SWIRL and Talking Books: a Tool for Cultural Enrichment

Associate Professor Brenda Cherednichenko

Lawry Mahon

When the Roman empire was under the watchful eye of Constantine the Great, he decided that Christianity would be the state sponsored religion. This occurred because, having the “chi-rho” (or the `sign of Christ”) symbol appear in a dream, had it inscribed on his helmet, and on his soldiers' equipment, and proceeded, the next battle session against his rival, emperor Maxentius, to deliver a whipping! Against all odds, he inflicted a crushing defeat on his opponents, and declared that he owed that victory to `the god of the Christians”. Signed sealed and delivered. The year was 312 AD.

Constantine from then was the champion of the Christian religion: everywhere the Romans went, the “culture” of Christianity followed. What was once a conversion to Roman culture became increasingly a conversion to Christian culture. That -or the sword!

It seems that the English speaking world has had a similar understanding in relation to the teaching and learning of literacy. Literacy in Australia has consistently meant English, and consistently meant Westernisation.

While the Samarians had created a version of “literacy” some 5000 years before Constantine “saw the light”, in order to help control their slaves and determine who was slacking off during “heavy bag-carrying” working days, Constantine perfected the understanding of intimidation and “standardised testing”: You do it our way, or else! With “Romanisation”, came Christianity, or death.

There were numerous examples throughout history of groups around the world who had developed versions of literacy. The Chinese - while an enormously complex version of literacy, had reading and writing - within their own cultural contexts, millennia before the western world even considered reading and writing. Chinese people learned within the boundaries of their literacy. It seems ludicrous to even mention that their script was not English. But it wasn't. And it wasn't about English countryside cultural life. It was Chinese through and through.

The Egyptians also “did their own thing”! Archaeologists and anthropologists are still to this day arguing and researching the meanings of the complex Egyptian texts.

The French, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, Indian etc, etc, had the written word - and to each it was a vehicle to record, study and advance their cultural and complex worlds.

It is becoming less of an argument about the power of English as the lingua franca in the world economy, and it is valuable to realise and accept that a high level of proficiency in English will only advantage the learner. However, that this proficiency in English should come at the expense of one's traditional values and beliefs is disturbing, as well as unnecessary. “Literacy pedagogy, in other words, has been a carefully restricted project -

restricted to formalized, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms of language”.( A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Pg.1)

Through the SWIRL program we have been able to demonstrate a number of approaches to learning to be literate that not only show respect for traditional and day to day cultural activities, but engage children and adults in the processes that lead to good literate behaviour, and open the way for not only “good literate behaviour”, but “good literate behaviour in English”.

What is SWIRL?

Australian Aborigines are the custodians of the world's oldest living cultures. Their stories date back many thousands of years, well before human written records began.

A long term partnership between IBM and the School of Education at Victoria University, the Story Writing in Remote Locations (SWIRL) program enables remote Aboriginal communities in Central Australia to use modern technology to produce digital and print versions of their communities' stories, as well as documenting their day to day activities. Over the past eleven years, SWIRL has built up an archive of many hundreds of stories, providing a unique teaching aid for local schools and helping to preserve stories and processes that might otherwise be lost. This paper reports the experience of SWIRL and some of the understandings developed by SWIRL participants about Aboriginal culture and the literacy learning, but does not speak for or on behalf of Aboriginal people.

By encouraging young people in the SWIRL communities to record aspects of their lives, the project has helped to improve local literacy engagement. It also provides pre-service teachers and youth workers from Australia and overseas with invaluable experience of the satisfaction - and the challenges - of working with remote communities to develop literacy programs that reflect local lifestyles, values and cultures. A significant number of these students return as teachers when they complete their training.

Held once a year, the month-long Story Writing In Remote Locations (SWIRL) program is attended by primary and early secondary school children in each SWIRL community during their school holidays: 100% attendance is the norm. The whole community is often involved, with elders contributing their knowledge and experience.

Children as young as five take part in organised activities, then document them in English and, where possible, the local Indigenous language. SWIRL team members help children and community members use digital cameras and computers to tell their stories using written and spoken words, video, audio recording, artwork, photos, and stop motion animation. Each child then publishes their story as a printed, laminated and bound book to share with friends and family, with a copy going into the school library. Children are also encouraged to complete their books as digital stories, by adding their voice to a PowerPoint presentation, as each book is initially composed in PowerPoint. Voice additions are done in English, and where the appropriate skills are available, the children's local language.

Video clips of children involved in SWIRL activities are also added, which again enhances the “story” experience for the children involved.

A longer term aim of SWIRL is to engage children in life long learning. Drop out rates for remote Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory throughout their secondary schooling are extreme, with only three year 12 graduates in 2004 (the first three to ever graduate from year twelve in remote communities) to approximately 20 last year, and an expected 80 this year, (figures from former Minister for Education, Syd Sterling, Darwin, August 29, 2006).

