinates. An additional two were
politicians from the Ministry of Education and were responsible for writing new legislation for
Greenland’s schools. These nine participants were part of a highly educated and politically
sophisticated group of Greenlanders who have been working for many years toward the goals of
Greenland’s independence from Denmark (R. Tharp, personal communication, May 8, 2007). In
fact, a number of these participants were involved in the 1960s movement that resulted in the
establishment of Greenland’s Home Rule government. The final two participants were external
consultants to Inerisaavik and had been involved in Greenland’s reform for several decades.
Data Collection & Analysis
Data was collected through participant observations and informal interviews (Fontana &
Frey, 1997). Participant observations were conducted on an on-going basis beginning in August,
2005 and were used to capture various realities within the reform. Observations allowed for
various complexities to emerge and informed further research questions (Alexander, 1982).
Semi-structured interviews made use of probing and open-ended questioning techniques in
order to elicit richness in responses (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
The Role of Culture, p. 10
Constant-comparative methods were used to analyze the data. According to Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison (2000), constant comparison method of analysis has its roots in grounded
theory methodology in which the process of data collection and data analysis is interactive,
iterative, and can be revised with new information. Using this technique, data are collected by
comparing social phenomena across categories allowing new categories and dimensions to
emerge. Because this study has its roots in grounded theory, these emergent themes shaped
further lines of inquiry.
It is recommended for qualitative work that at least 4-12 months of prolonged engagement
is spent in the field (Creswell & Miller, 2000). For this study, 18 months were spent living and
working in Greenland. Validity was also used by employing two colleagues who were used for
peer debriefing (Creswell & Miller, 2000). These peers challenged assumptions, asked difficult
questions, and assisted in clarifying themes in the study. One peer was an outsider to the
Greenlandic community and was used as a sounding board for broader issues of equity, access
to education, and political development. The second peer was employed in the research
department at Inerisaavik and had previously analyzed issues related to mental colonization in
Greenland.
Results
In 2000, reform leaders in Greenland adopted the CREDE Standards for Effective
Teaching and Learning as a means of implementing Atuarfitsialak. At first, reform leaders were
pleased with how the Standards dovetailed with the new School Act. One participant explained
that “every standard fits in the paragraphs [of the new School Act]. I have found a paragraph
[for] each Standard, so it is, in fact . . . the new School Act” (Interview with Bent Mortenson,
September 1, 2005).
The Role of Culture, p. 11
In time, contextualization and modeling were deemed problematic in teaching in the
Greenlandic context. Although both groups viewed contextualization and modeling as effective
teaching tools, Danish and Greenlandic reform leaders disagreed on how to interpret their use.
Greenlandic reform leaders hoped the Standards would highlight Greenlandic cultural strengths,
thereby instilling a strong sense of pride and self-efficacy. Danish reform leaders were a bit
sceptical in using aspects of Greenlandic culture to teach. They interpreted the Standards in
ways that undermined the local Greenlandic culture, submerging it with a Danish ideology and
colonial power relations.
Contextualization
Initially, the CREDE Standard, contextualization, was thought to be one of two ways that
Greenlandic culture could be expressed in the classroom. Contextualization couches new
material in students’ prior knowledge from home, school, and community in order to create
meaningful connections between known and unknown material (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, &
Yamauchi, 2000). Yamauchi, Wyatt, and Taum (2005) describe it as “both teaching in ways that
are consistent with familiar socialization patterns and using curriculum that integrates academic
concepts with students’ prior knowledge” (p. 4).
Contextualization of new material can be approached in a several ways. One method is to
use students’ personal schemata to introduce new material. For example, KEEP’s ExperienceText-Relationship (E-T-R) method in which to teacher draws upon relevant personal
experiences to introduce new instruction (Au & Jordan, 1981). Another example comes from
the work of Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) who promote teachers’ use of students’
“funds of knowledge.” These knowledge funds include the social, economic, and productive
activities of a group that are found in local households. Other reseachers, such as Demmert and
Towner (2003) suggest that there is a hierarchy within funds of knowledge and have criticized
The Role of Culture, p. 12
cognitive theorists for not making a distinction between types or sources of knowledge. They
write “‘teen culture’ elements, introduced to assist comprehension of curriculum, . . . [could be
viewed] as efficacious as traditional cultural elements” (p. 8). In essence, the cognitive process
in all of these methods is the same. However, in postcolonial contexts like Greenland,
contextualization may not be as straight forward. Educators need to think critically about what
aspect of society they are drawing attention to before linking new material to student
experience.
