Abstract
Two-Eyed Seeing (TES) is a pedagogical approach with the potential to interweave Indigenous ways of knowing and Western sciences into P-20 education to increase Indigenous students’ engagement with the content. Presented here is a systematic mapping literature review on the TES pedagogical approach in P-20 educational settings to examine the trends in peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Specifically, the systematic mapping literature review sought to: 1) better characterize the peer-review literature in terms of publication outlets, geographic locations, content, and educational contexts; 2) determine what peer-reviewed literature reveals about the effectiveness of using a TES approach in a P-20 educational setting; and 3) determine what peer-reviewed literature suggests as guidelines and challenges for P-20 educators to using a TES approach. The completed search revealed 13 articles, and those articles were analyzed via content analysis and analyzed for patterns. The result is a detailed listing of guidelines to aid educators in incorporating TES into the P-20 classroom.
Keywords
Introduction
Despite the pervasive nature of Western science ideologies, Indigenous cultures have been making observations of, experimenting with, and utilizing the lands, waters, and air that make up their “place” as expert scientists for centuries. In the foreword of Native Science by Gregory Cajete, PhD (Santa Clara Pueblo), Leroy Little Bear, J.D. (Blackfoot), states that science is the “pursuit of knowledge on the edges of the humanly knowable” (Cajete, 2000, p. xii). Throughout his work, Dr. Cajete juxtaposes measurement- and fact-driven Western science with relational and culturally driven Indigenous science to create what he calls a “mutually beneficial bridge and dialog between Indigenous and Western scientists and communities” (Cajete, 2000, p. 7), highlighting the need for communication between the two. This idea is emphasized by Medin and Bang (2014), who simply state “science is a cooperative enterprise drawing on many different approaches and strategies” (p. 233). Bang et al. (2018) also note the importance of relationality between Western science practitioners and Indigenous scientists, arguing that Indigenous sciences are “critical if sciences (in their plurality) are to become champions of the common good and adequately respond to contemporary problems” (p. 151). Sonya Atalay, PhD, director of the recently founded Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science at the University of Massachusetts, points out that “it’s shortsighted to think that current research practices founded on Western knowledge systems are the only or ‘right’ approach” (CBIKS, n.d.). These Indigenous scholars are just a few who impress upon us the imperative need to interweave Indigenous and Western ideologies into what our society calls “science” because both ways have value and both are needed to solve the complex problems we face.
It is essential that institutions such as government entities and P-20 schools recognize the importance of including both Indigenous science and Western science in educational programming and curriculum. Many researchers have documented the necessity of bringing culture into the Indigenous classroom to improve student-learning outcomes (e.g., Reyhner, 2015; Stowe, 2017; Styres et al., 2010). Lopez et al. (2013) detailed specific elements of culturally responsible pedagogy for Indigenous students, including bringing Native language, cultural traditions, and community partnerships into the curriculum to increase Indigenous students’ engagement with the content (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Kawano, 2023). Likewise, Gilbert (2015) encouraged educators to preserve and promote Indigenous cultural information within the science curriculum.
One pedagogical approach that aims to accomplish these recommendations is Two-Eyed Seeing (TES), which was originally presented by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall in 2004 (Institute for Integrative Science & Health, 2022). TES (in Mi’kmaq: Etuaptmumk) “refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing and from the other eye with the strengths of western ways of knowing and to using both of these eyes together” (Hatcher et al., 2009a, p. 146). A TES approach weaves Indigenous and Western knowledges and ways of knowing. According to Hogue and Bartlett (2014), TES “implies responsibilities for reciprocity, mutual accountability, and co-learning” (p. 26). Hatcher et al. (2009b) describe how TES seeks to find the commonalities between Indigenous and Western science and pays respect to their differences. They also note that interweaving the two sciences aims to eliminate any conflicts between them (Hatcher et al., 2009b). Examples of this type of interweaving in science education curricula can be found for earth science (Wearing, 2009), astronomy (C. M. Bartlett, 2009; Lee, 2014), and environmental science (Kazina & Swayze, 2009).
Although often associated with science education, Elder Marshall has stated that his vision of TES can and should be applied to other disciplines. As cited in C. Bartlett et al. (2015), Elder Marshall explained that TES is not singular to a certain subject or discipline and that it is more so “a guiding principle that covers all aspects of our lives . . .” (p. 11). As such, TES is prevalent in the literature in the health field. For example, a TES approach has been used in nursing education (Harder et al., 2019), oral health (Shrivastava et al., 2020), tobacco cessation (Barker et al., 2021), mental health (Greenwood et al., 2015), health promotion (Lavallee & Levesque, 2013), improving healthcare experiences (Latimer et al., 2020), and substance abuse prevention (Hall et al., 2015; Marsh et al., 2015). Also prevalent in the literature is research related to supporting wildlife health (Kutz & Tomaselli, 2019; Reid et al., 2020) and studying environmental issues (Abu et al., 2019).
Yet before we can discuss Indigenous science and education in a TES science education context, we must pause and recognize the historical backdrop of extraction, erasure, and genocide that Native American communities have endured within educational settings throughout Turtle Island (North America). The major driving forces behind this brutal history were territory and power dominance (Wolfe, 2006). As the settler colonial governments in North America pushed Indigenous groups off their lands, they simultaneously initiated measures meant to eradicate their culture and community. Boarding schools in Canada, the United States, and Mexico served as a mechanism to separate Indigenous children from their families, force assimilation to the dominant culture, and erase Indigenous knowledge systems (Smith, 2012).
