Learners’ Perspectives on ARCH + STEM: Integration of Archaeology and Indigenous Knowledges with Western Knowledges of STEM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To the authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I was excited by the title, and the prospect of reading a paper exploring the integration of STEM with archaeology and Indigenous knowledges. You also set the paper up well - the introduction and literature review clearly outlined how your study connects with existing literature, including identifying some of the affordances of connecting STEM learning with archaeology learning and/or learning about Indigenous knowledges. You also chose to ground the study in ‘third space’ theory. The context, participants, data sources, and approaches to data analysis are clear. A small note is that it would be useful to international readers to provide additional explanation for some of the Indigenous knowledge contexts (e.g., cordage, atlatl) when they are first introduced.

In the rest of the paper, I unfortunately have significant concern that your findings are not presented with more of a critical lens. In particular, I am concerned that ‘Indigenous knowledges’ seem to relegated to the past, rather than acknowledging/promoting their contemporary relevance and the fact that they continue to develop. In other words, the findings are presented in ways that perpetuate colonisation rather than adopting an approach that begins to be decolonising. This also leads me to wonder how the Indigenous knowledges are being positioned in the programme.

By way of example, the comment by Leonardo, “we still hunt today, just not with an atlatl”, seems to suggest that Indigenous knowledge around the atlatl is not relevant for contemporary life – and ignores the opportunity to surface and celebrate the incredible ingenuity of Indigenous culture historically and today.

Later, George and Kit-Kat’s comments are included about how Indigenous peoples “used the environment around them to their benefit” and “took advantage of their resources”. Here, there was opportunity to further expand on the sustainable nature of many Indigenous practices – perhaps by highlighting the relative absence of this in the students’ reflections and/or commenting on the place of discussions about sustainable practices in the afterschool programme. (I acknowledge that you do include Lion Birch Tree’s comments about Indigenous peoples having “used every part of a deer”.

As a further example, the summary statement, “Indigenous peoples are spoke [sic] of in the past, as if they currently do not take advantage of their resources and have a relationship with their environment”, hints at the important nature-connection of Indigenous people, but could go much further in terms of considering the sustainable nature of Indigenous peoples’ interactions with the environment, and the evolving nature of their knowledge systems.

Additionally, in line 467 on page 10, the positioning of Indigenous peoples’ perspective of technology and science as “grounded in the past” underplays the relevance of their knowledge for the present and future, including the future of future generations.

Moving further into the paper, the link with the past continues to be brought to the fore, particularly with the way that archaeology seems to be used in the afterschool program to bring to life examples of Indigenous cultures. Indeed, I wondered at times whether the archaeological and Indigenous concepts were being conflated.

I also didn’t see evidence of how learners “integrated Indigenous perspectives of STEM and Western perspectives of STEM” (p. 12, line 581, emphasis added). In relation to this, I encourage you to further explore literature on Indigenous knowledge systems and Western knowledge systems to clarify what integration might look like – and where integration may (and may not) be appropriate.  

I think we’re living in important times, with growing acknowledgement around the world of the ongoing impacts of intergenerational trauma caused by colonisation, deliberate moves in some educational jurisdictions towards decolonisation of the curriculum, and increasing recognition of the importance of Indigenous knowledge systems for our collective future, including for informing how we respond to climate change.

Unfortunately the way that the paper is currently presented falls short of highlighting the potential for raising understanding of the value and relevance of Indigenous knowledges for today and for tomorrow.

I hope that in providing this review, you might be encouraged to consider more critically your own thinking about these issues, and how they are positioned in your future work, including in a re-analysis of the findings section of this paper, and any future iterations of the after-school programme.  

I wish you well with this endeavour, as I believe afterschool programmes have potential to provide powerful learning opportunities that are also emancipatory – and that can in turn inform the school curriculum.

Finally, I note that on page 5 line 230 that ‘Each afterschool lesson … focused on experimentation using the scientific method’ and then a few lines further on (237) that ‘… the modules were created to build learners’ STEM practices and processes as aligned with a scientific method …’. I think it is important that there is consistency in your description of the modules, and I note that a lot of literature is now highlighting that ‘the scientific method’ provides a very narrow definition for science.  

Author Response

A small note is that it would be useful to international readers to provide additional explanation for some of the Indigenous knowledge contexts (e.g., cordage, atlatl) when they are first introduced.

Response: We added the word “rope” to explain cordage and “a wooden spear throwing device” to explain an atlatl. This is attended to on the bottom of page 5, Lines 235 and 247.

In the rest of the paper, I unfortunately have significant concern that your findings are not presented with more of a critical lens. In particular, I am concerned that ‘Indigenous knowledges’ seem to relegated to the past, rather than acknowledging/promoting their contemporary relevance and the fact that they continue to develop. In other words, the findings are presented in ways that perpetuate colonisation rather than adopting an approach that begins to be decolonising. This also leads me to wonder how the Indigenous knowledges are being positioned in the programme.