According to Greenlandic reform leaders, contextualization was thought to be essential in
the instruction of Greenland’s indigenous population, specifically because many students don’t
have the experience of relating to many topics covered in the curriculum. Fleischer expressed
the need for contextualization because students’ home life was not considered enough in reform
development. He believes the new school system was “built up on another kind of student . . .
(a) normal student, maybe a normal European student” without giving enough attention to
Greenlandic students’ home life (Interview with Kunuunnguaq Fleischer, May 26, 2006). He
argued that issues of abuse, neglect, and violence that characterize many Greenlandic students’
lives were largely unconsidered in reform development. As a consequence, unless teachers
contextualize activities in the home with those in school, the needs of these students will remain
unaddressed.
Fleischer explained that before Atuarfitsialak was implemented, Greenland’s educational
system was largely Danish in nature and therefore, incompatible with Greenlandic culture. He
attributed the low graduation rate of Greenlandic students to the Danish way of teaching
entrenched within the school system and to Danish perceptions about what it meant to be a
successful Greenlander. He explains
The Role of Culture, p. 13
I think the 5,000 educated Greenlanders had been some of the good Greenlanders in the
Danish eyes. We have been able to learn Danish, speak Danish, read Danish and act Danish.
That is why we, in some ways, we succeeded in the Danish system. All the rest who never
learned Danish or learned . . . Danish irony or the Danish way of living, they couldn’t follow the
teaching, I am afraid . . . I see that we have some very Danish demands in the system. (Interview
with Kunuunnguaq Fleischer, May 26, 2006)
According to Kaali, Greenlanders have adopted a negative self-image, as a result of
Danish teaching in Greenlandic schools. He claims “That is another heritage from the Danish
colonialist way of looking at Greenlanders. There are only some Greenlanders who can really
develop to become real Europeans; to become [full of] pride and intelligent individuals”
(Interview with Kaali Olsen, March 3, 2006). These comments illustrate one of the effects of
colonialism; only certain individuals will be deemed acceptable by the colonizing group, and it
is usually in response to how well the colonizing culture has been adopted. Gramsci (1971)
would interpret Danish success in terms of how well the dominant ideological hegemony was
internalized by the Greenlanders.
Greenlandic reform leaders interpreted the contextualization Standard in ways that were
consistent with the “Greenlandization” of society. One reform leader suggested that indigenous
worldviews be used, such as traditional Inuit epistemology (Kaali Olsen, personal
communication, January 22, 2007). To begin, teachers could present a subject in a holistic
manner beginning with a wide view of the topic and then presenting a more analytical approach.
Students taught in this way would for example, better understand the influence history and
politics have on the creation of knowledge. In this participant’s opinion, holistic teaching would
assist students in seeing how knowledge comes to be valued in a society. In turn, teachers would
replace colonial pedagogy with strategies more aligned with the Greenlandic culture and create
The Role of Culture, p. 14
a consciousness that pushes against the dominant perspective. Researchers have noted that
teaching in a holistic manner is an effective teaching method for educators working with Native
American students (Rhodes, 1988; Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994a).
In contrast to the Greenlandic point of view, Danish reform leaders were a bit more
cautious in using contextualization. One participant thought that culture should remain
undefined, cautioning that “the minute you go in and define what Greenlandic or Danish culture
is, that culture is dead.” As one participant explained
(A person) should never, never, never, never define what Greenlandic culture is, or Danish
culture, or British culture . . . because then you sort of draw a line in the sand . . . (and) say, the
way the majority is thinking on this date, on this year is what is defined as our culture so that
you cannot change it because it will be un-Greenlandic or un-Danish. . . . Culture only lives
when you are debating what culture is and what it means. (Interview with Lone Hindby,
February 10, 2006)
This participant views culture as alive and organic. Although she supports contextualizing
learning, defining culture, even for classroom use, is to somehow render it impotent. Rather, this
reform leader argued for teachers’ use of socio-economic status in contextualizing material. She
explained that economic resources are more important in defining a person’s experience than
their cultural background. In her view, socioeconomic status determines who has access to
aspects of European culture. Abundant financial resources will produce a different kind of
Greenlandic student compared to a child who comes from hunting and fishing family (Interview
with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006). If teachers contextualize material based on anything
else, they run the risk of attributing activities and characteristics that only exist for small sample
of Greenlanders.