The historic trauma of these experiences remains today within Indigenous groups (Steen, 2023), and the continued erasure of Indigenous history remains active within the realm of public education. For example, over half of the states in the United States do not mention Native American historical figures in their standards. Many states include Native American education in content standards, mostly in social studies or history, but far fewer actually require Native American education curriculum be taught within schools. Within states that have requirements, there are many barriers that exist to students experiencing Native-forward curricula. These include lack of access to curricula, lack of funding for training and implementation, and lack of policies to support curriculum design and implementation (National Congress of American Indians, 2019). Because of this history and because of the enormous responsibility we have as educators, we choose to fight for the incorporation of Native American heritage and culture into P-20 education.
Positionality
Researchers (e.g., Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Busey et al., 2023; Holmes, 2020; Murphy et al., 2020) point out the importance of positionality statements. The authors of this manuscript recognize the importance of positionality in the effort to build authenticity with our reader and the academic community and to maintain transparency in the intentions and motivations of our work (Milner, 2007). We believe a TES approach starts with a relationship and bringing one’s whole self to the conversation, so we offer our positionality humbly and with relationship-building with our reader in mind.
Kathryn (Kat) Gardner-Vandy is a citizen of Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) with mixed European and Native American (Choctaw and Cherokee) ancestry who grew up in Broken Arrow, OK (Muscogee Nation), outside the geographic and cultural context of the CNO. Part of her journey in graduate school at the University of Arizona was learning how other Native American STEM graduate students used traditional ecological knowledge to inform their research practices. Through the mentorship of Native American colleagues and mentors, she has immersed herself in the interweaving of Indigenous ways of knowing with her colonized training as a scientist. As a postdoc, Kat’s mentor, Dr. Timothy McCoy (Miami Tribe of Oklahoma), entrusted upon her a goal of creating earth-sky curricula as he had done with his tribe, in the ašiihkiwi neehi kiišikwi myaamionki curriculum (McCoy et al., 2011). Thus, Kat, now an assistant professor of aviation and space, set forth to collaboratively build culturally centered, earth-sky STEM curriculum with three Native American nations in Oklahoma. The program, called Native Earth | Native Sky (NENS), is a cooperative agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and OSU as part of the NASA Science Activation program within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.
Juliana Utley is a former secondary mathematics teacher who grew up in southern Oklahoma within the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma. She is a white female educator with a deep passion for honoring the culture of Native Americans in Oklahoma, particularly that of her grandchildren (Cherokee Nation). In her role as a professor of mathematics education, she worked collaboratively with the CNO to develop a summer internship program to place elementary or secondary education students into placements with teachers within CNO’s Partnership of Summer School Education (POSSE). Additionally, Juliana led a collaborative research effort with faculty and the leadership of the POSSE program to examine the effectiveness of the program on enhancing struggling student’s reading and mathematics achievement levels.
Stephanie Hathcock grew up in Northwest Arkansas and is a white female former elementary and middle school teacher. In her undergraduate college years, Stephanie spent a summer organizing camps in the Navajo Nation as part of a long-standing collaboration between a school within the nation’s boundaries and her university. This led to researching her family’s undocumented Native American ancestry. Stephanie began making connections with members of POSSE and has collaboratively written NSF grants related to work with the CNO. Stephanie has a long-standing interest in outdoor, place-based education and uses nature journaling as a way for children and adults to connect with their natural settings in a friendly and nurturing setting (Feille & Hathcock, 2021). She is currently in co-creative dialogue with a CNO citizen and scholar about incorporating Indigenous perspectives into nature journaling.
Angela Just is a former public middle and high school teacher who is white, female, and monolingual. As an elementary school student in Northern California, she developed a deep respect for the Indigenous nations of the region after studying the life of Ishi and traditional Yahi ways of life. As a mother, she taught her children that we are all brothers and sisters in this world and, as such, we cultivate and foster genuine compassion and respect toward all whom we encounter. As an educator, she aimed to develop and nurture relationships with her diverse students as individuals of great worth. As a graduate research associate with NENS, she has challenged inequitable educational practices and has worked on creating and testing STEM curriculum that honors Native students’ culture and connection to nature. Residing on the land of the Cherokee Nation, she considers it a personal and professional responsibility to stand with those who are in need, dismissed, marginalized, undervalued, ignored, belittled, harassed, or made to feel inferior in any way.
Susan Stansberry grew up in western Oklahoma and is a former secondary English teacher and PK–12 library media coordinator. As a white female educator, she spent a majority of her time in public education within the Otoe-Missouria and Ponca Tribes and came to appreciate the pressing need for incorporating Native culture into school-day programming. Now, as a professor of learning, design, and technology, she leads a diverse population of students and faculty through OSU and the NASA STEM Pathway Activities - Consortium for Education (NSPACE) program, incorporating culturally responsive design principles into her work.
We as a NENS team share a posture of humility and openness, knowing fully well that we live in white privilege and acknowledging the dominance of the Western viewpoint, to wholeheartedly incorporate OK Native American nations’ cultures into the formal classroom in a collaborative, co-creative way. We aim to continuously grow in our ability to be “Two-Eyed Seers” and are committed to this journey, working with our partners in a “relationships-first” approach to moving forward with trust and reciprocity (Gardner-Vandy & Scalice, 2024). As we have learned from Wilson (2008), we consider relationships an integral part of our research paradigm. We are all affiliated with Oklahoma State University, a land-grant institution located on the ancestral lands of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, the Kiowa Tribe, the Osage Nation, and the Pawnee Nation, but because of broken treaties, the land is no longer federally recognized as tribal land. Today, OSU’s Center for Sovereign Nations partners with many of Oklahoma’s 39 tribal nations to promote tribal sovereignty and relationship building and help provide a “home away from home” for all Native students, faculty, and staff.