SWIRL's success in engaging children in literacy activities is seen as crucial if these statistics are to continue to increase. When remote Aboriginal children drop out of school, they rarely recommence formal education.

Statistics for 2004 also show alarming literacy levels for remote Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory at the year three level. Results show 93% (89% at year 5) of mainstream Australian children successfully achieved literacy benchmarks; Australia-wide, 83% (70% at year 5) of Aboriginal children achieved literacy benchmarks, while only 20% (21% at year 5) of remote NT Aboriginal children were tested as achieving benchmarks (Storry, K., 2006). While this statistic is seriously flawed, as these children were tested in a language that was foreign to them - English, which is generally their 2^nd, 3^rd, or in many cases, their 4^th language, there is no doubting that Aboriginal children in remote communities are significantly behind their mainstream and other Indigenous peers in their quest for literacy.

It is interesting to note that nationally students scored lower in year 5 than in year 3 for mainstream as well as Aboriginal children, but that there was stability, albeit minute, in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal children's scores. Generally, urban Aboriginal children Australia wide have English as their first language. Urban Aboriginal students in the Northern territory scored significantly better than their remote counterparts: 57% at year 3, and 62% at year 5 achieving national benchmarks.

These statistics seem to highlight a number of issues, one being testing per se, and another being the central focus on English, and non- Aboriginal cultures.

Even the testing regime to determine literacy levels requires adherence to the English language, with those in power either unaware, or in denial of the fact that children speak other languages as their first language, and their lifestyles and cultures reflect that fact. The content of the tests is also a critical factor in the test results, and there is much written on how that can determine children's test scores, but that is not covered in this paper.

Nicholls, Crowley and Watt argue that much of what has gone wrong with education of Aboriginal children is the flawed belief that Aboriginal children learn differently to mainstream children. They identified the practice and argue strongly against the notion of “Aboriginal Learning Styles”.

'Learning styles' theory is now thoroughly embedded into the pedagogical practices of almost every Australian institution with a brief for Aboriginal education; in fact, in all probability that means every educational institution of this nature (undated).

In the 1980 book “Culture and Learning: Tradition and Education in Northeast Arnhem Land” by Stephen Harris there are identified 'five major Aboriginal learning strategies' which Nicholls (et al), see as opposite to non-Aboriginal learning styles. Nicholls (et al) see this approach is inherently racist. The five “Aboriginal Learning Styles” and their mainstream equivalents are described as:

This understanding of education for Aboriginal children in remote communities is very widespread. Many presumptions are made, about the way Aboriginal children learn, and the system has been set up to institutionalise that understanding. That such an approach has been shown to be so unsuccessful, but has been entrenched for so long, is difficult to understand. It appears that the other advantage of continuing to believe that Aboriginal learning Styles are different to non-Aboriginal children is that the blame for not achieving the same results as non- Aboriginal children can be rested with them. The tests may be more about western culture than literacy.

At that time most schooling for Aboriginal children disregarded, indeed, actively suppressed, traditional knowledge and learning, concentrating exclusively on western content and learning. Under the assimilation policy, an often evangelical fervour had been brought to the task of teaching Aboriginal children white society's ways of living. The corollary of this was a conscious effort to stamp out Aboriginal lifeways (Nichols, et al, undated).

SWIRL, which accepts, and honours children's home cultures, began as a small informal relationship between Victoria University staff and students and remote communities with a focus on educational support, which directly and deliberately challenges the status of English as the initial, and only, vehicle for learning to be literate. SWIRL quickly developed with IBM support to a standard component of teacher education at Victoria University to complement and extend VU and IBM commitment to inclusion of Indigenous education in teacher education. It became evident that Aboriginal students in communities were highly engaged in the literacy and physical activity programs offered in SWIRL and the learning for everyone was significant. As the program has grown it demands a significant research and development focus to more fully document its impact and potential, particularly as it challenges the status quo.

SWIRL has been operating for 11 years with strong support from NT Department of Education Employment and Training and Australian Federal Government Department of Science, Education and Training, teachers and families in communities, IBM and Victoria University staff and preservice teachers. The most significant outcomes from SWIRL have been teacher recruitment and student engagement. Both are critical elements in the achievement of improved learning outcomes for young people and for community capacity building, while recognising that currently SWIRL operates for one month each year.

The data which we have analysed indicates a number of critical achievements have resulted from SWIRL, including improved teacher education, professional teacher learning, enhanced literacy skills for school students and successful teacher recruitment to NT Indigenous communities. As well Aboriginal children participate in the month long SWIRL initiative at double the attendance rate achieved normally in the schools. This increased engagement of young people in learning and literacy supports their longer term retention and achievement in education. To date this has been an engagement project for teacher education and community capacity building and it has not been possible to fund sustained research and development despite strong interest from other communities across Australia and universities who work with those communities.

