Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study aimed to empirically evaluate the knowledges, attitudes and perspectives of pre-service teachers towards Indigenous peoples, and to identify relationships between student learning experiences and student knowledges, attitudes and preparedness to work with Indigenous peoples, at one Australian university. The project was part of a broader mixed-methods study utilising an Indigenous Graduate Attribute evaluation instrument developed by Indigenous scholars at another Australian university, hence we also present construct validation of the instrument for the present sample. The project identified that students entered the units with positive attitudes towards Indigenous peoples and knowledges and found value in their learning. Students reported that the units facilitated authentic engagement with Indigenous standpoints even though some educators were non-Indigenous. Visible pedagogical and content decisions such as Indigenous leadership in the course, collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff, professionally relevant learning opportunities, and engaging with Indigenous perspectives through assessment were all identified to be related to positive experiences of learning.

Keywords

Indigenous education cultural competency pre-service teacher pedagogy higher education Indigenous perspectives

Introduction

In Australia, universities are becoming increasingly accountable for facilitating cultural responsiveness among graduates as an indicator of social responsibility (Behrendt, Larkin, Griew & Kelly, 2012; Bodkin-Andrews, Page & Trudgett, 2019; Universities Australia, 2017). Key documents such as the Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Behrendt et al., 2012), have set targets that require all university students be taught relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, and practical competencies applicable to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Universities Australia: Indigenous Strategy 2017 – 2020 (Universities Australia, 2017) enunciates that Indigenous knowledge and scholarship is ‘foundational and fundamentally important to Australia’s intellectual, social and cultural capital’ (p. 11), and a matter on which universities remain accountable to Indigenous communities and knowledge-holders. Although Higher Education frameworks and industry standards encourage, and in some places require, universities to embed Indigenous knowledges within disciplines (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2018; Universities Australia, 2017), progress towards this standard remains inconsistent (Aberdeen et al., 2013).

Across the research in this field, the term cultural competency is broadly applied to mean student knowledges of and attitudes towards Indigenous peoples, as well as applied skills in working within Indigenous contexts. Such knowledges typically consider the linguistic, geographic and cultural heterogeneity of Indigenous peoples. Further considered are the ontologies that drive Indigenous ways of knowing and being, histories of interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and the ongoing effects of related violence, applied from a respectful and reflexive positionality that values the experiences and knowledges of Indigenous peoples equally with those of other peoples (Acton, Salter, Lenoy & Stecenson, 2017; Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019; Moodie, 2019; Universities Australia, 2017). By developing such knowledges, it is intended that students develop ability to apply critical reflexive approaches, proactively counter racism and ongoing inequality, and contribute to the self-determination of Indigenous peoples through professionally relevant contexts (Acton et al., 2017; Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019; Durey et al., 2017; Ranzijn, McConnochie, Day, Nolan & Wharton, 2008).

Some institutions have developed Indigenous graduate attributes to reflect these goals (Anning, 2010; Page, Trudgett, Bodkin-Andrews, 2019; Universities Australia, 2020). At our own university, Course Design guidelines state that:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in the curriculum are a core component of building students’ Indigenous cultural competency and help to prepare graduates for working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities or organisations. (Edith Cowan University, n.d.)

A key purpose stated within these Guidelines is student preparedness to work with Indigenous communities. In their development of an Indigenous Graduate Attribute evaluation instrument for another university, Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) identified the highest level of accountability for non-Indigenous professionals lay in meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities built on reflective praxis centred in Indigenous narratives and protocols. Such praxis cannot be authentically determined whilst students remain at university, yet the identification of teaching and learning approaches that may improve graduate competency to work with Indigenous communities, remains a key theme within cultural competency education literature (Aberdeen et al., 2013; Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019; Kickett, Hoffman, & Flavell, 2014; Ranzijn et al., 2008; Riley, Monk & Vanissum, 2019).

The literature, and our own experiences, identify that lecturers delivering Indigenous cultural competency content commonly encounter challenges such as student resistance and negative unit evaluation data (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson, Power, Sherwood, & Geia, 2013; Ranzijn et al., 2008). Additionally, Indigenous lecturers of such units may find their Indigeneity questioned, Indigenous heterogeneity disregarded, or non-Indigenous colleagues abrogating responsibilities for Indigenising content (Aberdeen, Carter, Grogan, & Hollinsworth, 2013; Asmar & Page, 2009; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013; Ranzijn et al., 2008). Some scholars suggest cultural discourse on race is also complex for non-Indigenous staff who confront Whiteness and European primacy in academic settings (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Kickett, Hoffman, & Flavell, 2014). Despite these challenges many scholars, including ourselves, identify the transformative potential of such courses and highlight examples of students becoming more empathic and culturally competent (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013; Ranzijn et al., 2008; Thorpe & Burgess, 2016).

While it is common for non-Indigenous scholars to be involved in teaching Indigenous perspectives (Hollinsworth, 2016), and the challenges of such teaching are well described (Page et al., 2016; Ladson-Billings, 1998), the literature lacks a breadth of rigorous analysis regarding the efficacy and impact of different staffing or pedagogies on graduate cultural competency (Aberdeen et al, 2013; Nakata, Nakata, Keech, Bolt, 2014). Such research is mostly qualitative and often limited to the reported experiences of lecturers, rather than of students themselves (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013; Moodie & Patrick, 2017). The few studies with a sizeable sample of student data identified that although students experience resistance and vulnerability due to their own ignorance of Indigenous issues and unfamiliarity with discussions around race, students find their cultural competency studies to be a generally positive and worthwhile experience, particularly when delivered in professionally relevant contexts (Riley et al., 2019; Thorpe & Burgess, 2016).

Although there are limited empirical data measuring the attitudes and knowledges of tertiary students towards Indigenous peoples and issues at either course entry or exit (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019; Moodie, 2019), the recent development of an instrument to quantitatively assess student cultural competencies by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) represents a significant step forward in this field. The instrument contains two measures, Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues, and Applied Indigenous Learning.

The Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure consists of seven sub-scales designed to capture a student’s cultural competency to work with Indigenous peoples. Four of these measure student understandings of the lived experiences and representations of Indigenous peoples through factors such as Indigenous Diversities (knowledge of the heterogeneity of Indigenous Australians), Indigenous Disadvantage (knowledge of the socioeconomic disadvantages faced by Indigenous Australians), Indigenous Deficit Thinking (beliefs ascribing responsibility for Indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage on to Indigenous Australians themselves) and Critical Cultural Representations (the accuracy ascribed to popular representations of Indigenous peoples). The second set of factors measured by the Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues scale is student preparedness to work with Indigenous peoples and knowledges in a professional context. These factors include Future Confidence and Future Adaptability (to work with Indigenous peoples), as well as Two-Ways (capacity to synthesise Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches to achieve professional goals). The broad set of professional knowledges and attitudes within this scale provide a measure that addresses both cognitive and practical cultural competencies.