Motivation
To do the collaborative work of curriculum development with Native Nations, the NENS team recognized we had much work to do to prepare ourselves both culturally and academically. The NENS team entered into this research with open eyes and hearts with a goal to use a systematic mapping literature review to aid in building the pedagogical foundation of the NENS curricula. Before NENS was born, Kat was introduced to the concept of Two-Eyed Seeing when she heard Dr. Annette Lee present about the program Native Skywatchers (e.g., Lee, 2014) and was moved by how the Native Skywatchers initiative incorporates Indigenous scientific knowledge with NASA content to “remember and revitalize indigenous star and earth knowledge” (Native Skywatchers, n.d.). The NENS team discussed the way Indigenous Knowledge was incorporated into astronomy topics within Native Skywatchers and recognized we needed to better understand TES in reference to curriculum development. In their 2009 issue of Green Teacher, TES champions Dr. Cheryl Bartlett, Dr. Annamarie Hatcher, and their colleagues at the Integrative Institute for Science and Health report and discuss multidisciplinary, TES-centered lessons, many of which focused on earth and sky topics and stories. Wright et al. (2019) provide a broad integrative review of TES’s interpretation and application and spanned the fields of education, health, and policy-making. In order to better understand the “what?” and “how?” of using a TES approach specifically to curriculum building in the P-20 setting and in order to understand the literature that applies to this approach, we embarked upon a targeted systematic mapping literature review to examine trends in the peer-reviewed literature on TES in the P-20 educational setting.
While we focus the current study on TES, it is important to note that TES is not the only pedagogical framework to interweave Indigenous knowledges and Western science. Indigenous scholars have worked to establish and test many other frameworks within both formal and informal education settings. For example, Culturally Sustaining Schooling, proposed by Paris (2012), is a way to support “linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (p. 93), and Ayuluk et al. (2023) detail how they used this framework to create a community-driven curriculum project in the Cup’ik community in the rural village of Chevak, Alaska. Similarly, Scalice (2018) describes a “dual learning” environment to present both Indigenous stories and Western astrobiology in a way that both are presented as equal in a “non-threatening, dominance-free paradigm” (p. 50). These are just a few examples, and we encourage readers of this targeted study to invest time in understanding the many other frameworks for curricula that weave Indigenous knowledges with Western science (e.g. Chinn & Nelson-Barber, 2023; McKinley & Smith, 2019). Because Elder Albert Marshall first championed Two-Eyed Seeing two decades ago, we chose to target TES specifically in this systematic mapping literature review because of the breadth of educational materials and pedagogies that have been based upon its guidelines. While these other pedagogies are equally important, we limited our review to TES to ensure we accomplished a systematic review with depth into one pedagogy as opposed to a wide breadth into many.
Review Questions
RQ1: What is the characterization (e.g., publication outlets, geographic locations, content, and educational context) of peer-reviewed literature on the use of a Two-Eyed Seeing approach in a P-20 educational setting?
RQ2: What is revealed about the effectiveness of using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach in a P-20 educational setting?
RQ3: What guidelines and challenges are suggested for P-20 educators to understand when using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach?
Methods
This systematic mapping literature review was conducted with the aim of providing an overview of literature focused on the use of Two-Eyed Seeing in P-20 educational settings. This form of study allows researchers to discover trends and identify topics covered in the literature. As such, we did not set out to place value on the findings. Rather, we report what we found and noted gaps in the literature. We have chosen a systematic mapping study to analyze the landscape of how Two-Eyed Seeing has been applied in P-20 educational contexts, following a similar methodology we used to analyze place- and land-based learning with Indigenous populations in K–12 STEM education (Stansberry et al., 2023). We leaned on the recommendations of Alexander (2020) to frame our questions, clearly define search criteria, and summarize and interpret challenges. Results of this study contribute to our understanding of creating science lessons that use a TES approach.
Literature Search
Based on the research topic of interest, an initial systematic search of the literature was completed using SCOPUS, Academic Search Premier, EBSCO, and Google Scholar with the search terms “Two-eyed seeing” AND education. Using the suggestion found in the Short et al. (2021) systematic mapping literature reviews to perform iterative searches utilizing different combinations of keywords, it was determined that the initial search string may have excluded relevant articles that utilized variations of the term “Two-eyed Seeing.” A new search was completed using the search string “two-eyed seeing” OR “two-ways thinking” OR “two-eyed knowing” AND education (see Table 1). All articles that resulted from the round two search were combined into an Excel spreadsheet for examination using our inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Two-Eyed Seeing in Education, Keywords Searched
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
To address our research questions, all studies were screened to determine whether they met our inclusion criteria. Specifically, to be included in this literature mapping, studies had to meet the following criteria: (a) published in English; (b) peer-reviewed article, conference paper/presentation, or dissertation; and (c) the study had to address the application of Two-Eyed Seeing in a P-20 educational setting. These criteria were chosen based on the purpose of this literature mapping. It should be noted that we did not restrict our mapping to research studies only but also included practitioner, descriptive, and argumentative types of studies. Additionally, as some researchers may restrain their samples to only U.S.-based studies (e.g., Zinsser et al., 2022), we did not limit our scope to only United States educational contexts. Studies were excluded if they were not peer-reviewed, not focused on the application of Two-Eyed Seeing, and not focused on a P-20 educational context. The titles and abstracts of all records were independently screened by at least two of the authors of this manuscript and coded as include, unsure, or exclude. Any discrepancies were discussed until a mutual agreement was reached by the research team.