By way of example, the comment by Leonardo, “we still hunt today, just not with an atlatl”, seems to suggest that Indigenous knowledge around the atlatl is not relevant for contemporary life – and ignores the opportunity to surface and celebrate the incredible ingenuity of Indigenous culture historically and today.

Later, George and Kit-Kat’s comments are included about how Indigenous peoples “used the environment around them to their benefit” and “took advantage of their resources”. Here, there was opportunity to further expand on the sustainable nature of many Indigenous practices – perhaps by highlighting the relative absence of this in the students’ reflections and/or commenting on the place of discussions about sustainable practices in the afterschool programme. (I acknowledge that you do include Lion Birch Tree’s comments about Indigenous peoples having “used every part of a deer”.

As a further example, the summary statement, “Indigenous peoples are spoke [sic] of in the past, as if they currently do not take advantage of their resources and have a relationship with their environment”, hints at the important nature-connection of Indigenous people, but could go much further in terms of considering the sustainable nature of Indigenous peoples’ interactions with the environment, and the evolving nature of their knowledge systems.

Additionally, in line 467 on page 10, the positioning of Indigenous peoples’ perspective of technology and science as “grounded in the past” underplays the relevance of their knowledge for the present and future, including the future of future generations.

Moving further into the paper, the link with the past continues to be brought to the fore, particularly with the way that archaeology seems to be used in the afterschool program to bring to life examples of Indigenous cultures. Indeed, I wondered at times whether the archaeological and Indigenous concepts were being conflated.

I think we’re living in important times, with growing acknowledgement around the world of the ongoing impacts of intergenerational trauma caused by colonisation, deliberate moves in some educational jurisdictions towards decolonisation of the curriculum, and increasing recognition of the importance of Indigenous knowledge systems for our collective future, including for informing how we respond to climate change.

Response: We believe that many of the comments above served as a collective as opposed to separate comments to be addressed. First, the importance of the environment was part of the afterschool program. We added the following sentence to page 6 (Lines 260-263) to highlight this. “For instance, the importance of the environment was highlighted by one of our Indigenous guests who discussed the current impact of pollution on a lake that was and is vitally important to their community. Second, we did not disagree with the comments regarding how learners discussed Indigenous people as if living in the past. This is not our own perspective. We attended to this on page 13 of the discussion.

“However, one concern that stemmed from this study is that some students seemed to refer to Indigenous people in the past tense despite the fact that three Indigenous people presented to the learners during each program. As an example, Steve noted, “we’re doing that atlatl thing, that was something they [Indigenous peoples] used to do.” Or Leonardo, who said: “Yeah, Indigenous people used an atlatl 'cause it helped kill their prey easier and we still hunt today, just not with an atlatl.” While Steve and Leonardo connected aspects of their lives, some of which they had been exposed to in the after-school program, with the lives of Indigenous peoples, there was no connection to Indigenous people and Indigenous knowledge today. As educators and researchers, we are deeply concerned with learners’ positionality of Indigenous people as relegated to the past. Future programs will have to address this oversight in terms of how contemporary Indigenous people are positioned and being perceived by learners throughout the program. This may be reflected in students’ language, which can be reframed and revoiced as to shift their in-the-moment thinking and understanding of Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing, being, and doing in the present. We further con-tend that such future research lies within deep reflection of our individual and collective selves as educators and researchers (e.g., self-study).”

I also didn’t see evidence of how learners “integrated Indigenous perspectives of STEM and Western perspectives of STEM” (p. 12, line 581, emphasis added). In relation to this, I encourage you to further explore literature on Indigenous knowledge systems and Western knowledge systems to clarify what integration might look like – and where integration may (and may not) be appropriate. 

Response: We reframed our language from integrated to a foundational understanding or a foundational connection between the two perspectives. We made this change to page 9, Line 425, as well as to the discussion section (Lines 607-608, 620-624). There is definitely work that needs to be done in this area.

Finally, I note that on page 5 line 230 that ‘Each afterschool lesson … focused on experimentation using the scientific method’ and then a few lines further on (237) that ‘… the modules were created to build learners’ STEM practices and processes as aligned with a scientific method …’. I think it is important that there is consistency in your description of the modules, and I note that a lot of literature is now highlighting that ‘the scientific method’ provides a very narrow definition for science.

Response: We omitted the language regarding a scientific method – Line 230 and 239 on page 5.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached for suggested edits

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

No question mark.

Response: In the abstract, we changed the question mark to a period.

Reference is Author 1. Is this correct?

Response: Yes, [47] references a publication from Author 1. Therefore, no edits were made.

“are spoke” highlighted on page 9, Line 393.

Response: We edited this to say the following: “…were spoken of as if they lived in the past…”

Asked if two different texts were quotes.