The second measure developed by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019), Applied Indigenous Learning, provides tertiary institutions with an instrument to evaluate the extent of strategic Indigenous-centred pedagogy and teaching that students have experienced within their curriculum. This measure consists of six sub-scales. Three of these evaluate the extent to which students engaged with authentic Indigenous voice during their learning Indigenous Authors (within course texts), Indigenous Representatives (direct teaching by Indigenous scholars and community members) and Indigenous Standpoints (engagement with Indigenous points of view). The final three sub-scales measure pedagogical decisions; Respectful Learning (classrooms that provide for safe and respectful discussion), Indigenous Assessments (as a requirement of coursework) and Value of Indigenous Learning (contribution of this learning to a student’s professional skillset). In their study, Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) identified that tertiary students generally reported positive knowledges and attitudes towards Indigenous peoples and issues, but experienced significant variation in positive Indigenous learning experiences across university disciplines.

In an earlier work, Page et al. (2016) discuss a further complexity in the Indigenous higher education space as a result of racial demographics. Indigenous representation in Australian academia, although increasing, remains well under the 3.1% currently required for broader demographic parity (Behrendt et al., 2012; Universities Australia, 2020). The role of Indigenous scholars in Australian academia is much larger than the teaching of cultural competency to non-Indigenous students, hence, progressing ‘the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge within curriculums, graduate attributes, and teaching practices’ (Behrendt et al., 2012, p. xiv) requires meaningful and appropriate collaboration from non-Indigenous academics across all disciplines (Durey et al., 2017). The findings of the present research further scholarly understanding of ways in which non-Indigenous staff can support Indigenisation of curriculum whilst maintaining primacy of Indigenous sovereignty over Indigenous intellectual property (Durey et al., 2017; Page et al., 2016).

Conceptualisations guiding our teaching and present research

Indigenous cultural competency content is mandatory for accreditation of initial teacher education programs at all Australian universities (AITSL, 2018). Hence the ‘Education’ discipline provides a useful benchmark of the progress and challenges of culturally competency content in Australian higher education. Under the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) Graduate Teacher standards (AITSL, 2018), all teacher education graduates should be competent to teach Indigenous students, and to embed Indigenous knowledges in curriculum for all students. The Indigenous education units at the centre of the present research aim to address these standards, emphasising the necessity for non-Indigenous people to show reflexivity and respect Indigenous sovereignty as hallmarks of critical theoretical approaches (Dunbar, 2008). Developed by Indigenous and non- Indigenous academics, the unit content explicitly explores the impact of ontology and axiology at every level of curriculum development and delivery (Nakata et al., 2014). We introduce students to threshold understandings of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges, primacy of Country as curriculum and teacher (Moodie, 2019), and connectedness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples broadly and within education institutions (Macdonald et al., 2022). Each of these principles is intentionally illustrated using real-world examples of culturally responsive professional practice in schools. Students experience these units in either 8-week, 10-week or 13-week formats, with a minimum of 30 hours of face-to-face lectures and tutorials. Approximately 40% of all teaching is conducted by Indigenous staff. Students also encounter various Indigenous authors and speakers through weekly readings and audio-visual materials throughout the course.

Aims of the present study

The overarching purpose of the current study was to identify ways teaching and learning approaches may improve graduate self-reported cultural competency attributes, including preparedness for future work with Indigenous communities. In particular, the present study aimed to empirically measure the knowledges and attitudes of pre-service teachers towards Indigenous peoples and perspectives, and to identify the relationships between teaching methods and student cultural competency outcomes. The project was conducted as a mixed-methods study utilising an Indigenous Graduate Attribute evaluation instrument developed by Indigenous scholars at another Australian university to measure two broad constructs: Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues, and Applied Indigenous Learning (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019).

The purpose of the study was:

1) To assess the construct validity of the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and Applied Indigenous Learning instrument using factor analysis.

2) To empirically assess the knowledges, attitudes and perspectives of pre-service teachers towards Indigenous peoples as measured by the instrument, across cohorts.

3) To identify underlying relationships between the 13 knowledges, attitudes and learning experiences measured by the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and Applied Indigenous Learning scales.

4) To examine the relationship between student preparedness and accountability to work with Indigenous communities, and their knowledges, attitudes and learning experiences as measured by the instrument.

Method

Participants

All students undertaking an Indigenous education unit within our university were invited to participate in the study, both at the beginning (First Phase) and the end (Second Phase) of their unit. All participants were in their third or fourth year of study for a Bachelor of Education, or in their second year of study for a Master of Teaching degree, in either the Early Childhood, Primary or Secondary schooling specialisations. Table 1 reports the enrolment of students by cohort. A total of 350 students were recruited in the First Phase, and 117 students recruited in the Second Phase. Response rates to the Second Phase were much lower likely due to the impact of COVID-19, which resulted in all students moving to online study before this Phase was conducted. No gender or Indigenous status data were collected as the low numbers of male and Indigenous students enrolled in the Early Childhood and Primary degrees would have affected anonymity of participant responses. Considering the number of respondents and the number of Indigenous students enrolled in the University’s School of Education, it is likely that some Indigenous students participated in the survey.

Table 1.

Respondents by cohort.

Education specialisation	First phase	Second phase
Early childhood	(N = 57)	(N = 47)
Undergraduate	36	30
Postgraduate	21	17
Primary	(N = 170)	(N = 35)
Undergraduate	132	25
Postgraduate	38	10
Secondary	(N = 123)	(N = 35)
Undergraduate	83	26
Postgraduate	40	9
Total	350	117

Note: Some cohort information was missing for 34 students. Data for these students were included both for validation and where cohort information was not necessary for analysis.

Materials

The Indigenous Graduate Attribute evaluation instrument was ‘developed to measure the beliefs, attitudes and learning experiences of students who have undertaken course work that may have Indigenous learning content’ (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019, p. 6). The first measure in this self-report instrument was Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues, containing 27 items measuring seven variables assessing student perceptions of Indigenous issues and peoples, as well as student confidence in their professional capacity to work with Indigenous peoples. The second measure, Applied Indigenous Learning, contained 25 items measuring six variables assessing student engagement with Indigenous knowledges and knowledge-holders within their course. All item response options were on a 6-point Likert-type scale with a higher score indicating agreement with the item statement. The full item wording for both measures has been previously published by the instrument authors (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019).

The constructs behind the instrument have previously been validated with another population by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) through a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, which identified that the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure had strong Goodness-of-Fit (χ² = 451.22, df = 303, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04). These authors’ analysis of the Applied Indigenous Learning measure identified acceptable Goodness-of-Fit (χ² = 566.14, df = 260, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06).