Outcomes of the Searches
The initial December 2021 search returned 81 articles from the U.S.-based search engines. There were 24 articles identified by SCOPUS, 21 identified by Academic Search Premier, and 36 identified by EBSCO. The initial Google Scholar search returned 1790 items of which 80 were identified. The total number of articles identified between the four search engines was 161. Of these articles, 55 were duplicates. Once duplicates were removed, the list was reduced to 106 articles. Using the standards listed in the Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria, 59 additional articles were excluded based on a thorough Title/Abstract screening. This brought the total number of articles retained in the review to 47.
The second search, using a broader search string (see Table 1), produced more articles not in the initial search. Four of these articles were identified by Academic Search Premier, and two were identified by EBSCO. This brought the total number of articles identified for this review to 53 (see online supplementary Table S1).
Analysis Process
Each article was read and evaluated by two or more of the authors. Using the inclusion/exclusion criteria listed previously, this evaluation, by reading the works in their entirety, excluded 40 additional articles. Table 2 provides a sample of excluded articles from this systematic mapping literature review. As a result, the total number of articles identified for this review is 13. Of our final 13 articles, all 13 were identified in our Google Scholar searches, and 3 were exclusively located through Google Scholar. See Table 3 for a summary of articles included in this systematic mapping. For an overview of the identification of studies, see the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) in Figure 1, which provides a visual summary of our down-selection process.
Sample of Excluded Articles From Systematic Mapping Literature Review
Summary of Articles Included in Systematic Mapping Literature Review
PRISMA flow diagram for systematic mapping literature search.
We first used content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to address our first research question to identify patterns in the articles such as publication outlets, geographic locations, content, and educational context. Next, we did first cycle descriptive coding (Saldana, 2021) on the articles to look for patterns related to the effectiveness and suggested guidelines and challenges of using a TES approach in a P-20 educational setting. This type of analysis aligns with methods for conducting a systematic mapping literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009), as it allows researchers to characterize the key features of a body of literature.
We then initiated second cycle pattern coding to establish patterned themes from the descriptions (Saldana, 2021). We did this by clustering coded material to identify pattern codes, which became themes. These themes were then reviewed over multiple analysis sessions by the research team. This led to condensing some of the themes and establishing the final set of themes shared in the results section.
Methodological Limitations
The study was limited by the search terms we used (“two-eyed seeing,” “two-ways thinking,” and “two-eyed knowing” with education; Table 1); our search did not incorporate other synonyms of “two” or other words that imply a dual-based process. We also did not broaden our search to include all frameworks that merge Indigenous knowledges with Western science. We did not intend this work to be entirely inclusive or a meta-analysis, although one is certainly warranted for further research. We narrowed our focus on TES as it has been incorporated into programming by several organizations in North America. Our study is also limited to the research that would be found within academic search engines; this may exclude articles on work that is happening outside academia.
Findings
Characterization of Peer-Reviewed Literature
To provide an overview of the peer-reviewed literature, we will first identify the geographic locations and publication outlets where TES literature related to P-20 education has been conducted and where it has been published. Then, we will examine the content of the articles, including types (e.g., research, practitioner), and the content areas such as science. Lastly, we will examine the educational contexts of the articles, including the education level(s) (P-12 or post-secondary) where the work is situated.
Geographic Locations and Publication Outlets
Although no restrictions were placed on the publication dates, all articles included in the review were published between 2009 and 2021 (see Figure 2). Of the articles, 69% were authored by researchers exclusively in Canada, which is where Elder Albert Marshall first brought forward the idea of TES as a guiding principle within education for his native Mi’kmaw people (Institute for Integrative Science & Health, 2022, July). Nine of the articles came from Canadian researchers, two from authors associated with both Canada and Australia, and two were associated with African institutions (see Figure 3). Of the seven articles published prior to 2020, only one is associated with an institution outside of Canada. However, three of the six articles published in 2020–2021 were associated with authors outside of Canada, suggesting that TES may be increasing in international recognition.
Year of article publications in systematic mapping.
Geographic location of articles reviewed for systematic mapping.
The 13 peer-reviewed articles in this systematic mapping literature review were published in a diverse set of journals. The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education and the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences each published two articles from the review. The remaining nine articles were the sole published articles relevant to this review in a particular journal. In total, 11 journals were represented in the review. The location of each journal represents an international audience. Four journals were published in Canada, three in the United Kingdom, three in the United States, two in Australia, and one in Africa (see Figure 4).
Geographic location of peer-reviewed journals.
Content of Articles
Our findings revealed that the majority of TES articles in this review were based in science education. Of the 13 articles identified for this review, eight are situated solely in science education, with three of the eight specializing in environmental education. There is one additional article tying science and math together. However, just as Elder Marshall envisioned the application of TES across all aspects of life, one of our review articles is written outside of the science spectrum with a focus on dance education. The remaining three articles are not tied to any specific content area (see Figure 5).
Content areas represented in TES articles reviewed for systematic mapping.