The Role of Culture, p. 15
However, Hindby admits that it is difficult to contextualize new learning, especially if you
are not familiar with the students’ family background. A teacher cannot assume that the child
has had an experience that can be used. She explains,
The problem is how will you do that without knowing exactly the circumstances and
surrounds that the child is living in. You sort of have to try it out. You need to know the family
and say, okay, this is a fishing family, who moved from a settlement and the father is a drunk.
And this other family is going on vacation to Europe twice a year and he is going with them,
and he has got everything. (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)
According to Hindby, contextualizing new material in students’ prior experiences is hit or
miss situation. What might work for one student, may not work for another. When asked if there
were any universal or communal activities a teacher could use, she responded “I don’t think you
could be sure of that” (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006).
Gramsci (1971) argues that most ruling classes, such as the Danes in the Greenlandic
context, don’t use force or coercion to achieve their status. Rather, dominating groups create
subjects who become willingly subservient by using the existing hegemony of the dominant
group to “teach” students about their place in society. This participant argues that
socioeconomic status be used to contextualize new learning without reflection as to how
families achieved their lower class status in the first place. Contextualizing material according
to socioeconomic status may teach students new material, but undermine the students’ selfefficacy for changing his/her current position in society. Likewise, students may be affirmed in
their superior status in Greenlandic society. Creating meaningful curricular experiences based
on socioeconomic status has the potential to perpetuate inequities between the two cultural
groups.
The Role of Culture, p. 16
Another Danish participant expressed that consistent use of contextualization as a
pedagogical tool can be harmful. Christiansen explained that if a natural relationship does not
exist between the familiar content and new material, the teacher runs the risk of creating
“violence on the culture” (Interview with Eric Christiansen, February 10, 2006). In other words,
contextualized lessons have the potential to distort reality by creating a false relationship
between prior and new knowledge if the relationship is not easily recognizable.
Further, this participant expressed that if all new material is contextualized, students won’t
be prepared to participate in a global society where knowledge is often presented in abstract, decontextualized ways (Interview with Eric Christiansen, February 10, 2006). Greenlandic
students who are used to this kind of instruction might come to expect teachers to contextualize
new information. As a long-term consequence, the skill of creating relationships between what
is known and unknown will go unlearned. For Christiansen, contextualization will do a
disservice to the very students the reform is targeting.
The importance of contextualization is reported in virtually all successful programs for atrisk students (Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Contextualization is one of the most thoroughly
researched concepts in psychology and education and remains a popular tool for teacher use in
indigenous education (Tharp, 2006). In spite of this, Christiansen supports a de-contextualized
teaching practice commonly used in European educational settings. Rather than building an
intellectual life on Greenlandic terms, Christiansen endorses teaching in ways that are opposing
for indigenous students. Gramsci (1971) argues that state hegemony not only organizes our
physical lives but our intellectual lives as well. Embracing de-contextualized teaching strategies
would support the dominant view of education embraced in Western practices.
Reform leaders’ discussions on contextualization inevitably turned to the use of traditional
versus contemporary culture when using this strategy to build Greenlandic identity. Danish
The Role of Culture, p. 17
reform leaders cautioned that Greenlandic culture could be stereotyped if traditional culture was
used in contextualizing lessons.
I think one should be very, very careful because what sort of culture you are going to use
in the classroom. I think there have been some really bad examples [of contextualization] in
Greenland. All of a sudden everything in the books were about dog sledges and hunting seal on
the ice and nobody in the southern Greenland . . . from Sisimiut . . . down south, have ever even
seen a dog sledge and they don’t know what a dog sledge is, and they don’t hunt seals on the
ice. Actually, seal hunting . . . used to be a common thing in the culture, but these days it is only
a small minority that have really experienced seal hunting. (Interview with Lone Hindby,
February 10, 2006)
In a way, this Danish reform leader was protecting the Greenlandic culture from
stereotyping. However, researchers such as Dirlik (2002), suggest that a search for or the idea of
“pure” identity is futile because all identity, when viewed from an historical perspective, is a
product of one or another form of colonialism. Hybridization of identities is an ongoing
historical process, such that even pre-colonial national identities are products of colonialism.