Procedure

The evaluation instrument utilised was selected for its scientific rigour and cultural relevance (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019). Even so, effective scale development is a complex process requiring that an instrument undergo multiple stages of validity and reliability testing (Boateng, Neilands, Frongillo, Melgar-Quinonez & Young, 2018). The tertiary student population in Australia is geographically, socially, academically and ethnically diverse, hence, the first stage of research required validation of the instrument for our student population (Boateng et al., 2018). Following successful instrument validation, statistical analyses were conducted to assess the cultural competencies of students within the units, as well as to identify how their learning experiences were related to those competencies. Quantitative research was followed by focus group interviews (to be presented in future publications).

Congruent with Indigenous data sovereignty principles (Rainie, Schultz, Briggs, Riggs & Palmanteer-Holder, 2017; Walter, 2016), the current research was conducted within the Indigenous Research Centre of the university, with oversight by Indigenous academics at the Associate Professorial and Professorial levels. Data analysis was conducted in consultation with Indigenous and non- Indigenous teaching staff of the Indigenous education units. Ethics approval was obtained from the University’s human research ethics committee (HREC).

In the First Phase, students were invited to complete the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues instrument, whilst in the Second Phase, participants were invited to complete both the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and Applied Indigenous Learning measures. Students were invited to access the survey by a research assistant, via a hard copy survey instrument or via QR code and weblink that students could access. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous research assistants were utilised for this stage of the study. Students were instructed that participation was anonymous and voluntary. While anonymity would not have precluded a longitudinal design, in our study, the participant sample across the First and Second Phase of data collection was neither homogenous nor equal in size. That is, not all participants in the First Phase participated in the Second Phase, and some may have participated only in the Second Phase. Hence, longitudinal analyses were not possible in this study.

No teaching staff remained present in the room whilst consent was indicated, and data collection took place. All students were then invited to participate again at the end of semester via the same methods. As participation was entirely anonymous, all students were invited afresh to participate in the end-of-semester survey and active consent was collected again. All survey data were collected via Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com).

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27.0) and IBM SPSS Amos (Version 24.0).

Prior to factor analysis, Mahanalobis Distance was calculated to check for multivariate outliers. Five cases were found to be above the critical Chi-squared value of 86.22 for 52 items at p < .001 and removed, leaving 501 cases. No univariate outliers were obtained as all responses were constrained within the 6-point Likert-type scale.

Missing Values Analysis was conducted separately for the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues scale and Applied Indigenous Learning scales. For the first scale, all items had <5% missing data, and Little’s MCAR test was non-significant (Chi sq = 636.81, df = 612, p = .236); hence, missing data were imputed using Expected Maximisation techniques (Hair et al., 2006). For the second scale, missing data imputation was only conducted for those respondents who had responded to >80% of the post-survey, that is, those who had attempted to complete most of these questions. Again, Little’s MCAR test was non-significant (Chi sq = 112.67, df = 157, p = .997), indicating that EM-imputed data were acceptable for further analyses.

The data in all four samples violated the normality assumption for all variables. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests (Massey, 1951) on all items were statistically significant (p < .001); however, skewness was expected in the sample due to the likelihood of social desirability bias; that is, despite guaranteed anonymity, participants may have been more inclined to report positive perceptions of Indigenous peoples and knowledges, based on their knowledge that the research related to their current unit of study. Additionally, the large sample size in the present study was sufficient so that analyses would be robust against violation of normality assumptions (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012). Hence, parametric tests could be used, and ratings represented participants’ true responses. From this point, the Research Aims could be addressed.

Findings

Instrument validation

Construct validation of the two measures was conducted separately. To verify the factorial structure of the measure Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed using IBM SPSS Amos (Version 24.0). The Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure was administered twice to each cohort, thus, validation of this measure was conducted on responses obtained during the First Phase of data collection, to eliminate common error variance arising from non-independent cases in the sample (Boateng et al., 2018).

CFA confirmed goodness-of-fit for the 27-item instrument (χ² = 1199.24, df = 606, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .03). Although the Chi-squared test was significant, Hair et al. (2006, p. 753) advise that where the number of observed variables is between 12 and 30, and N > 350, indicators CFI >0.92, TLI >0.92, and RMSEA <.07, PCLOSE >.95 commonly provide evidence of good model fit.

Table 2 presents goodness-of-fit criteria, Factor-to-item loadings and Factor correlations. All Factor-to-item loadings were significant and moderate to strong (.46–.91) aside from the loading of Item one for the Deficit scale, and all Factor correlations aside from the correlations of Disadvantage to other Factors were significant at the p <.001 level and moderately strong (>.3). Most estimated parameters fall within 0.12 of the estimated parameters for the original scale validation (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019), indicating a similarly structured model was achieved in both Phases of data collection. These results support the construct validity for each of the sub-scales within the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, as was also reported by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019).

Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis goodness-of-fit for student knowledges and attitudes to indigenous issues measure.

	Goodness-of-fit indices
	χ²1199.24	Df606	p<0.001	CFI.95	TLI.95	RMSEA.03	PCLOSE1.00
	Disadvantage	Deficit	Crit Rep	Fut Conf	Fut adapt	Two-ways	Diversity
Factor-to-item loadings
Item 1	.69^a	.30^a	.79^a	.72^a	.68^a	.76^a	.82^a
Item 2	.64^a	.80^a	.46^a	.89^a	.87^a	.91^a	.84^a
Item 3	.79^a	.86^a	.63^a	.78^a	.83^a	.80^a	.91^a
Item 4	.75^a	.87^a	.83^a	—	—	.87^a	—
Item 5	.81^a	—	.66^a	—	—	—	—
Factor correlations
Disadvantage	—
Deficit	−.08	—
Crit Rep	.20^b	−.40^a	—
Fut conf	−.01	−.40^a	.23^a	—
Fut adapt	.07	−.48^a	.38^a	.79^a	—
Two-ways	.07	−.32^a	.29^a	.45^a	.62^a	—
Diversity	.16^b	−.45^a	.30^a	.32^a	.49^a	.41^a	—

Notes: χ²: Chi-square, Df: degrees of freedom, p: significance, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Disadvantage: Indigenous Disadvantage, Deficit: Indigenous Deficit Thinking, Crit Rep: Critical Cultural Representations, Fut Conf: Future Confidence, Fut Adapt: Future Adaptability, Diversity: Indigenous Diversities.

^ap<.001.

^bp<.05, **p<.01.

As a second step towards construct validation of the Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, factorial invariance testing evaluated measurement equivalence across Undergraduate and Postgraduate respondents, and across Education specialisations (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). In both analyses, the models achieved scalar invariance, indicating the respective groups were psychometrically equivalent (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Although these data are beyond the scope of the present article, they are available on request from the corresponding author.