Educational Contexts
In order to analyze context, we looked at both educational levels and educational settings. TES was first used at Cape Breton University in Nova Scotia as part of an integrative science program devised to encourage Mi’kmaw students to pursue science and science-related programs (C. Bartlett et al., 2012). The articles in our review illustrate the widening scope of TES as pertaining to the educational level (see Figure 6). Of the nine articles originating from post-secondary settings, the foci include initiating the use of TES in formal classroom instruction, the continued use of TES in formal instruction, making a case for the use of TES, and collecting data applicable to the use of TES in a post-secondary setting. Of the four P-12 articles, two are research studies based in formal P-12 classrooms. The remaining two articles originating from P-12 settings make a case for TES and provide an example of how to use TES in formal instruction. All 13 articles apply to the integration and value of TES in formal P-20 educational settings.
Educational level of targeted participants within articles reviewed for systematic mapping.
Research Studies Focused on Using a Two-Eyed Seeing Approach
Five of the six articles that reported on a research study utilized qualitative research methods. The remaining article employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches to answer their research questions. Table 4 describes the various methodologies employed and the types of data collected as identified in the articles.
Methodologies and Data Types in the Research Articles Included in Systematic Mapping Literature Review
Bartmes and Shukla (2020) surveyed and interviewed students and faculty across seven university courses on land-based pedagogical practices. Their findings revealed that both instructors and Indigenous Knowledge holders found that the best ways to immerse students were through (1) curriculum that focused on a holistic inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, (2) weaving academic and Indigenous knowledge together using land-based pedagogies, and (3) navigating the differences between academic and Indigenous knowledge. Both student and instructors note the learning; however, the Indigenous knowledge holders emphasized the importance of focusing mainly on the experiential learning and its connection to the academic knowledge. Students shared that they found value in connecting textbook learning with hands-on experiences. Similar to other studies (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021; Michie et al., 2018; Onwu & Mufundirwa, 2020), the use of TES and the use of experiential learning deepened student engagement. Bartmes and Shukla (2020) also found barriers to this type of holistic engagement, such as issues of time/restrictive schedules, which tended to cause instructors to rush students through learning activities. Also, similar research (i.e., Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021) noted deeper learning opportunities when students had to reflect upon contradictions that arose between Indigenous knowledge and academic knowledge (Bartmes & Shukla, 2020).
The final two research articles both had a reflective and action research focus. Kay (2017) used a personal teacher narrative approach to share her understanding of curriculum revision in Canada that focused on the Indian residential experience for the Indigenous people in British Columbia, Canada. She shared her journey in coming to make sense of using a TES approach to teach this to her dance students through a series of six vignettes that were key points along her journey. She not only shared her journey but the outcome of creating a lesson based on her journal involving the book My Name is Seepeetza (Sterling, 1998). Kay pointed to the notion of equality, respecting the point of view of others, and the need for a co-learning process. Ray (2021) reported on a participatory action research and institutional ethnography involving six colleges related to a project focused on development of Indigenous quality assurance standards. Ray shared how the group utilized C. Bartlett’s (2017) four key elements of TES pedagogy: co-learning, knowledge scrutinization, knowledge validation, and knowledge gardening. Ray (2021) also concluded that using the principles of TES can provide a framework for conducting meaningful research with Indigenous groups that “promote reflexivity, challenge institutional norms, and do not reassert unequal power relations” (p. 110).
Across all six research articles, there was noted a lack of detail in describing the specific research method being incorporated. For example, in the one article that indicated a case study approach (Michie et al., 2018), the authors described no case study methodology, and the three cases presented appeared to be more a reflection of each author’s own teaching experiences related to using TES with Indigenous students.
Guidelines for Educators
Nearly all of the articles in this systematic review (n = 12) suggested recommendations or guidelines for incorporating TES into the classroom. We have compiled and organized those into five themes or sets of guidelines, each further divided into categories for each theme (see Figure 7). These included guidelines that dealt with philosophical framework, teacher supports, generation of curriculum, the teacher’s role in the learning process, and the classroom environment.
Graphic summary of guidelines for educators identified in articles reviewed for systematic mapping.
The first theme describes the philosophical framework of incorporating TES into the P-20 classroom. This theme includes four categories: inclusive science, holistic, identity-building and self-reflection, and acknowledgment of the effects of settler-colonialism. First, TES in the classroom should be guided by the idea of inclusive science. Slightly more than half of the articles (n = 7) reviewed noted that educators and administrators must acknowledge that Indigenous knowledge and Western science are equally significant, valid, and complimentary and that they need each other (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021; C. Bartlett et al., 2012; Bartmes & Shukla, 2020; Hatcher et al., 2009a; Michie et al., 2018, 2021; Onwu & Mufundirwa, 2020; Ray, 2021). Both Onwu and Mufundirwa (2020) and Hatcher et al. (2009a) emphasized the need for the two knowledge systems to be woven together in the classroom, not simply introduced side-by-side and to include Indigenous knowledge holders as part of the process. Second, the TES classroom should use a holistic approach to education. This includes combining the whole body and spirit (Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012), the whole family, and the whole community (McKeon, 2012) into the learning process. Hatcher et al. (2009a) posits that TES in the classroom should be a completely multifaceted experience. Third, several of the articles stressed the importance that incorporating TES into the classroom results in identity building and self-reflection in both educator and student (C. Bartlett et al., 2012; McKeon, 2012; Michie et al., 2018). This includes creating an environment where learning is a life-long journey done with not only students but also families, communities, and other supporting people (Michie et al., 2018). It also includes the idea that in a TES educational environment, one is consistently putting their “values and actions and knowledges in front of us, like an object, for examination and discussion” (C. Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 334). Lastly, curriculum that incorporates Indigenous knowledges must acknowledge the negative and damaging effects of settler-colonialism, including recognition of the history of the land and peoples, a direct discussion of the influence of settlers (Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012), and the inclusion of a land acknowledgement statement (Hatcher, 2012).
