A Perspective REGARDING MÄORI AND E-LEARNING

Ruakere Hond (Te Whare Wänanga o Awanuiärangi)

With Reference to: Barriers / Capability / Participation / Good Practice / Quality

Purpose

This discussion paper examines barriers, opportunities and other significant characteristics that impact on the ability of ‘Mäori community’ to participate more equitably in the field of education utilising e-learning tools. Processes or projects that enhance initiatives of best practice will also be given consideration to identify potential projects or recommendations that will help achieve progress toward equitable participation.

Background Explanation

Diversity

It is necessary to recognise the broad diversity that is encompassed by the commonly used term ‘Mäori community’. At the same time there are some key characteristics that are more prevalent in this section of community than society in general, for example characteristics of a digital divide, iwi-based identity, and an historical impact of colonisation. By using the term I attempt to describe some recurring features of this section of society in relation to e-learning.

The Concept of Equality

The use of the concept ‘equality’ used in the project of equitable participation is fraught with many misconceptions and is often treated with a degree of suspicion by Mäori groups. Equal participation for many Mäori is subject to some of the following conditions:

• The historical reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, in particular under Article 3 and the misrepresentation of equality as a concession or compromise as opposed to an indigenous right under Article 2 (conditioning the nature of equality).
• The historical misuse of the concept to achieve assimilation within a core project of modernity and the tendency for the concept of equality to be used to displace the location of Mäori as tangata whenua.
• The necessity for acknowledgement of the position of privilege occupied by Päkehä as a majority and within the historical infrastructure of western culture.
• The potential for equality to be measured by inappropriate cultural benchmarks.

At the same time however, equitable participation holds value in some of the following ways:

• That Mäori groups are enabled to take a pro-active role in responding to Mäori needs.
• That formal recognition is given to the multi-faceted "divide" that exists for a significant proportion of Mäori people.
• That acknowledgement is made giving strength to the central position of the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to New Zealand society.

Some considerations that may be diminished when relying solely on participation as an indicator of equality include equality based on:

• equal access to Mäori as the language of choice.
• equal access to options of training and services within the culture of choice.
• protection of cultural areas of interest by ensuring equality of participation within decision making and weight given to cultural issues.

Diversity

Mäori needs or barriers cannot be addressed with a single approach. Diverse needs and characteristics of Mäori communities make it difficult for a specific response to be developed. Providing responses within Mäori communities need to reflect this diversity. The diversity mirrors the range of characteristics present among the general population. Again, some characteristics more prevalent among Mäori communities and can be shown to include the following:

• Training/Academic education in cultural identity which may not be perceived by students to be significantly related of career directions or economic goals.
• The Mäori language immersion environment and Kaupapa Mäori learning environment are almost completely directed toward Mäori participants. Growth in this area reflects the high priority given to Mäori language by these sections of community.
• A demand for cultural authenticity by individuals is more prevalent today, which may be accompanied by scepticism toward Government-based programmes or projects provided within tikanga Päkehä organisations.

"The Digital Divide and Mäori" (Report for TPK by Infometrics, 2001)

The digital divide is used to describe the disparities in achievement and/or participation and this is evidenced within communities. Some of the key points made in this report are:

• It should not be assumed that Mäori communities want widely to utilise the digital environment to the same extent as non-Mäori. (In my experience there is a significant proportion of Mäori society who deem this new environment to be inconsistent with projects of a traditional nature)
• There is strong evidence of the existence of a pronounced digital divide for Mäori communities.
• Equality of participation by Mäori in the digital environment does not necessarily translate into equality of achievement or equality in wider social issues/disparities.
• Education is shown to be the impetus for development in a wider range of core skills and initiatives and that educators are initially identified in the report to be a higher priority as a target for funding.
• The high cost of digital technology is identified as a one of the more significant barriers affecting Mäori participation. (related to the prevalent, weak economic location of Mäori within society and/or the where they live)
• The level of responsibility or function (affecting income) of Mäori employees or participants needs to be considered within the concept of equitable participation. (quality of participation) Mäori I.T. enrolments are shown to have increased but this is not reflected in the level of the programmes of enrolment. Similarly the number of computers in Mäori homes may have increased in relation to non-Mäori but this does not reflect the standard or connectivity of the computers. This is a key point for me, that equality is clearly focused also on level and rigor of participation rather than simply quantity.
• A lack of phone connections within Mäori homes relative to non-Mäori homes was identified as a barrier.
• There is benefit in conducting analysis of the developments and the issues that relate to ethnic groups of other countries that share similar characteristics, i.e. indigenous peoples, cultural, economic and educational location, minorities, historical oppression, etc.
• Government intervention needs to consider the potential for private sector response and the opportunity cost if Government resources are be expended in the digital environment.

Although the report provides analysis of the location of Mäori in the digital environment, in what would otherwise be an area of sparse information, I identify the following characteristics where I do not feel entirely satisfied with its contents:

• A strong emphasis on economic and educational disparities as being the key factors in determining the extent to which Mäori participate in the digital environment. The absence of any historical reference linking this with assimilationist policies, racism, enforced economic crisis and other contributing factors renders its insights blind and open to misunderstandings. The conclusions are largely acultural and based on ethnicity/race

(I suggest that the acultural perspective in this report is a reflection of the strong association with free market theory, which has a tendency to espouse the individualistic goals over community goals. This position runs contrary to the sentiments of a large proportion of Mäori groups and in particular traditional social groupings of whänau, hapü and iwi.)