Confirmatory factor analysis was not conducted for the Applied Indigenous Learning instrument as the Second Phase sample size (n = 117) was insufficient (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Instead, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, using Principal Axis Factoring and Promax (oblique) rotation with six factors extracted. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ² = 2392.95, df = 300, p < 0.001), indicating that the dataset was suitable for EFA. Oblique rotation was theoretically justified as the factors were expected to be correlated, and statistically as the factor correlations were above 0.32, indicating shared variance greater than 10% (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) = 0.88 indicated a sufficient level of variance was explained by the constructs. Coefficients <0.4 were suppressed as they were unlikely to be statistically significant (Hair et al. (2006). As can be seen in Table 3, despite the small sample size (N = 117), EFA produced a factor structure close to that predicted in the instrument’s initial development and validation (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019), verifying construct validity of the measure.

Table 3.

Factor loadings (Pattern Matrix) for Applied Indigenous Learning scale under principal axis factoring with Promax rotation. Note: All items from the Applied Indigenous Learning measure have been published in full by the instrument authors (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019).

	Respect	Authors	Represent	Standpoint	Assess	Values	Communality
Classroom respect
Item 1	.955						.679
Item 2	.861						.706
Item 3	.821						.718
Item 4	.758						.652
Indigenous authors
Item 1		.826					.723
Item 2		.800					.754
Item 3		.868					.739
Item 4		.732					.648
Indigenous representatives
Item 1			.558				.667
Item 2			.758				.552
Item 3			.905				.784
Item 4			.903				.741
Indigenous standpoints
Item 1				.463			.649
Item 2				.680			.804
Item 3				.794			.758
Item 4				.870			.673
Item 5				.798			.778
Indigenous assessment
Item 1					ns^		.639
Item 2					.646		.666
Item 3					.425		.714
Item 4					.535		.810
Value of indigenous learning
Item 1						.502	.756
Item 2						1.053 ^ ^	.874
Item 3						.958	.848
Item 4						.625	.441

Note: All coefficients <.40 were suppressed due to the small sample size.

^ The item did not load significantly on to any factor during EFA.

^ ^ Factor loadings under oblique rotation indicate regression weightings rather than correlations and hence may be greater than 1.

Total internal consistency and creation of latent variables

Total internal consistency was measured as a proxy for reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for each of the two scales. The total internal consistency for the Student Knowledge and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, 27 items, (N = 350) was α = 0.73, and for the Second Phase respondents (N = 116), α = 0.78. The total internal consistency for the Applied Indigenous Learning was measure, 25 items, (N = 113), α = 0.93. These results indicate that both measures had sufficient to strong internal consistency. Additionally, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was determined to be >0.7 for each sub-scale within the instrument (reported in Appendix 2), confirming reliability of each sub-scale according to its latent factor. Following factor analysis, latent variables were created using the means of items within each factor, as an appropriate method of calculating a scale score for each construct (Boateng et al., 2018).

Student responses to the instrument

Tables 4 and 5 present the internal consistency and descriptive statistics for the individual items and latent variables across the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and Applied Indigenous Learning measures, respectively. Although there were unequal numbers of cases across cells, the SPSS regression approach was used. That is, each cell mean was given equal weight regardless of its sample size and each main effect and interaction was assessed after adjustments were made for all other main effects and interactions. All items from the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and the Applied Indigenous Learning measures have been published in full by the instrument authors (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019) and as such are not repeated here.

Table 4.

Internal consistency and descriptive statistics for Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues scale.

	(First phase survey) N = 350				(Second phase survey) N = 117
	Mean	Mode	SD	Alpha	Mean	Mode	SD	Alpha
Indigenous disadvantage	4.39	4	0.78	.85	4.56	5	0.99	.90
Item 1	4.33	4	0.99		4.40	5	1.33
Item 2	4.29	4	0.94		4.58	5	1.08
Item 3	4.50	4	0.86		4.39	4	1.15
Item 4	4.64	4	1.03		5.08	6	1.05
Item 5	4.19	4	1.10		4.34	5	1.42
Deficit thinking	2.14	1	1.00	.79	1.89	1	0.79	.57^a
Item 1^	2.19	1	1.27		2.49	1	1.42
Item 2^	2.13	1	1.36		1.94	1	1.35
Item 3^	2.21	1	1.22		1.60	1	0.90
Item 4^	2.02	1	1.26		1.54	1	0.91
Critical representations	4.20	4	0.81	.81	4.40	4	0.82	.84
Item 1	4.60	5	1.06		4.83	5	1.02
Item 2	3.60	4	1.06		3.71	4	1.07
Item 3	4.26	4	1.03		4.60	5	1.03
Item 4	4.29	4	1.06		4.43	4	1.04
Item 5	4.26	4	1.16		4.44	4	1.14
Future confidence	5.32	6	0.77	.88	5.37	6	0.69	.86
Item 1	4.93	6	1.12		4.98	5	0.97
Item 2	5.47	6	0.77		5.57	6	0.65
Item 3	5.58	6	0.78		5.57	6	0.77
Future adaptability	5.41	6	0.73	.88	5.56	6	0.55	.75
Item 1	5.09	6	0.96		5.30	6	0.76
Item 2	5.51	6	0.86		5.59	6	0.72
Item 3	5.65	6	0.74		5.78	6	0.54
Two-ways	5.49	6	0.65	.91	5.60	6	0.58	.92
Item 1	5.38	6	0.81		5.53	6	0.66
Item 2	5.57	6	0.68		5.67	6	0.64
Item 3	5.48	6	0.73		5.57	6	0.67
Item 4	5.53	6	0.72		5.62	6	0.64
Indigenous diversity	5.67	6	0.61	.89	5.78	6	0.49	.86
Item 1	5.66	6	0.69		5.80	6	0.58
Item 2	5.66	6	0.74		5.73	6	0.60
Item 3	5.70	6	0.60		5.81	6	0.45

Notes: All item response options were on a 6-point Likert-type scale with a higher score indicating agreement with the item statement. SD: Standard Deviation.

^aIf the first item is deleted, Cronbach’s Alpha becomes 0.72 for Deficit variable for Second Phase Survey respondents.

Table 5.

Internal consistency and descriptive statistics for Applied Indigenous Learning scale (N = 117).

	Mean	Mode	SD	Alpha
Classroom respect	5.57	6	0.61	0.88
Item 1	5.47	6	0.77
Item 2	5.62	6	0.67
Item 3	5.47	6	0.82
Item 4	5.60	6	0.68
Indigenous authors	5.01	6	0.98	0.89
Item 1	4.85	6	1.17
Item 2	4.94	6	1.17
Item 3	4.99	6	1.12
Item 4	5.24	6	1.00
Indigenous representatives	4.51	6	1.09	0.87
Item 1	5.11	6	1.06
Item 2	3.77	3	1.57
Item 3	4.53	6	1.33
Item 4	4.51	4, 6	1.27
Indigenous standpoints	5.26	6	0.74	0.89
Item 1	4.72	5	1.21
Item 2	5.52	6	0.75
Item 3	5.30	6	1.04
Item 4	5.12	6	1.10
Item 5	5.49	6	0.85
Indigenous assessment	5.52	6	0.75	0.89
Item 1	5.47	6	0.95
Item 2	5.33	6	0.92
Item 3	5.21	6	1.02
Item 4	5.50	6	0.82
Value of indigenous learning	5.41	6	0.70	0.87
Item 1	5.56	6	0.86
Item 2	5.46	6	0.91
Item 3	5.38	6	1.09
Item 4	5.53	6	1.12

Notes: All item response options were on a 6-point Likert-type scale with a higher score indicating agreement with the item statement. SD: Standard Deviation.