A second theme provides recommendations for the generation of curriculum using a TES lens with five categories emerging: modes of learning and instruction, the interweaving of Indigenous and Western knowledges, lesson planning, storytelling and personal narratives, and respectful inclusion of Indigenous knowledges. First, several articles noted the importance of using experiential, inquiry-based, and land-based learning, as well as emphasizing the use of student-centered instruction (C. Bartlett et al., 2015: Bartmes & Shukla, 2020; Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a; McKeon, 2012; Michie et al., 2018; Prete, 2021). Researchers noted that students should be engaged in hands-on experiences, and instruction should be respectful, active, authentic, and collaborative. Researchers noted the importance of the student’s personal ownership of learning and recognition of their ability as humans to draw their own conclusions (Hatcher et al., 2009a; Michie et al., 2018; Prete, 2021). When using a TES approach, lessons should press students to be “active creators of knowledge rather than passive recipients” (Hatcher et al., 2009a, p. 149). Bartmes and Shukla (2020) specifically call out pushing students outside their comfort zones to learn to interweave Indigenous and Western knowledge, but as Hatcher et al. (2009a) note, knowledge generation and sharing should be done without competition. Second, researchers discussed ways to weave Indigenous and Western knowledge systems together in the curriculum, noting specifically that Indigenous concepts must be incorporated alongside Western concepts (Bartmes & Shukla, 2020; Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a; Kapyrka & Kockstator, 2012; Michie et al., 2018). Third, researchers offered a plethora of recommendations for lesson planning, such as grounding the lessons in Indigenous epistemologies (Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012), providing opportunities for trial and error (Michie et al., 2018), incorporating the medicine wheel if appropriate (Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a; Michie et al., 2018), and use of learning circles (Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a). Additionally, C. Bartlett et al. (2012) suggested the need to recognize that the use of stories, cultural practices, and language and connecting students to the land are all an important part of the process of using a TES lesson planning approach. Fourth, another important category that emerged is the use of storytelling and personal narratives during instruction (Hatcher et al., 2009a; Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012; McKeon, 2012; Onwu & Mufundirwa, 2020; Prete, 2021), particularly when guided by local Indigenous educators (McKeon, 2012) and when they involve reenactment of traditional lessons (Hatcher et al., 2009a). Lastly, it was noted frequently that Indigenous knowledges must be incorporated into curriculum respectfully. Kapyrka and Dockstator (2012) note that educators must begin by talking about the local Indigenous community, and C. Bartlett et al. (2012) emphasize the need to recognize the stories, songs, art, language, and ceremonies connected to that community within the lessons. Acharibasam and McVittie (2021) also add that Indigenous knowledges must not be added as simply a single activity; it must be added throughout. Bartmes and Shukla (2020) instruct educators to build curricula with knowledge transmission and preservation in mind so that students are aiding in preserving Indigenous knowledges.
The third theme describes the importance of the classroom environment when using a TES instructional approach. First, researchers noted the importance of the classroom environment, which they describe as a sanctuary for the students and teacher, noting the aesthetics as including comfortable chairs, healthy live plants, warm colors, and artwork (Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a). Onwu and Mufundirwa (2020) stated specifically that the classroom be safe and conducive to learning, as it would be in a traditional classroom. Second, there were references in the articles related to including cultural components in the physical classroom. Both Hatcher (2012) and Acharibasam and McVittie (2021) note the significance of having Elders visit the physical classroom, and two papers state the need for cultural rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations (Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a). Finally, several articles stressed the need for teaching to extend beyond the four walls of the physical classroom (Bartmes & Shukla, 2020; Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a; McKeon, 2012; Onwu & Mufundirwa, 2020; Prete, 2021). These articles stated the importance of land- or place-based pedagogy, lessons that connect to nature, and activities that incorporate the community, such as visiting museums and exhibits.
A fourth theme describes the role of the instructor/teacher in the learning process when using a TES instructional approach and includes three categories: teacher-student relationships, teacher identity, and style of teaching. First, Prete (2021) stressed the importance of teacher-student relationships and stressed that educators get to know their students in a meaningful way. A second category is for educators to examine their identity as a teacher (Archaribasam & McVittie, 2021; Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a; Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012; Prete, 2021). Prete (2021) encourages teachers to make a self-reflective assessment of their own talents and use them in the classroom. Lastly, several authors (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021; Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a) made the important distinction that the teacher be a facilitator, not the dominator or “epitome of knowledge” (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021, p. 88). These researchers stress the importance of the teacher’s style of teaching, citing the need for a nurturing facilitator who encourages students to become knowledge seekers, who smiles and has an encouraging voice, and who allows students time to make mistakes (Hatcher, 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009a).
The fifth theme details the recommended supports for teachers in using a TES instructional approach. First and foremost, educators must develop relationships within the Indigenous community first to hold elders and knowledge holders as the experts and to use them as trusted consultants and instructors (Bartmes & Shukla, 2020; Hatcher, 2021; Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012; Prete, 2021). Secondly, teachers must be provided with professional development opportunities. As discussed by Acharibasam and McVittie (2021), such training should teach educators about Indigenous worldviews and culture, how to work with Indigenous elders, and how to integrate Indigenous ways of knowing with Western curricula, particularly oral pedagogies, into curricula. Finally, monetary support is an essential support for both teachers and elders; this includes honorariums for teachers working to integrate TES into Western curricula (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2021) and compensation for elders who support the effort (Ray, 2021).