One of the frontrunners of Greenland’s reform, Olsen urged teachers to use the
Greenlandic culture in their teaching as much as possible. In Olsen’s opinion, teachers should
use the “contemporary culture of the time . . . and the social history of the families” to
contextualize their lessons (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). Olsen, a Ministry of
Education official, explains
What is essential in these families is that they based their life both in the . . . Norwegian
lifestyle, and at the same time in the Eskimo lifestyle. . . . This creates something very dynamic
from my perspective and can be very dynamic in education . . . if you use . . . both sides of these
cultural elements. (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006)
The Role of Culture, p. 18
Olsen’s answer to the traditional versus contemporary culture debate is to think about
evolution and change as a part of a group’s culture. He cautions educators and reform leaders to
not see “culture as something unique and not created by the social factors and the history of the
society” (Interview with Paartoq Olsen, June 13, 2006). In his view, elements brought in by the
colonizers are just as much a part of Greenlandic identity as traditional Eskimo culture.
Modeling
In addition to contextualization, Danish reform leaders expressed strong resistance to the
use of modeling in Greenlandic classrooms, despite its prevalent use in traditional and
contemporary Greenlandic teaching situations. Research shows that modeling is a powerful
form of assistance, shown to be highly effective in the teaching and learning of indigenous
communities (Tharp, 1997; Tharp, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 1994b). CREDE’s strong support of
modeling comes from research by Cazden and John (1971), among others, who characterize
American Indian children’s preference for learning to be “more visual than verbal, more
learning by looking than learning through language” (Cazden & John, 1971, p. 256). It has also
been discussed as a principle of competence before performance, in which the learner judges’
his or her readiness (Cazden & John, 1971). Modeling and demonstration are viewed by
Greenlandic reform leaders as one of the cultural strengths that can be built upon in the
Greenlandic school system.
One of the main concerns of Danish reform leaders was that modeling resulted in
reproduction rather than the generation of new ideas or products (Field Notes, February 9,
2006). For example, one participant expressed that the purpose of teaching was to generate new
knowledge and to create new and better ways of doing something. Modeling was therefore not
associated with teaching, because it left little room for inspiration and the creation of new
knowledge. For example, in a discussion on the role of modeling in art education, one Danish
The Role of Culture, p. 19
consultant said, “You create a pig and everyone else produces a pig and it is not the way it . . .
should be” (Interview with Bent Mortensen, September 1, 2005).
Another Danish participant explained modeling can easily be confused with copying: “I
know you can learn a lot from modeling, [but] . . . I am a little concerned . . . because I don’t
want people to misunderstand modeling and think copying” (Interview with Lone Hindby,
February 10, 2006). The participant went on to explain that modeling is an excellent means of
teaching in “natural learning settings” for example where “you learn to hunt the seal,” but may
be inappropriate to use in formal schooling because there is no longer a societal need to perfect
a skill. In her opinion what is needed is innovation or development beyond what has already
been perfected. She elaborated,
So if [a skill has] been perfected for 1,000 years it is difficult to come up with new and
better ways of doing things. . . . If you just learn from modeling you will never be better than the
person who taught us. (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)
Hindby explains that anytime learning a new skill involves using the hands, modeling will
naturally be used to assist a learner. For this purpose, she sees modeling as an appropriate way
of assisting others. However, Hindby cautions that “when learning other things, it is different”
and teachers need to respond by employing other methods.
Hindby explains that one of the difficulties in creating change in Greenland is that the
current school system has traditionally requires students to “copy whatever the teacher says,
wrote and did” (Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006) which may be typical of
colonial education. Therefore, she fears that if reform leaders support this form of assistance,
teachers will assume they are able to continue teaching using passive methods. Further, she
explained that modeling is so ingrained in Greenlandic culture that teachers reproduce the same
products in their classrooms after participating professional development. The result is that the
The Role of Culture, p. 20
teachers are not bringing new information to their lessons because they are not able to reflect on
what was modeled:
They take it, use it without reflection. Okay, not everybody, but, a lot, a big group. I still
have not forgotten this one workshop on science where this one teacher said, “Well, I took this
one workshop a few years ago and I was taught how to make a lesson plan on, I think it was on
water, and I use it a lot of times in my classes and now I want to learn another lesson”.