• The reliance on research associated with Black Americans and America in general is unfortunate. There are few similarities between the position of Mäori and that of Black Americans other than the features of being a minority, a readily identifiable ethnic group and having a history of oppression. If there was an absence of research on other indigenous peoples, this should have been more prominently noted (I do not feel the proviso given was relevant nor was is sufficient). This gives less weight to this analysis with an ethnic group that exhibits an exceedingly high level of cultural dislocation. Indigenous groups in USA, Canada, Australia, etc. may have been a better choice. The cultural location of Mäori communities is one of our most significant defining features.

Barriers

Some of the potential barriers for learners that I suggest to exist for Mäori participation in E-learning are:

• Poor initial levels of educational achievement evidenced by illiteracy, poorly developed analysis and awareness, low personal self esteem, fear of technology and participation based on benefits other than the education. (social, allowances, no job placement, etc.) E-learning will probably be less helpful than regular face to face contact
• Economic position – fear of incurring students debt or alternatively an eagerness to use student loans to cover ongoing continuation of programmes and additional personal costs.
• The lack of Mäori providers delivering within a firm Mäori and cultural comfortable environment.
• Need for more Mäori digital material constituting a greater incentive for Mäori community participation.
• A greater lack of phone connections within Mäori homes was identified as a barrier.

Some of the potential barriers for education providers that I suggest to exist for Mäori participation in E-learning are:

• Reluctance to see any relevance between new digital technologies and traditional knowledge and learning.
• Lack of appreciation of what is involved in the delivery of programme content using e-learning.
• Low numbers of Mäori tertiary education providers with the knowledge and capacity to deliver using e-learning.
• Mäori tertiary education providers are in the position of high growth. Pressures of priorities for expansion reduce the ability to develop e-learning based programmes.
• The nature of the new technologies mean there are few people with sufficient background to be able to deliver programme effectively by e-learning.
• Numbers of Mäori students who are capable of studying within an e-learning based programme are reduced.

Suggestions for potential initiatives to enhance Mäori participation within programmes with e-learning based delivery:

1. Facilitation of e-learning advisory group for tertiary institutions including a kaupapa Mäori group to work with Kaupapa Mäori based programmes. Characteristics of this can potentially include:

• collaborative contributions to the project by tertiary institutions.
• encouragement on research of overseas developments and monitoring of progress made in NZ.
• it would be better for the group to have a support role in reviewing programme quality of programme/resource development. The alternative would be counter-productive.
• encouragement of good practice guidelines and performance measures.
• Identifying the potential programmes/resources that can be shared between institutions.
• identifying and facilitating the convening of national and international e-learning conferences.
• potential for government supplementary funding to assist with the costs of participation by institutions, especially smaller institutions.
• possibility of sharing some services such as an independent help desk.

2. Encouragement from Ministry for institutions to play a bigger role (perhaps in a similar light to the senior-net national-wide programme, with private sector sponsorship) in providing community access to technology, especially computers with internet links. There is potential for:

• expanding of institutions’ current computer facilities for multi-access timetabling and facilities.
• potential for inter-institution programme sharing and resource development.
• greater potential for sponsorship from computer companies.
• possible sponsorship of a particular type of programme related to a particular industry need, e.g. CISCO
• possible mobile e-learning units.
• a potential for community classes with a Mäori focus.
• more efficient use of limited resources i.e. weekend, holiday, morning noon and night classes.
• provide the opportunity for schools to participate in the project for even greater resource use.

3. Encouragement for a greater range of internet based and other digital material with Mäori in mind. There is potential for:

• greater incentive for Mäori to participate in the digital environment that will reflect their language, culture and areas of interest.
• expansion of Kete Ipurangi to include a greater presence for adults.
• inclusion within the common portal proposal for a Mäori language section with bulletin boards and chat rooms on specific topic areas.
• buy in from institutions to help contribute Mäori based material to the site.
• possible mobile e-learning units.
• a potential for community classes with a Mäori focus

4. Incentives given to unemployed and other beneficiaries to participate in short period, full time computer classes without being discouraged by WINZ for their unavailability for work. Potential for:

• niche programmes for specific areas of need identified among client group.
• gaining a greater involvement of institutions in the lower end of pre-entry programmes.
• greater potential for students to continue on into higher level of study.
• possible mobile e-learning units.
• a potential for community classes with a Mäori focus

5. A number of annual scholarships can perhaps be targeted toward key areas of development or analysis in the field of e-learning. Potential for:

• annually targeting of different areas such as new innovations/technology, research of effectiveness, participation of Mäori, minority groups or sectors.
• ability to encourage research in the field (esp. masters, PhD and academic papers) and develop experts with relatively little expenditure or the perception of public intervention.
• greater potential for a wider range of community buy in, i.e. business sponsorship, institution trials, exposure to more writing/research outcomes.
• encouragement of statistics and analysis that is focus on NZ specific characteristics, especially position of indigenous, Pacific islands, rural, etc. where research may not have otherwise taken place.
• a potential for community classes with a Mäori focus.

Top of Page