While 1 of the 13 articles did not name specific guidelines for incorporating TES into the K20 classroom, it did give a personal narrative on how the author incorporated TES into a dance education curriculum. Kay (2017) provides the reader an account of the journey she took to go from no understanding of TES to understanding and then to the incorporation of TES into her dance classroom and curriculum. In particular, Kay describes a “process of knowledge gathering, self-examination, and reflection” that continues to allow her to raise awareness among other teachers (Kay, 2017, p. 106).
Challenges for Educators
In addition to the recommendations on incorporating TES into the P-20 classroom, the articles also warned of and described potential challenges in doing so. First, Michie et al. (2018) and Kapyrka and Dockstator (2012) urged that care be given to ensure that curriculum not be tokenistic and that it must not misrepresent or appropriate Indigenous knowledges. As Michie et al. (2018) state, the incorporation of TES into the classroom must be “done with and by Indigenous peoples” (p. 1217), and the process takes time. Likewise, they also point out that Indigenous knowledges should not be added as an afterthought or isolated activity because doing so could make them little more than caricature or folklore (Michie et al., 2018). Two of the articles lament resource limitations. Hatcher et al. (2009a) note the “dearth of curriculum materials related to wholeness” (p. 151) that are available for teachers to use, while Kapyrka and Dockstator (2012) remind the reader of the low number of Indigenous academics who are able to create curriculum in the TES way. Hatcher et al. (2009a) added that unfortunately some Elders and knowledge holders are passing away before having the opportunity to share their knowledge. Finally, several of the authors speak to the emotional and political challenges that including Indigenous knowledge can bring. Kapyrka and Dockstator (2012) urge educators to leave space for students to feel and process heavy emotions such as anger and confusion as they learn to reconcile the two knowledge systems and ask themselves, “Why were we not taught this before?” (p. 106). McKeon (2012) succinctly emphasizes the importance of Western institutions engaging in dialogues about purposefully limiting the Western worldview.
Restatement of Review Questions and Summary of Findings
In RQ1, we asked: “What is the characterization (e.g., publication outlets, geographic locations, content, and educational context) of peer-reviewed literature on the use of a Two-Eyed Seeing approach in a P-20 educational setting?” We found that the majority (69%) of the 13 articles included in our analysis were exclusively from Canadian institutions, while 2 incorporated researchers from Australia, and 2 were from African institutions. The 13 articles were published in a diverse set of journals with only 2 journals (Canadian Journal of Environmental Education and Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences) represented twice. Nine of the 13 articles were based in a science education context, with the most common specialization being environmental education. Likewise, 9 of the 13 articles were in a post-secondary educational setting, while 4 were in a P-12 setting, yet all 13 articles emphasize the value of integrating TES in formal P-20 educational settings. The 13 articles analyzed were published between 2009 and 2021.
In RQ2, we asked: “What is revealed about the effectiveness of using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach in a P-20 educational setting?” Of the 13 articles included in our analysis, 6 of the articles reported on a qualitative and/or quantitative research study. Four of these studies revealed the value of holistic, immersive curriculum and the effectiveness of using land-based and experiential pedagogies in post-secondary education. They also revealed the strength of reflecting on the differences between Indigenous knowledge and academic knowledge. The other two studies revealed the effectiveness of co-learning in both the formal classroom and in research settings.
In RQ3, we asked: “What guidelines and challenges are suggested for P-20 educators to understand when using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach?” Twelve of the 13 articles analyzed included suggestions or guidelines for educators to incorporate TES into the P-20 classroom. We organized these into five themes (Figure 7), which include guidelines on: 1) the philosophical framework of the curriculum, 2) the generation of curriculum, 3) the classroom environment, 4) the teacher’s role in the learning process, and 5) the necessary teacher supports. Challenges discussed in the articles include: 1) the risk of tokenism, appropriation, and/or caricature of Indigenous knowledges; 2) resource limitations; 3) the passing of Elders and loss of Indigenous knowledges; and 4) the emotional and political challenges inherent to including Indigenous knowledges into curricula.
Discussion and Implications
This systematic mapping revealed that peer-reviewed literature on the use of a TES approach in a P-20 educational setting was published after 2009 and was conducted exclusively by researchers outside the United States. The articles detailed a range of content including research studies, descriptive and argumentative articles, and one teacher practitioner article. With the exception of one article using a mixed-method approach, the articles used qualitative research methods. From our mapping review of these articles and following the guidelines and challenges the 13 articles revealed, we have developed four “calls to action” reflective of the content of the articles that we hope will resonate with and motivate the reader to join us in learning ways in which to interweave Indigenous knowledges into the colonized science curriculum.
Call to Action 1: First and foremost, it is absolutely imperative that educators and researchers, before embarking upon TES work, understand their own positionality, limitations, biases, and privilege. Working within an Indigenous space, in whatever capacity, can quickly become marginalizing, tokenizing, and extractive if not done in relationship with and in full respect of the sovereignty of the Indigenous community whose culture and knowledge is being interwoven through TES. These communities need to be at the forefront of this work and included equally and collaboratively; the colonized institution and the white privileged must not be in control. Part of this reflection of positionality is recognizing the role of colonialism in our own education systems. An educator or researcher hopeful to use TES must first work to understand the history of the land on which they are a guest and the Indigenous communities around them and then know that this work inherently relies on relationship building with those communities. In this way, relationship building must be rooted in mutual respect, reciprocity, and a commitment to longevity; otherwise, it will fail. TES work without relationship building is hollow.