Response: Yes. We formatted as to indent these quotes more clearly, as well as increase the line spacing between the quotes and the body of the text.

Font size of name of website.

Response: We changed the font size to the be same as the text.

Fix spacing of references.

Response: We ensured that the spacing of the references was consistent.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to acknowledge your openness to the feedback that was initially provided, and the way that you have addressed the ethical concerns I had that  that students' knowledge and representation of Indigenous knowledge was represented in the 'past tense'. In particular, I applaud your explicit acknowledgement in the paper that "further con-tend that such future research lies within deep reflection of our individual and collective selves as educators and researchers." 

At the start of the paragraph, perhaps you can strengthen the first sentence, from "However, one concern that stemmed from this study is that some students seemed to refer to Indigenous people in the past tense" to "However, a significant ethical concern raised in this study ..." 

With the following phrase - "future programs will have to address this oversight in terms of how contemporary Indigenous people are positioned and being perceived by learners throughout the program" I again think that 'oversight' is not strong enough and I suggest an alternative like "ethical concern" (to be consistent with the change in the first sentence. 

Further, with the sentence "This may be reflected in students’ language, which can be reframed and revoiced as to shift their in-the-moment thinking and understanding of Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing, being, and doing in the present", I am concerned that 'in-the-moment thinking' reflects deep-seated beliefs. I suggest that deleting this sentence may be stronger and more ethically sensitive. 

On page 9, where you changed your language "from integrated to a foundational understanding or a foundational connection between the two perspectives" perhaps the following would be clearer: "some middle school learners described STEM, and ways to utilize STEM, as way in to understanding some aspects of both Indigenous and Western knowledges". 

In considering my feedback and framing your responses, I hope that a door has genuinely been opened that will lead you to further your own further thinking, learning, reading, and grappling with the ways in which non-Indigenous people position Indigenous people and their knowledge. This will include accessing literature that will hopefully help your thinking and inform your future project design, including analysis and dissemination. 

The current absence of literature along these lines in this second iteration of the manuscript remains a weakness.

Author Response

At the start of the paragraph, perhaps you can strengthen the first sentence, from "However, one concern that stemmed from this study is that some students seemed to refer to Indigenous people in the past tense" to "However, a significant ethical concern raised in this study ..."

Response: We changed the sentence to state the following; “However a significant concern raised in this study…” In addition, we edited the following sentence to attend to this comment. “As educators and researchers, we are deeply concerned with the learners’ inaccurate positionality of Indigenous people as relegated to the past and the ethical concerns that raises.”

With the following phrase - "future programs will have to address this oversight in terms of how contemporary Indigenous people are positioned and being perceived by learners throughout the program" I again think that 'oversight' is not strong enough and I suggest an alternative like "ethical concern" (to be consistent with the change in the first sentence.

Response: We changed from ‘oversight’ to ‘unforeseen issue’.

Further, with the sentence "This may be reflected in students’ language, which can be reframed and revoiced as to shift their in-the-moment thinking and understanding of Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing, being, and doing in the present", I am concerned that 'in-the-moment thinking' reflects deep-seated beliefs. I suggest that deleting this sentence may be stronger and more ethically sensitive.

Response: Thank you. We removed this sentence. We further added the following sentences: “As stated by one of our Indigenous speakers, history books used in schools also position Indigenous communities as people of the past. Similarly, in a content analysis of K-12 standards in the U.S., Shear and colleagues [72] found that Indigenous peoples were situated within a pre-1900 context and “directed students to see Indigenous Peoples as a long since forgotten episode in the country’s development” (p. 89). Math and science standards and curriculum are also void of Indigenous knowledge systems [73-74].

On page 9, where you changed your language "from integrated to a foundational understanding or a foundational connection between the two perspectives" perhaps the following would be clearer: "some middle school learners described STEM, and ways to utilize STEM, as way in to understanding some aspects of both Indigenous and Western knowledges".

Response: We made this change.

In considering my feedback and framing your responses, I hope that a door has genuinely been opened that will lead you to further your own further thinking, learning, reading, and grappling with the ways in which non-Indigenous people position Indigenous people and their knowledge. This will include accessing literature that will hopefully help your thinking and inform your future project design, including analysis and dissemination. 

The current absence of literature along these lines in this second iteration of the manuscript remains a weakness.

Response: We do not quite understand the specific literature you referred to in the previous review. As this finding was not expected, we did not add literature to the beginning of the paper, but considered this within the discussion, particularly through the inclusion of studies situated with U.S. standards is one response to this comment.

In addition, we made additions to the following (as highlighted in bold). “We further contend that such future research lies within deep reflection of our individual and collective selves as educators and researchers within non-formal programs (e.g., self-study) and how we are positioning Indigenous peoples through our language and intercultural collaborations [75].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf