Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1492-6156 (Print) 1942-4051 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

A Critical Review of Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK) in Science Education

Eun-Ji Amy Kim, Anila Asghar & Steven Jordan

To cite this article: Eun-Ji Amy Kim, Anila Asghar & Steven Jordan (2017): A Critical Review
of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Science Education, Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education, DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2017.1380866

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2017.1380866

Accepted author version posted online: 21

Sep 2017.
Published online: 06 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 58

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjs20

Download by: [McGill University Library] Date: 07 December 2017, At: 06:15
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
https://doi.org/./..

A Critical Review of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in

Science Education
Eun-Ji Amy Kim , Anila Asghar, and Steven Jordan
Department of Integrated Studies in Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

What is traditional ecological knowledge? In many disciplines, including sci-

ence education, anthropology, and resource management, it has been con-
flated with Indigenous knowledges, which has contributed to misunderstand-
ings. This article explores the history of traditional ecological knowledge and
examines its contemporary conceptualizations in science education. We argue
that traditional ecological knowledge and Indigenous knowledges are dis-
tinct, emphasizing that traditional ecological knowledge is a form of cultural
and intellectual appropriation that modifies Indigenous knowledges to bet-
ter fit a conventional Western modern science framework. Our article explores
how contemporary understandings of traditional ecological knowledge have
shaped the development of science education curricula.
RÉSUMÉ
En quoi consistent les connaissances écologiques traditionnelles? Dans
de nombreuses disciplines, y compris l’enseignement des sciences,
l’anthropologie et la gestion des ressources, elles sont plus ou moins
devenues synonymes de savoirs autochtones, ce qui a contribué à créer cer-
tains malentendus. Cet article explore l’histoire des connaissances écologiques
traditionnelles et analyse les conceptualisations qu’on en fait aujourd’hui
en enseignement des sciences. Nous soulignons que les connaissances
écologiques traditionnelles et les savoirs autochtones sont distincts, et nous
insistons sur le fait que les connaissances écologiques traditionnelles sont
une forme d’appropriation culturelle et intellectuelle qui modifie les savoirs
autochtones de sorte qu’ils s’adaptent mieux au cadre scientifique occidental
moderne. L’article analyse comment certaines lectures contemporaines
des connaissances écologiques traditionnelles continuent d’influencer le
développement des curriculums en enseignement des sciences.

Introduction
The integration of Indigenous perspectives within education has been initiated by education ministries
in settler-countries around the world, including Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), and Canada. In the
Canadian context, with the release of the final Truth and Reconciliation Commission report in 2015,
“developing culturally appropriate curricula” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015,
p. 2) became an important goal for further reconciliation between Indigenous peoples. The programs
and research associated with integrating Indigenous knowledges (IKs) into science teaching and learn-
ing have expanded based on the four major themes: (a) equity of learning outcomes for students from
non-Western backgrounds, (b) contributions of IK to the knowledge base of Western modern science

CONTACT Eun-Ji Amy Kim eun-ji.kim@mail.mcgill.ca Department of Integrated Studies in Education, Faculty of Education,
McGill University,  McTavish Street, Room , Education Building, Montreal, QC HA Y, Canada.
©  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
 2 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

(WMS), (c) environmental concerns over sustainability, and (d) inclusion of the nature, philosophy, and
limits of science (McKinley & Stewart, 2012). In these programs and literature on Indigenous science
education, the term traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) has started to appear. Relatedly, the inclusion
of TEK in science education is currently being advocated in Canada. For instance, the British Columbia
Ministry of Education (2005) asserted in its Grades 7 and 8 official science curricula that “this knowledge
[TEK] with its characteristic respect for sustaining community and environment offers proven concep-
tual approaches which are becoming increasingly important to all B.C. residents” (p. 11).
Answering the question what is TEK? is complex; as Anishinaabe scholar Deborah McGregor (2006)
noted, the response depends on who provides the definition of TEK. In turn, as van Eijick and Roth
(2007) noted, TEK has become “a topic of debate itself ” because of its “intangible nature” created by
competing definitions. For example, though TEK is generally associated with Indigenous groups, some
argue that TEK is not exclusive to Indigenous groups. Hence, different understandings of TEK have pro-
liferated since its first appearance in the science education field. However, TEK does not represent the
entirety of Indigenous knowledge and should be seen as a “subset of the broader categories of Indigenous
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