(Interview with Lone Hindby, February 10, 2006)
Hindby seems to be addressing the importance of proper placement of attention when
learning through observation (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura's Social Learning Theory,
observers retain a symbolic representation of the modelled behaviour, which will then serve as a
blueprint for that behaviour. In order to successfully learn something through observation, the
learner’s attention must be guided and properly placed on the desired behavior. Creative thought
processes and problem-solving heuristics can also be modelled and demonstrated. It seems that
Greenland’s reform leaders may need to address this issue as it relates to the professional
development of their teachers.
On the other hand, many of the Greenlandic teachers and consultants found value in
modeling, referencing personal experiences of when it was used as the primary means of
assistance in the Greenlandic home (Field Notes, February 9, 2006). For example, one
consultant shared a story about how one learns to create kamiks, the traditional knee-high
Greenlandic boots made of various traditional materials. In order to successfully learn to sew
kamiks, one has to sit with an expert and observe the technique of pulling the thread tight
against the animal skin and sewing two different materials together without leaving openings for
cold air or snow (S. S. Lynge, personal communication, January 22, 2007).
The Role of Culture, p. 21
It seems that Danish reform leaders viewed Greenlandic interaction patterns and social
organization as barriers to progress in Greenland’s educational system. On the advancement of
colonialism, Dirlik (2002) writes that all things indigenous became viewed as an obstacle to
colonial progress, which is echoed in several participants’ comments. Modeling is known to be
widely practiced in Greenland and a preferred means of assistance among people living in the
circumpolar North (Darnell & Hoem, 1996). These forms of assistance express a deep structure
of cultural values and functions in many Greenlandic interactions. And yet, Danish reform
leaders viewed modeling as a barrier rather than a cultural strength to be used in the creation of
culturally compatible education.
Gramsci (1971) sees ideological hegemony as not only political and economic control, but
also the ability of the dominant class to project is own way of seeing the world so that those
who are subordinated by it accept it as common sense. By appealing to one of the difficulties in
observational learning, that of an intended action or behaviour being reproduced, Danish reform
leaders provided a logical argument for why modeling should not be supported in Greenland’s
educational reform. In that way, they may have been somewhat influential in trying to draw
some attention away from its use.
On the other hand, their comments go against proven “best practices” for indigenous
students (Cazden & John, 1971) and many of the goals of Atuarfitsialak. Appropriate teacherstudent interactions have been shown to positively influence learning in Native classrooms (Au
& Jordan, 1981; Erikson & Mohatt, 1982). In fact, the most promising research in culturally
compatible education has come from studies that have manipulated the interaction patterns and
social organization of the classroom to be more aligned with students’ natal culture (Tharp,
2006). It would make sense that modeling would be viewed as a cultural strength and not a
barrier to academic achievement.
The Role of Culture, p. 22
Discussion
Considering the larger historical context from which the school was constructed is an
important aspect in school reform. Kawagley and Barnhardt (1999) state that to achieve true
cultural compatibility, the cultural and historical context of schools needs to be examined with
attention to how the rules of engagement were established and the ways in which these rules
remain in place. They point out that there has been much success on the part of indigenous
people in reclaiming their educational systems once activities within the system are reorganized.
However, the initial response by most groups has been “to accept the inherited structures
without question and perpetuate the Western systems that were put in place before, including
their implicit forms of decision making, social stratification and control” (p. 17). These
researchers assert that by changing the structures of the educational system, schools can better
provide “education in the culture, rather than education about the culture” (p. 17).
This study supports the notion that transplanted models, such as the CREDE’s Principles
for Effective Teaching and Learning, may become problematic when introduced in a new
context. Beliefs and assumptions underlying externally developed models play an important role
in reform success. Datnow (2002) explains that conflicting beliefs between the model and
participating educators are a common barrier to reform success. Reform leaders and educators
may not fully understand how to implement the imported model or in some cases, may not agree
with the model’s approach.