Tables 4 and 5 indicate that across both undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts and in both the First Phase and Second Phase of the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, on average, respondents agreed that Indigenous Australians experience higher levels of disadvantage in comparison with non-Indigenous Australians but disagreed that this was a result of Indigenous Australians’ own choices. Respondents across both Phases, on average agreed, that Indigenous Australians are often misrepresented by information providers such as media, politicians, and researchers, and also that Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges can work together to produce positive outcomes. Similarly, participants overall expressed willingness and adaptability to work with Indigenous Australians in their future practice and agreed the Indigenous Australian population is heterogeneous.

On the Applied Indigenous Learning measure, on average, respondents across all cohorts agreed that their classrooms had been respectful places for discussion of Indigenous issues, that they had engaged with Indigenous authors, representatives, and standpoints in the unit, and had completed assessments that focused on Indigenous issues. Importantly, respondents in all cohorts frequently agreed that their learning on Indigenous issues was valuable to their professional preparation.

For each variable, a one-way between subjects’ ANOVA was conducted to assess mean differences across cohorts by specialisation (Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary) and qualification (Undergraduate or Postgraduate). No statistically significant differences were identified.

Underlying relationships between student knowledges and attitudes towards Indigenous peoples, and their learning experiences

Bivariate correlations are reported for the First Phase (Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues) in Table 6, and for the Second Phase (Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues and Applied Indigenous Learning scales) in Table 7. In the First Phase, all correlations between variables aside from Indigenous Disadvantage were significant, p < .01, supporting the intra-relationship of these variables within the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure. Fewer correlations reached p <.01 significance in the Second Phase of the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, which is likely due to the smaller sample size in that Phase. The low correlation of Disadvantage with other variables suggests that, although useful, this factor may not operate well as part of the overall scale. The strong correlation of Future Confidence with Future Adaptability, r = 0.71 (First Phase) r = 0.72 (Second Phase), p < .01, supports the original notion held by the measure’s authors that these were conceptually similar constructs (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019). Positive, significant correlations between most variables cannot predict causality but do indicate a general positive trend between critical thinking regarding Indigenous issues, confidence on willingness to work and adapt to Indigenous peoples, respect for Indigenous knowledges, and awareness of Indigenous diversity. Deficit Thinking was negatively related to all other factors both times the scale was delivered.

Table 6.

Bivariate Correlations between factors for the First Phase (N = 350).

	Disad	Deficit	Crit Rep	Fut Conf	Fut Adapt	Two-ways	Diversity
Disad	—
Deficit	−.04	—
Crit Rep	.08	−.34^a	—
Fut conf	−.07	−.34^a	.20^a	—
Fut adapt	.01	−.39^a	.33^a	.71^a	—
Two-ways	.03	−.37^a	.28^a	.40^a	.61^a	—
Diversity	.12	−.41^a	.24^a	.30^a	.42^a	.42^a	—

Notes: Disad: Indigenous Disadvantage, Deficit: Indigenous Deficit Thinking, Crit Rep: Critical Cultural Representations, Fut Conf: Future Confidence, Fut Adapt: Future Adaptability, Diversity: Indigenous Diversities.

^aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7.

Bivariate correlations between factors for the second phase (N = 117).

	Disad	Deficit	Crit Rep	Fut Conf	Fut adapt	Two-ways	Diversity	Respect	Authors	Represent	Standpoint	Assess	Value
Disad	—
Deficit	−.23	—
Crit Rep	.19	−.23	—
Fut conf	.18	−.38^a	.31^a	—
Fut adapt	.18	−.40^a	.24	.72^a	—
Two-ways	.24	−.37^a	.18	.59^a	.49^a	—
Diversity	.32^a	−.39^a	.15	.28	.21	.37^a	—
Respect	.17	−.34^a	.16	.40^a	.42^a	.40^a	.26	—
Author	.10	−.07	.37^a	.22	.26	.21	.21	.40^a	—
Represent	.03	−.12	.02	.10	.14	.13	.31^a	.27	.35^a	—
Standpoint	.10	−.24	.18	.32^a	.35^a	.25	.31^a	.51^a	.59^a	.63^a	—
Assess	.19	−.38^a	.27	.45^a	.42^a	.45^a	.44^a	.68^a	.45^a	.58^a	.69^a	—
Value	.16	−.43^a	.39^a	.47^a	.56^a	.42^a	.40^a	.44^a	.33^a	.32^a	.58^a	.66^a	—

Notes: Disad: Indigenous Disadvantage, Deficit: Deficit Thinking, Crit Rep: Critical Cultural Representations, Fut Conf: Future Confidence, Fut Adapt: Future Adaptability, Diversity: Indigenous Diversities, Respect: Respectful Learning, Author: Indigenous Authors, Represent: Indigenous Representatives, Standpoint: Indigenous Standpoints, Assess: Indigenous Assessments, Value: Value of Indigenous Learning.

^aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7 allows observation of interactions between factors across the two measures in the Second Phase of the study. Some correlations are particularly notable as indicators of pedagogical efficacy. Student confidence in their own ability to work with Indigenous communities was positively and significantly correlated with valuing Two-Ways approaches (r = .59, p < .01). Experiencing a respectful classroom environment when discussing Indigenous issues, and exposure to Indigenous representatives and standpoints, were strongly and positively correlated with critical engagement with Indigenous issues through assessments (Respect with Assessment, r = .68, p < .01; Represent with Assessment, r = .58, p < .01; Standpoint with Assessment, r = .69, p < .01). Both Indigenous representatives in the classroom, and experiencing a safe and respectful classroom, were moderately and positively correlated with believing Indigenous standpoints were highly important (Represent with Standpoint, r = .63, p < .01; Respect with Standpoint, r = .51, p < .01) and critical engagement with Indigenous standpoints and assessments were strongly and positively correlated with a perception that Indigenous learning was a valuable aspect of the degree (Standpoint with Value, r = .58, p < .01; Assess with Value, r = .66, p < .01). Deficit Thinking was significantly and negatively correlated with two of the Applied Indigenous Learning sub-scales, student experiences of assessments exploring Indigenous perspectives, and respectful classroom discussions of Indigenous perspectives. Future research could investigate whether engagement with Indigenous issues through assessments can reduce deficit thinking in students.