Some Outcomes of SWIRL to date

Project Development Goals

With appropriate funding being granted, it is proposed to develop and expand SWIRL to a national project in conjunction with a consortium including Australian and State/Territory governments, IBM and at least 2 other universities as well as Victoria University.

Also with appropriate funding being granted, it is proposed to formalise the research layer around the project, with the following aims:

To identify and make explicit the effectiveness of SWIRL in

With the project now entering its 12^th year, many factors have been identified to assist each site of the project to have successful outcomes.

The distances in the Northern Territory are vast. This year's project involved delivering and retrieving participants from five locations a number of times over the month. A total of 14,500 kms was covered. One reason for this huge number of kilometres travelled is that the education department has been unable to allow our students to drive government vehicles, and to get themselves to their respective locations.

Change to this appears to have been achieved for 2007, where each remote location will have a Toyota “troop carrier” assigned for SWIRL student participant use. Each vehicle will be able to carry up to eleven people, which will enable each location to operate independently of the larger group.

Each community where SWIRL will be run will need to supply access to safe clean accommodation (house where possible, or classroom space, kitchen, showers, etc.) for students to use as a base. Housing is often a problem in remote communities, but generally the generosity of teachers, and community members means our teams are adequately catered for. All participants are prepared to camp in tents, but for the last three years this has not been necessary, as either a house, or an area of the school has been available for students to use as accommodation. There is always cooking equipment and showers and toilets available in remote community schools, which makes using these facilities adequate for the whole program.

SWIRL participants also need access to the school and school support equipment (e.g. laminators, book binders, digital cameras, etc) The SWIRL program supplies all consumables.

As Aboriginal cultures vary greatly from region to region, it is important for each participating school to nominate a supportive staff member to introduce students to appropriate community members, who then inform the SWIRL team of community requirements of visitors, local taboos, protocols for each location and general requests.

The school staff are also requested to assist the SWIRL team identify young school leavers who may be willing to work with Student teachers in the setting up and running of ongoing publishing in each community after the SWIRL team departs. There is limited success in this field due to the complex nature of each community, and the rapid change generally occurring in many communities.

Isolation is one of the factors in the high turnover of teaching and school staff. SWIRL has deliberately set out to lessen the impact of that isolation with the use of technology. Therefore access to Internet and email facilities is seen as crucial. On a number of occasions, where that access has not been possible, SWIRL participants have experienced many personal difficulties, which has diminished the whole experience for them. Many teachers in remote communities have not had experience with Internet and email, and so it is not unusual to be without access, although this is becoming less of an issue each year. It appears that the strong sense of isolation experienced by many visitors to remote Aboriginal communities is a factor in the amount of time they stay. We have found that any sense of isolation is diminished by several factors, including being a member of a supportive small group, regular, daily access to Internet and email, and return to a main centre as often as possible, preferably weekly.

In line with that attempt to lessen the feelings of isolation, the SWIRL program has operated a web site through the “MSN” network. Students have been able to chat, discuss issues, and plan social events in main population centres for weekends throughout SWIRL. For reasons of security, this access was denied schools for the last two years, again greatly diminishing the personal and professional experience for many participants. Many SWIRL participants are also regular users of video conferencing hardware and software, making contact with friends and family over great distances a highly valuable experience. The NT school network has had a block on video conferencing, frustrating SWIRL participants' attempts to stay in close contact with family and friends. NT education administrators have agreed to allow SWIRL participants access to both MSN networks and video conferencing for 2007 SWIRL.

The Future.

We are currently developing plans for the future working with a range of Aboriginal leaders, education systems, particularly Western Australia and Queensland, and our partner, IBM.

References:

A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, Volume 66 Number 1, Spring 1996 ISSN 0017-8055

Cazden, C. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann, 1988

Cazden, C. Whole language plus: Essays on literacy in the United States and New

Zealand. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. Productive diversity: Organizational life in the age of civic

pluralism and total globalisation. Sydney: Harper Collins,1995.

Nicholls, Christine. Crowley, Vicki. & Watt, Ron Theorising Aboriginal Education:
Surely it's time to move on? Education Australia Online (Undated). http://edoz.com.au/educationaustralia/contents/pastconts.html

Storry, Kirsten. Tackling Literacy In remote Aboriginal Communities. Centre for Independent Studies, Issue Analysis, No. 73, 31 August, 2006

Assoc Prof Brenda Cherednichenko

Director, Access and Success

Victoria University

Tel: 61 3 99197594

Fax: 61 3 99197574

Email: Brenda.Cherednichenko@vu.edu.au

Lawry Mahon

SWIRL Co-ordinator

School of Education Victoria University

Tel: 61 3 99194192

Fax: 99194267

Email: Lawry.Mahon@vu.edu.au

SWIRL and Talking Books

31/7/06 1