Hu’s (2002) work suggests that sometimes the receiving culture cannot support imported
models because of deep seated beliefs about teaching and learning processes. In Hu’s study of a
highly revered English language program imported to China, Hu found that cultural differences
between the teaching/learning model for English and traditional Chinese culture were too great
to overcome. Incongruence between Confucian reverence for knowledge written in books and
The Role of Culture, p. 23
the program’s emphasis on conversation and dialogue resulted in the model’s failure to teach
Chinese students to speak English. Failure occurred despite the program’s use of techniques
supported by most Western language specialists.
Conflicting beliefs may help to explain why Danish reform leaders in Greenland did not
support all aspects of the CREDE model of pedagogy. Contextualization is a major component
in the creation of culturally compatible classrooms and educational programs (Demmert &
Towner, 2003). It is one of the most fully studied and supported principles in both cognitive
science and sociocultural theory (Tharp, 2005). And yet, many of the Danish participants were
uneasy in embracing its use.
Further, an earlier study on the implementation of Greenland’s reform may assist in
explaining reform leaders’ resistance to Contextualization and Modeling. Author (in
preparation) found that when Greenlandic reform leaders addressed the goals of Atuarfitsialak,
they consistently mentioned the impact colonialism has had on Greenland’s history and in
particular the Greenlandic educational system. Atuarfitsialak was viewed as a means for
decolonizing the classroom and subsequently ameliorating many of the problems in society. On
the other hand, Danish reform leaders never made reference to Greenland’s status as a former
colony of Denmark or the impact colonialism has had on the Greenlandic people. In this way,
Danish and Greenlandic participants may not have shared the same goals for Atuarfitsialak.
This study shows that issues related to colonization take a long time to resolve and in
some cases, may never be resolved. Just because the colonizing government pulls out physically
does not mean that the former colonized area is able to quickly create a new way of living and
feeling in society. Patterns of behavior and thought processes remain entrenched and in many
ways continue to hold formerly colonized groups into fixed realities (Loomba, 1998). Viewed in
this light, Danish reform leaders may have viewed themselves as “helping” Greenlanders by
The Role of Culture, p. 24
offering seemingly valid arguments against CREDE pedagogy. Their arguments may have come
from a sincere desire to assist in Greenland’s educational reform. Therefore, Hoffman (1999)
challenges researchers to not simplify resistance and set individuals up against the dominant
groups or ideas, but to explore the cultural models of the groups appearing resistant.
Finally, the success of Atuarfitsialak appears to rest on Greenland’s ability to make candid
the larger societal goals in Greenland. The Greenlanders may need to fully express their desire
for self-determination and their intention on working towards this end. In addition, the role of
non-indigenous people working to support the Greenlandic effort needs to be clarified. Kaomea
(2005) writes
Perhaps the most helpful role that can be assumed by non-Natives who are interested in
assisting with Indigenous self-determination efforts . . . is to work collaboratively with Native
allies, listen closely to out wisdom as well as our concern, interrogate unearned power and
privilege (including one’s own), and use this privilege to confront oppression and “stand
behind” Natives, so that our voices can be heard. (p. 40)
Until indigenous communities are self-sustaining, they may need to elicit the assistance of
non-Native people (Kaomea, 2005). In Greenland, this will necessitate clarity for how
transplanted Danes will work with Greenlandic culture to ensure Atuarfitsialak’s success.
The Role of Culture, p. 25
References
Alexander, R. B. (1982). Participant observation, ethnography, and their use in educational
evaluation: A review of selected works. Studies in Art Education, 24(1), 63-69.
Au, K. H. P., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a
culturally appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture in the
bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 140-162). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Author. (in preparation). Atuarfitsialak: Greenland's culturally compatible reform.
Baker, B. (1997). Anthropology and teacher preparation: Some possibilities and
precautions. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 41-58.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Orrville, Ohio: Prentice Hall.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cazden, C., & John, V. P. (1971). Learning in American Indian children. In M. L. Wax, S.
Diamond & F. O. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 252-272).
New York: Basic Books.
Cohen, D. K., Marion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th
Edition). London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. J. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of
Educational Change, 3, 215-239.
Demmert, W. G., & Towner, J. C. (2003). A review of the research literature on the
influence of culturally based education on the academic performance of Native American
students. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Dirlik, A. (2002). Rethinking colonialism: Globalization, postcolonialism, and the nation.