The relationship between student preparedness and accountability to work with Indigenous communities and their knowledges, attitudes and learning experiences

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the degree to which student learning experiences may explain self-reported preparedness to work with Indigenous communities. Two factors were identified as useful estimates of Bodkin-Andrews et al.’s (2019) Engagement theme of graduate competency: these were Future Adaptability, and Indigenous Learning Value. Each of these was treated as a dependent variable in a standard multiple regression entering all (other) factors from the Applied Indigenous Learning scale as independent variables. As only the Second Phase data collection required participants to complete the Applied Indigenous Learning scale, all regressions were conducted using Second Phase data only (N = 117).

Table 8 reports the results of the first multiple regression which was carried out to identify whether the variables from the Applied Indigenous Learning measure provided significant and unique explanations of variance in Future Adaptability. A significant regression relationship was found (F, 6, 109 = 9.022, p < .001). The independent variables in the Applied Indigenous Learning measure together explained 30% of the variance in Future Adaptability, although only two variables reached statistical significance, Value of Indigenous Learning and Classroom Respect. Students who perceived their Indigenous learning to be a highly valuable aspect of their studies were significantly more likely to report higher Future Adaptability in their work with Indigenous Australians (β = .489, p < .001), with student perception that the classroom was a respectful place to discuss Indigenous issues further contributing to this confidence (β = .257, p = .013).

Table 8.

Regression results using Future Adaptability as criterion.

		Unstandardised coefficients		Standardised coefficients
	Variables	B	Std. Error	β	p	Partial correlation
Model 1	(Constant)	2.099	.501		.000
	Respect	.276	.110	.257	.013	.235
	Author	.082	.064	.117	Ns	.122
	Represent	−.028	.064	−.046	Ns	−.041
	Standpoint	−.030	.110	−.037	Ns	−.026
	Assess	−.087	.124	−.103	Ns	−.067
	Value	.392	.097	.489	.000	.362

R2 = .33, adjusted R2 = .30.

Notes: Respect: Respectful Learning, Author: Indigenous Authors, Represent: Indigenous Representatives, Standpoint: Indigenous Standpoints, Assess: Indigenous Assessments, Value: Value of Indigenous Learning.

A second multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether Value of Indigenous Learning could be significantly explained by other variables from the Applied Indigenous Learning measure. A significant relationship was found (F, 5, 110) = 30.160, p < .001. Results presented in Table 9 show that more than 50% of the total variance in Value of Indigenous Learning was explained by the independent variables, with two variables providing significant and unique explanations of variance in Value of Indigenous Learning. Students who perceived they had engaged critically with Indigenous standpoints were significantly more likely to report higher Value of Indigenous Learning, with Indigenous Assessments having the largest impact (β = .570, p < .001), with student perception that they had engaged more generally with Indigenous Standpoints further increasing the perceived Value of Indigenous Learning (β = .365, p = .01).

Table 9.

Regression results using Value of Indigenous Learning as criterion.

		Unstandardised coefficients		Standardised coefficients
	Variables	B	Std. Error	β	p	Partial correlation
Model 1	(Constant)	1.126	.483		.022
	Respect	.006	.108	.005	Ns	.005
	Author	−.089	.063	−.102	Ns	−.134
	Represent	−.092	.063	−.121	Ns	−.138
	Standpoint	.372	.103	.365	.000	.327
	Assess	.602	.108	.570	.000	.468

R² = .58, adjusted R² = .56.

Discussion

The data obtained in the present study can be used to better understand the relationship between pedagogy and student learning experiences, which improve graduate Indigenous cultural competencies in Australia. Having first established the construct validity of a recently developed instrument for a new cohort of Australian tertiary students, the study obtained quantitative measures of the knowledges, attitudes and perspectives of pre-service teachers towards Indigenous peoples, and identified relationships between student learning experiences and student knowledges, attitudes and preparedness to work with Indigenous peoples.

Validity of the measures

The study found that the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous issues and Applied Indigenous Learning measures developed by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) had acceptable construct validity and reliability. The instruments captured the understandings and learning experiences of pre-service teachers at one Australian university according to the intended factors. The only factor that did not correlate significantly with other factors was Indigenous Disadvantage. The low intra-factor correlation with the remainder of the measure in both our study and Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) suggests Indigenous Disadvantage is not understood by respondents in a manner closely related to other indicators of cultural competency measured by the instrument. A possible explanation is that student perceptions of Indigenous disadvantage can be formed either from negative stereotypes, or from knowledge of current health and socioeconomic indicators resulting from colonisation and systemic racism, and hence can be concurrent either with deficit thinking or with cross-cultural awareness and positive attitudes towards Indigenous Australians. That is, it may be that it is not the level of Indigenous Disadvantage perceived by students, but what that disadvantage is ascribed to by students, which is important as a measure of cultural competency.

Student responses to the measures, as a reflection of curriculum content and pedagogy

The next finding of importance was perhaps one of the least predictable, based on the literature review. All cohorts reported positive attitudes against the cultural competency attributes within the Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues measure, both at the beginning and end of their Indigenous education unit. These empirical findings support the work of Moodie (2019) and Thorpe and Burgess (2016) who have previously found that despite qualitative evidence of the continuing resistance and hostility of some non-Indigenous students in mandated Indigenous content courses (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Nakata et al., 2014), there are many students who enter such studies with a willingness to engage with Indigenous standpoints, and whose attitudes remain positive by the end of such a course (Moodie, 2019; Ranzijn et al., 2008). The self-selected nature of the participant cohort does leave open the possibility of response bias, although this likelihood is lessened by the size of the sample (N = 350), which contained close to half of all students who studied these units during data collection. Positive attitudes indicate student positionality, but not student competency, as these are not measures of actual student knowledges or skills in relation to working with Indigenous communities. This being said, the willingness of students to engage with Indigenous perspectives is a first and necessary step towards the development of culturally competent graduates. It is particularly notable that all cohorts reported high levels of agreement that they had engaged with Indigenous authors, representatives, standpoints and Indigenous issue-focused assessments, even though the delivery of the units was shared approximately 40% Indigenous and 60% non-Indigenous staff. It is particularly encouraging that these findings were obtained during a study impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, where all students experienced less class-time with Indigenous representatives than intended, because of the move to online teaching.

Across all cohorts, students frequently agreed that they had experienced Indigenous standpoints in a professionally and personally enriching manner. Bivariate correlations revealed that engagement with Indigenous representatives explained only half the variance in student experiences of Indigenous standpoints, indicating that students looked to more than just the ethnicity of the educator when evaluating whether they had authentically engaged with Indigenous standpoints. As discussed earlier in the article, the literature highlights a delicate balance in the roles of Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics in any curriculum Indigenisation project (Jackson et al., 2013; Page et al., 2016; Ranzijn et al., 2008). Within this landscape, pedagogical decisions send powerful messages to students. For example, the Indigenous Professor at the head of our teaching centre provided a video introduction to the units, affirming the importance of the units but also his own confidence in both the Indigenous and non- Indigenous teaching staff.

