Respect, Responsibility, Relevance, and Reciprocity: What the 4 Rs of Indigenous Research Offer Toward Decolonizing a Mathematics Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your article is very well-written, and your literature review on decolonizing mathematics education is excellent. My initial assumption was that this work would explore decolonizing math instruction and that your focus would be on the connections between Indigenous Knowledge paradigms (ontologies, pedagogies, systems, etc.) and “traditional” Western math instruction. However, the resulting study seems to be more of a study of disrupting familiar teacher-student power structures in a traditional Western mathematics classroom. I think the framework is well described, as are its implementation and results in the classroom, I just question what specifically makes this a decolonizing practice?

Here are my specific questions:

1. If you used the four Rs framework in work that is not grounded in research with Indigenous research partners, nor for the benefit of Indigenous students, can be deemed as decolonizing?
2. How do you distinguish between decolonizing approaches to education and simply modifying traditional teacher-led power structures in a typical publicly funded classroom setting? 
3. Was there consultation/partnership with community? 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The paper describes and contextualizes the theme with other studies and previous works.  Through self-study research, the paper describes a mathematics teacher’s path towards decolonization in her grade 6/7 classroom in [province], Canada. This teacher, the Author 1, created a framework using the 4 Rs of Indigenous research (respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility) to develop the research question: “What is the value of my 4 Rs pedagogical framework for my professional growth as I aim to disrupt power and control in my mathematics classroom?” However, there is a need to detail and deepen what is decolonization as well as the 4 Rs of Indigenous research. The connection between the Indigenous epistemologies that ground the 4Rs and the references for classroom decolonization is not clear, nor the references that effectively blend Indigenous epistemology and pedagogy with Euro-Canadian epistemology and pedagogy. 

There are works that discuss, for instance, the complexity of applying Indigenous pedagogy for non-Indigenous audiences: uncertainty, humility, and flow.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

The research design, questions, and hypotheses are stated. However, it needs more information about the teacher and the students from the Grade 6/7 mathematics classroom. What are relations between students and/or teacher with indigenous cultures? Are students indigenous? 

Regarding the method, there needs to be more information about these students and detailing on the classroom work so as to evidence important aspects of the Indigenous pedagogy based on the 4Rs, for instance: how did the classroom start to work as “ spaces for intergenerational and reciprocal learning”? How is the reflection about what is included and excluded in the curriculum based on stories? To what measure does it really blend Indigenous pedagogy and Euro-Canadian pedagogy? What lenses are used for this reflection? 

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

The paper develops over analytical results pointing out findings but I am not convinced that the approach described in this paper is not a tokenizing approach of Indigenous culture. The author should present stronger arguments to show a classroom decolonial practice, which goes beyond the interaction and relationship between the teacher and the students. What is the critical reflection drawn from the content of the stories faced by the K-12 curriculum?  As already said, how does the Indigenous epistemology ground the use of the 4Rs pedagogical approach in the experience analyzed in this paper? In my opinion, it refers more to an interesting discussion about the democratization of relationships in the classroom than a decolonial practice.  

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

The results are presented but the arguments used for the discussion of the results do not deepen the STEM issue and the blend of Indigenous epistemology and pedagogy with Euro-Canadian epistemology and pedagogy.

Is the article adequately referenced?

There are many adequate references, however, it lacks references on decolonization and STEM, which are not more closely aligned to the topic.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

The authors present the results and bring secondary reference from literature. However, only in the conclusion section they mention STEM and do not argue about it enough to connect it with the research’s development and findings. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is linguistically correct for this phase of submission. But, please, review the phrase: "Lipka et al. (2005) researched how students’ learning 96 and participation was affected by engaging in mathematics that was were culturally relevant."

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I am very grateful that you considered my questions and made changes to the paper. The current version is more interesting than the first. I appreciated learning about the students and the teacher, as well as the relationship between them and indigenous cultures. I am also convinced of the connection between decolonization and democratization, and how you argue that decolonization can be achieved through classroom democratization. I think the paper presents strong arguments to show how it can contribute to decolonizing a teacher's mathematics teaching practice. Furthermore, I am convinced that Author 1 has developed a framework based on the 4Rs indigenous methodology to promote the decolonization of the mathematics classroom and Mathematics Education as a whole.
However, even if is true that “Indigenous research methods, such as the 4 Rs, could be applied to support other marginalized communities (Cook, 2023; Lilley, 2024),” and that it would be possible to implement Indigenous research methods to support other marginalized groups (Cook, 2023; Lilley, 2024), for instance, English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners, I am still uncertain how Indigenous traditional ways of knowing and learning were incorporated in that mathematics classroom. Indigenous methodology encompasses Indigenous values and traditional ways of knowing and learning, such as oral storytelling, and aims to transform classrooms into “spaces for intergenerational learning.” For me, the researcher's journal excerpt, included in the paper (p. 12, lines 471-479), is not strong evidence of how Indigenous methodologies could be applied in this context.
Even though the 4Rs approach may align with other cultures, I cannot see the excerpt truly as oral storytelling as advocated by Indigenous epistemologies. I suggest reviewing this part with another example or developing a little bit more the connection with oral storytelling grounded on Indigenous epistemology.

Author Response

We are responding to the editor’s comment: “For me, the researcher's journal excerpt, included in the paper (p. 12, lines 471-479), is not strong evidence of how Indigenous methodologies could be applied in this context. Even though the 4Rs approach may align with other cultures, I cannot see the excerpt truly as oral storytelling as advocated by Indigenous epistemologies. I suggest reviewing this part with another example or developing a little bit more the connection with oral storytelling grounded on Indigenous epistemology.”

We thank the editor for drawing our attention to this mismatch between traditions of Indigenous oral storytelling and the journal excerpt that Author 1 shared about a birthday party story. As we noted in our first set of revisions, the framework was developed while teaching in a context with Indigenous students but, in the classroom where the data were collected, none of the students were Indigenous. This means that while Author 1 emphasized the value of storytelling in connection to her framework, the examples she was able to provide from her research journal and from students’ own stories, were limited by the context. By drawing on more general ideas about stories in the mathematics classroom, as well as sharing the experience of Author 1 teaching about an Indigenous base-20 counting system, we have attempted to address the editor’s concern in the best way we could. Thank you for this important feedback. Please let us know if we have now addressed all minor revisions set forth for us.