Interventions, 4(3), 428-448.
Doherty, W. R., Hilberg, R., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. G. (2003). Five standards and student
achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1-24.
Doherty, W. R., & Pinal, A. (2002, November 2002). Joint productive activity, cognitive
reading strategies, and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Council of Teachers of English, Atlanta, GA.
Erikson, R., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural Organization of participant structures in two
classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling:
Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.
Estrada, P. (2004). Patterns of language arts instructional activity and excellence in firstand fourth-grade culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp
& R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U. S. classrooms (pp. 122-143). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). Interviewing: The art of science. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goldbach, I., & Winther-Jensen, T. (1988). Greenland: Society and education.
Comparative Education, 24(2), 257-266.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare
& G. N. Smith, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.
The Role of Culture, p. 26
Hilberg, R., Tharp, R. G., & DeGeest, L. (2000). The efficacy of CREDE's Standardsbased instruction in American Indian mathematics classes. Equity and Excellence in Education,
33(2), 32-36.
Hoffman, D. (1999). Turning power inside out: Reflections on resistance from the
(anthropological) field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6), 671687.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of
communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Jordan, C. (1992). The role of culture in minority school achievement. Kamehameha
Journal of Education, 3(2), 53-67.
Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1979). Culture and Education. In A. J. Marsella, R. G. Tharp
& T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 265-285). New York:
Academic Press.
Kaomea, J. (2005). Indigenous studies in the elementary curriculum: A cautionary
Hawaiian example. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 24-42.
Kawagley, A. O., & Barnhardt, R. (1999). Education indigenous to place: Western science
meets native reality. In G. A. Smith & D. R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action
(pp. 117-140). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ledlow, S. (1992). Is cultural discontinuity an adequate explanation for dropping out?
Journal of American Indian Education, 31(3), 21-36.
Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/ Post Colonialism. New York: Routledge.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes to classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31, 132-141.
Olsen, K. K. (2005). Educating teachers from a Vygotskian point of view: The
Greenlandic school reform and what it implies for classroom practices and further education
(professional development) for teachers, . Seville, Spain: International Society for Cultural and
Activity Research.
Rhodes, R. W. (1988). Holistic teaching/learning for Native American students. Journal of
American Indian Education, UNKNOWN(UNKNOWN), NKNOWN.
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999a). The effects of comprehensive Language
Arts/Transition Program on the literacy development of English learners (Technical Report):
Santa Cruz, CA, Center for Research, Diversity, & Excellence, University of California.
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999b). The effects of instructional conversations and
literature logs on limited- and fluent-English proficient students' story comprehension and
thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 277-301.
Smith, G. (2000). Maori education: Revolution and transformative action. Canadian
Journal of Native Education, 24(1), 57-72.
Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and
learning in schools. American Psychologists, 44(2), 349-359.
Tharp, R. G. (1997). From risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice
(Research Report No. 1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity &
Excellence.
Tharp, R. G. (2005). Research in diversity and education: Process and structure in
synthesizing knowledge. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 355-361.
Tharp, R. G. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, Pedagogy, and Native
America. Journal of American Indian Education, 45(2), 6-25.
The Role of Culture, p. 27
Tharp, R. G., & Dalton, S. S. (2007). Orthodoxy, cultural compatibility, and universals in
education. Comparative Education, 43(1), 53-70.
Tharp, R. G., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (1994a). Principles for culturally
compatible Native American education. Journal of Navajo Education 11(3), 21-27.
Tharp, R. G., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (1994b). Principles for culturally
compatible Native American education. Journal of Navajo Education, 11, 33-39.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching
Transformed: Achieving Excellence, Fairness, Inclusion, and Harmony. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Todal, J. (2003). The Sami school system in Norway and international cooperation.
Comparative Education, 39(2), 185-192.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yamauchi, L. A., Ceppi, A. K., & Lau-Smith, J. (2000). Teaching in a Hawaiian context:
Educator perspectives on the Hawaiian language immersion program. Bilingual Research
Journal, 24(4), 385-403.
Yamauchi, L. A., Wyatt, T. R., & Taum, A. K. (2005). Making meaning: Connecting
school to Hawaiian students' lives. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being,
2, 161-178.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.