As part of the delivery of the Indigenous education units during this study, online lectures consisted of filmed discussions between Indigenous and non- Indigenous teaching staff, emphasising the degree of collaboration which went into the development and delivery of these units. Finally, students experienced similarity (although not sameness) of Indigenous-authored teaching materials in workshops regardless of whether their tutor was Indigenous or non-Indigenous. Throughout the units, pedagogical and content choices intentionally made visible the leadership of Indigenous scholars in all teaching and learning decisions, the diverse voices of Indigenous communities, and the collaboration between Indigenous and non- Indigenous staff even though some classes were primarily taught by non- Indigenous academics. These findings suggest that high impact cultural competency education may be experienced by students who have non-Indigenous educators so long as Indigenous perspective and leadership is highly visible in curriculum and pedagogy. The literature has established that Indigenous academics frequently find themselves tokenistically consulted, and expected to provide endorsement as ‘the black performer’ (Asmar & Page, 2009; Thunig & Jones, 2021). Practices such as those above are likely to have been effective only because Indigenous staff have genuine authority over the units and are recognised for their professional and scholarly knowledge. As such, endorsement of non-Indigenous staff by Indigenous scholars such as occurred in the present study is likely to be valuable where Indigenous sovereignty in such actions is readily apparent to students, and is the product of extensive and respectful collaboration and consultation in the less performative aspects of the academic work.

Experiencing a safe and respectful classroom environment was a predictor of student Future Adaptability to work with Indigenous communities, indicating that this too was an important pedagogical approach. Previous scholars in this space have noted the advantage of dialectic teaching approaches and safe classrooms spaces in moving students towards reflection and empathy (Durey et al., 2017; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013; Kickett et al., 2014; Mezirow, 2003; Thorpe & Burgess, 2016). The quantitative evidence presented in the current study suggests that respectful classrooms were a consistent aspect of the teaching within the Indigenous education units at our university and that this experience significantly predicted the future adaptability that students believed they would demonstrate in their work with Indigenous peoples. This finding supports the notion that pedagogical approaches are critical to the transformative success of cross-cultural education (Nakata et al., 2014; Hollinsworth, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013).

Page et al. (2019) highlight that one purpose of Indigenous graduate attributes should be that graduates are able to work ‘with and for Indigenous Australians’. Within the Indigenous education units at the centre of this study, students are regularly presented with video, workshop and anecdotal examples of two-way practice involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators and knowledges working together in schools. In addition, the unit assessments require that students demonstrate their capacity to plan Indigenous content-focused lessons that respect local community and country, and reflect on their personal and professional positioning as a teacher.

The literature on cultural competency training frequently explores the importance of authentic engagement with Indigenous perspectives and standpoints through representation, discussion and critical reflection (Durey et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2013; Kickett et al., 2014). Yet the analysis both in this study and that of Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) suggest that the experience of engaging with Indigenous perspectives through assessment significantly predicts whether students find the learning valuable. Assessment sends a clear value message regarding the importance of critical engagement with cultural competency attributes (Page et al., 2019), and furthermore provides extrinsic reward for engagement (Harlen, 2007). Educators allocate valuable teaching time, readings and discussions, to ensuring students understand assessable knowledge (Harlen, 2007). Hence, it is not only the value messaging inherent in an assessment, but also the real pedagogical resourcing that educators use to support assessments, which increase the value students assign to assessed work. It may also be that engaging with Indigenous standpoints in professionally relevant contexts enhances the relationship between assessment and cultural competency learning.

Limitations and future directions

The Student Knowledges of and Attitudes towards Indigenous Issues scale was administered at the first and second phase of data collection. It is possible that some students participated in both phases and so completed the scale twice, however, the study design did not allow for tracking this participation. As such, only cross-sectional data was collected from participants regarding their perceptions at the beginning and/or end of their Indigenous unit of study. A longitudinal survey design would have enabled tracking responses from those who participated in both Phases of the study, providing evidence of the changes in knowledge and attitudes experienced by students during their unit of study, as well as towards the learning experiences most predictive of positive changes in student responses.

All respondents self-selected participation in the study; hence, their knowledges, attitudes and experiences may not be representative of the broader tertiary student population. The lack of gender identification of participants is acknowledged as a limitation, as there were significant differences across gender in the validation study conducted by Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019). Similarly, the lack of identifiable Indigenous student data remains a limitation, as it is possible that the knowledges, attitudes and experiences of Indigenous students studying Indigenous content units may differ from the non-Indigenous student population.

The smaller sample in the Second Phase of data collection prevented the use of the more robust factor analytic methods for the Applied Indigenous Learning scale, and similarly placed some limitation on generalisability of results from the Second Phase of study. This being said, the size of the sample in both Phases was sufficient for robust statistical analyses and detection of significance across the reported findings.

Although the size of the sample strengthened the findings in relation to this population for the present study, it cannot be readily expected that all findings and relationships would be replicated across other courses and other universities. Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2019) have previously identified significant differences in student responses across university disciplines, a finding which may reflect both differences in course delivery as well as differences in the nature of student cohorts across disciplines and levels of tertiary study. Nonetheless, the similarity of intra-factor correlations found in the present study with the findings from a cross-disciplinary study at another Australian university (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019) is promising in regard to generalisability of the results.

Another limitation is the known complexity that attitudes may not predict actual behaviours (Ajzen, 2005; de Vaus, 2014). The phenomena of greatest interest in research such as the current project is the actual engagement behaviours that students will practice in their future professional roles, as experienced by the Indigenous communities whose knowledges and identities are affected by graduate cultural competency. Future research may assess graduate competency through professional behaviours displayed during practicum or post-graduation as part of a longitudinal study of the efficacy of university practices against the cultural competency targets set by Universities Australia (2017). For teachers, such behaviours may include the use of culturally responsive pedagogies, delivery of Indigenous knowledges in curriculum, use of Indigenous languages in classroom settings and rejection of deficit discourse regarding Indigenous student achievement. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study are important in what they reveal about students’ self-assessment of cultural competency, and the effect of varied Indigenous learning experiences with which students engage.

Conclusion

There is much more to be understood about the way students gauge their own understanding and competency regarding Indigenous peoples and issues, particularly for students who have not been exposed to extended contact with Indigenous peoples. The findings of the present study extend what is known about pre-service teachers’ self-assessment of cultural competency, and importantly, identified that many pre-service teachers held positive attitudes towards the learning of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives within their professional training. The contribution of the present study to scholarly knowledge is significant in that it provides strong evidence towards the aspects of learning that most strongly relate to students believing such learning is valuable towards future practice. The importance of respectful classrooms, Indigenous leadership in the course, collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff, professionally relevant learning opportunities, and assessment of student learning, were each identified. Of additional significance is the availability of an instrument developed in a culturally responsive manner to reflect the graduate attributes that may be most important to Indigenous communities, and the opportunity to share the data obtained with Indigenous researchers who are at the forefront of developing culturally competent academics and graduates across our and other universities.