Call to Action 2: Through our systematic mapping done here, we find there is a pressing need for more research studies on the use of TES in the P-20 classroom, particularly in the United States where there are 574 unique federally recognized nations (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2021) and many others that are not federally recognized. We are grateful to the Indigenous education scholars in Canada, and researchers in the United States should build upon their work to better understand TES in the United States P-20 classroom, instead of extrapolating their work from the Canadian classroom. Research delineating the differences of TES in the P-12 classroom versus the higher education classroom would be beneficial. This field could also benefit from quantitative research studies.
This systematic mapping literature review also revealed that only 6 of the 13 articles reported research findings, and only 1 of those 6 addressed the effectiveness of using a TES approach as a research question. Likewise, few of the research studies in our systematic mapping literature review included a detailed methodology so that other research might build similar studies in other educational contexts and/or in different Indigenous communities.
Call to Action 3: More research and subsequent publication is needed to determine the effectiveness of the use of TES as an instructional strategy in the P-20 classroom. This research could be done in tandem with culturally responsive teaching, of which there are existing frameworks (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995), and as such, TES would only enhance the cultural relevance.
The publication of such research is important. The authors found that the initial foundational articles read about the instructional strategy of TES were not found in the searches performed for this study. Thus, we acknowledge the limitation that our systematic mapping literature review of TES peer-reviewed literature missed research and applications of TES in educational settings because not all were in peer-reviewed outlets. Indigenous educators may go to practitioner journals or other outlets that are not peer-reviewed, and it must be respected that these articles are equally valid.
Finally, this peer-reviewed systematic mapping literature review suggests a wide range of guidelines for incorporating TES into P-20 education. It is noteworthy that many of these guidelines are consistent with best practices in the teaching of STEM (Kasza & Slater, 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018), as well as culturally responsive teaching (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995), as discussed previously.
Call to Action 4: It is essential that educators/instructors and administrators seeking to embed TES understand how to implement these guidelines and that they are adopted at both the classroom and institutional level. For example, individual teachers, with training and support, could incorporate TES into their classroom, while institutions like school systems, state departments of education, and the federal Department of Education can support professional development and fund research in relationship-building and various aspects incorporating the TES approach into the classroom. Research shows (e.g., carr, 2019) that even when a classroom is not dominated by Indigenous culture, bringing cultural perspectives into that classroom helps all the students, whether Indigenous or not.
In their scoping review of the literature on TES in research focused on Indigenous health, Forbes et al. (2020) found six process-related core themes in research literature of TES studies including: 1) negotiating and sharing power between researchers and Indigenous communities; 2) fostering culturally safe spaces; 3) following ethical practices of both the academic and the Indigenous community; 4) ensuring the research was transformative; 5) maintaining research rigor; and 6) navigating the struggles in employing Western academic policy-making and funding systems to Indigenous research. Some of these themes can already be seen in the limited literature on TES and are noted in our guidelines. These themes would be useful for researchers to consider as they conduct research focused on TES in the P-20 classroom as well as developing a curriculum for use in the P-20 classroom.
Conclusion
In order to be effective in P-20 classrooms, teachers must consider methods to teach content that relates to the cultural backgrounds of their students. As educators continue to consider ways to develop their culturally responsive teaching, using TES or other instructional strategies (e.g., the He Awa Whiria braided river model by Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2019) that weave together Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing with Western science is important and must include intensive, hands-on professional development for P-20 educators. This systematic mapping literature review of the peer-reviewed literature on TES highlights the lack of research addressing the merging of Indigenous ways of knowing with the Western science that is traditionally taught in our P-20 academic systems. This gap points to the need for more research related to the use of TES as a pedagogical approach to teaching and curriculum development within P-20 settings. For example, research could include exploring the influence of using a TES approach on outcomes such as student achievement and cultural awareness. Additionally, we encourage individuals to share their own TES journeys with others. Kay (2017) stated it so succinctly that we share our journeys “so other . . . teachers can also move beyond paralysis to action” (p. 106).
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-rer-10.3102_00346543251329570 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Mapping Literature Review on Two-Eyed Seeing in P-20 Education
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-rer-10.3102_00346543251329570 for A Systematic Mapping Literature Review on Two-Eyed Seeing in P-20 Education by Kathryn Gardner-Vandy, Juliana Utley, Angela Just, Stephanie Hathcock and Susan Stansberry in Review of Educational Research
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We give our wholehearted gratitude to the wisdom of the anonymous reviewers and our editors (Dr. Francesca Lopez, Dr. Daniel Liou, Dr. Hollie A. Kulago, and Dr. Angela Labistre Champion), whose comments and assistance undoubtedly made this work more whole. We are grateful for your time and passion.
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 work was funded through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate’s Science Activation program, Cooperative Agreement # 80NSSC21M0005 P00001 for the Native Earth | Native Sky Program at Oklahoma State University.
Authors
Kathryn Gardner-Vandy (citizen of Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) is an assistant professor of aviation and space at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK; e-mail:
JULIANA UTLEY is retired as professor of mathematics education at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK; e-mail:
ANGELA JUST is a graduate research associate with NENS and a graduate student in mathematics education at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK; e-mail:
STEPHANIE HATHCOCK is an associate professor of science education at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK; e-mail:
Dr. SUSAN STANSBERRY is a professor of learning, design and technology at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK; e-mail:
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