Rainie et al. (2017) note that data on Indigenous issues are a resource that should always be available to Indigenous communities who can then use them to inform their strategic decisions. Although data and findings from the current project have been made available to the entire Indigenous academic team within our centre, it is hoped that wider availability of the data through publications such as this can inform wider scholarly and other communities (Walter, 2016).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mary-anne Macdonald

References

Aberdeen

Carter

Grogan

Hollinsworth

(2013). Rocking the foundations: The struggle for effective indigenous studies in Australian higher education. Higher Education Review, 45(3), 36–55.

Acton

Salter

Lenoy

Stevenson

(2017). Conversations on cultural sustainability: Stimuli for embedding Indigenous knowledges and ways of being into curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1311–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1325852

Ajzen

(2005). The theory of planned behaviour. In Van Lange

Kruglanski

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume one (pp. 438–459). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22

Anning

(2010). Embedding an indigenous graduate attribute into University of Western Sydney’s courses. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39(S1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1375/S1326011100001125

Asmar

Page

(2009). Sources of satisfaction and stress among Indigenous academic teachers: Findings from a national Australian study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903097505

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership . (2018). Assessment criteria for graduate teacher standards 1.4 & 2.4: Supporting the accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/assessment-criteria-for-graduate-teacher-standards-1.4-2.4

Behrendt

L. Y.

Larkin

Griew

Kelly

(2012). Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Final report. Department of Education. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-publications/resources/review-higher-education-access-and-outcomes-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Bodkin-Andrews

Page

Trudgett

(2019). Working towards accountability in embedding indigenous studies: Evidence from an indigenous graduate attribute evaluation instrument. Australian Journal of Education, 63(2), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119863927

10.

de Vaus

(2014). Surveys in social research (6th ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519196

11.

Dunbar

Jr. (2008). Critical race theory and Indigenous methodologies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Smith

L. T.

(Eds.), Thousand Oaks: Handbook of indigenous methodologies (pp. 85–100). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686.n5

12.

Durey

Taylor

Bessarab

Kickett

Jones

Hoffman

Flavell

Scott

(2017). ‘Working together’: An intercultural academic leadership programme to build health science educators’ capacity to teach indigenous health and culture. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 46(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.15

13.

Edith Cowan University (n.d.). Diverse perspectives. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/learning/curriculum-design/course-learning-outcomes/diverse-perspectives

14.

Ghasemi

Zahediasl

(2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505

15.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson University Press.

16.

Harlen

(2007). Assessment of learning. London: SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446214695

17.

Hollinsworth

(2016). Unsettling Australian settler supremacy: Combating resistance in university Aboriginal studies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(2), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.911166

18.

IBM SPSS Amos . Version 24.0. IBM. [Computer program] https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-amos-24

19.

IBM SPSS Statistics . Version 27.0. IBM. [Statistical software] https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-27

20.

Jackson

Power

Sherwood

Geia

(2013). Amazingly resilient Indigenous people! Using transformative learning to facilitate positive student engagement with sensitive material. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2013.46.1.105

21.

Kickett

Hoffman

Flavell

(2014). A model for large-scale, interprofessional, compulsory cross-cultural education with an Indigenous focus. Journal of Allied Health, 43(1), 38–44.

22.

Ladson-Billings

(1998). Just what Is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863

23.

Macdonald

Gringart

Garvey

Hayward

(2022). Broadening academia: An epistemic shift towards relationality. Higher Education Research and Development, 42(3).

24.

Massey

F. J.

(1951). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280095

25.

Mezirow

(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

26.

Moodie

(2019). Learning about knowledge: Threshold concepts for Indigenous studies in education. Australian Educational Researcher, 46(5), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00309-3

27.

Moodie

Patrick

(2017). Settler grammars and the Australian professional standards for teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2017.1331202

28.

Nakata

Keech

Bolt

(2014). Rethinking majors in Australian indigenous studies. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 43(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2014.3

29.

Page

Trudgett

Bodkin-Andrews

(2016). Exploring an Indigenous graduate attribute project through a critical race theory lens. In Davis

Goody

(Eds.), Research and development in higher education: The shape of higher education (39, pp. 258–267). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. https://www.herdsa.org.au/system/files/Pageetal.pdf

30.

Page

Trudgett

Bodkin-Andrews

(2019). Creating a degree-focused pedagogical framework to guide Indigenous graduate attribute curriculum development. Higher Education, 78(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0324-4

31.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

32.

Rainie

S. C.

Schultz

J. L.

Briggs

Riggs

Palmanteer-Holder

N. L.

(2017). Data as a strategic resource: Self-determination, governance, and the data challenge for Indigenous nations in the United States. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.1

33.

Ranzijn

McConnochie

Day

Nolan

Wharton

(2008). Towards cultural compe-tence: Australian indigenous content in undergraduate psychology. Australian Psychologist, 43(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060701762554

34.

Riley

Monk

VanIssum

(2019). Barriers and breakthroughs: Engaging in socially just ways towards issues of indigeneity, identity, and whiteness in teacher education. Whiteness and Education, 4(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1625283

35.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

36.

Thorpe

Burgess

(2016). Challenging lecturer assumptions about preservice teacher learning in mandatory Indigenous studies. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(02), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.20

37.

Thunig

Jones

(2021). ‘Don’t make me play house-n***er’: Indigenous academic women treated as ‘black performer’ within higher education. Australia Educational Researcher, 48(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00405-9

38.

Universities Australia (2017). Indigenous strategy 2017–2020. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/publication/indigenous-strategy-2017-2020/

39.

Universities Australia (2020). Indigenous strategy annual report: January 2020. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Indigenous-strategy-second-annual-report.pdf

40.

Walter

(2016). Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In Kukutai

Taylor

(Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 79–98). ANU Press. https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2140/pdf/book.pdf

Pedagogy matters: Positive steps towards indigenous cultural competency in a pre-service teacher cohort

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptualisations guiding our teaching and present research

Aims of the present study

Method

Participants

Materials

Procedure

Statistical analysis

Findings

Instrument validation

Total internal consistency and creation of latent variables

Student responses to the instrument

Underlying relationships between student knowledges and attitudes towards Indigenous peoples, and their learning experiences

The relationship between student preparedness and accountability to work with Indigenous communities and their knowledges, attitudes and learning experiences

Discussion

Validity of the measures

Student responses to the measures, as a reflection of curriculum content and pedagogy

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References