science (IS) and IK” (Snively & Williams, 2016, p. 8). In other words, TEK has been created using a few
concepts arising from IS and IK in relation to Western scientific disciplines, such as ecology, anthropol-
ogy, and resource management. As John Cordell (1995) problematized, the practice of wielding these
acronyms “hardly without batting an eye” has further contributed to the opacity of TEK as a concept,
resulting in multiple, often competing, definitions (para. 5).
This article calls for a critical exploration of the philosophical grounding of TEK, particularly its cur-
rent status within science education and its relationship to Indigenous knowledges, in order to avoid
more confusion regarding TEK and the appropriation of Indigenous knowledges (Mueller & Tippins,
2009). Many Indigenous scholars, including Battiste and Henderson (2000), have continued to voice
concern regarding the status and protection of Indigenous intellectual property rights, which have his-
torically been appropriated by WMS and defined in Eurocentric terms, often distorting knowledges held
by Indigenous peoples. Therefore, in this article, we review diverse stances and competing conceptual-
izations TEK in science education and illustrate that TEK should not be treated as the same as Indigenous
knowledges. This investigation ultimately raises questions about the legitimacy of presenting TEK as an
indigenous concept in science education.

The origins of the term traditional ecological knowledge

Ballard (2001) has emphasized the need to distinguish between IK and TEK, because TEK does not typ-
ically reflect Indigenous methods or worldviews. According to Ballard (2001), Indigenous knowledges or
Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) are often used as umbrella terms to represent cursory understand-
ings of the knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples. Because of the groundedness of the knowledges
and practices of Indigenous peoples, communities have specific words, expressions, and names to denote
their knowledge system in their own languages (e.g., the Anishinaabe knowledge system for the Anishi-
naabe people in Lake St. Martin First Nation [Ballard, 2001] and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for Inuit people
in Nunavut [Nunavut Department of Education, 2005]). The question that confronts us, therefore, is how
did Indigenous knowledge systems get absorbed into this overarching term TEK?
Although the exact origin of the term is unknown, the term traditional ecological knowledge appears
to be an extension of the term traditional knowledge, which has often been used to refer to the knowl-
edges and practices of Indigenous peoples. Commissioned by International Union for Conservation for
Nature, Robert E. Johannes (1989) published a collection of essays that was one of the early publications
on TEK, wherein he referred to Australian Aborigines and Pacific Islanders as “traditional peoples” and,
by extension, labeled the practices and knowledge of Aborigines as traditional knowledge. He later dis-
cussed the “environmental wisdom of traditional cultures,” which he ultimately referred to as traditional
ecological knowledge (Johannes, 1989, p. 7). Indeed, scholars such as Dudgeon and Berkes (2003) stated
that TEK is a part of traditional/Indigenous knowledge(s) with “an emphasis upon ecological knowl-
edge” (p. 76). In this light, the term TEK does not represent the entirety of Indigenous knowledges and is
considered a subset of the broader category of IK (Snively & Corsglia, 2001). To this, Nadasdy (1999), an
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 3

anthropologist, argued that TEK is a form of academic appropriation of the Indigenous knowledges. TEK
is constructed based on Western’s interests in creating “science concrete”—factual knowledge about the
environment—out of Indigenous knowledges. In the same vein, Snively and Corsiglia (2001) reported
that the interests in teaching and research on TEK often come from outside of Indigenous communities.
As such, the context of the knowledges, including the relationship with the land, spiritual understanding,
and creation stories, gets “distilled” in the production of TEK.
Simpson (1999) also mentioned that TEK is “packaged” to fit within existing academia’s cultures and
values and as such the “production of TEK greatly increases the chances of misrepresenting and misin-
terpreting the knowledge of Aboriginal people[s]” (p. 6). Similarly, Aikenhead (2002) stated that TEK
“tends to be pervasively imbued with a Western perspective” because the concept was born by Western
academics in the first place (p. 289).
One of the ongoing consequences of this packaging of the practices and knowledge of Indigenous
peoples is the production of different definitions and conceptualizations depending on the interests
and needs of different peoples outside of Indigenous communities. As Said (1983) mentioned, these
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

practices and knowledges from Indigenous communities take up new meaning and/or generate new
thought through mobilization (i.e., travel), resulting in different implications for IK and TEK. In turn,
new ideas and theories are inspired. The concept of TEK has moved through different formations forged
by researchers across time and place, resulting in new and different conceptualizations and definitions.

TEK(S): Polygon frameworks

TEK offers fragmented visions of Indigenous knowledges that are distilled and packaged based on the
different genres and cultures of WMS-driven disciplines (Nadasdy, 1999; Simpson, 1999). Within each
discipline in which IK is situated, it is given a new, different identity; as a result, competing conceptual-
izations of TEK have emerged. Because of this, Houde (2007) remarked that TEK should be considered
in a plural form; that is, TEKs. He argued that these TEKs should be synthesized in an attempt to provide
current conceptualizations of TEK in the co-management field. He represented this synthesis of TEK as
a polygon “held together by the cosmological underpinning that gives meaning to the knowledge sys-
tem” (Houde, 2007, p. 35). This TEK polygon consists of six different yet “interconnected and mutually
informing faces,” including the cosmological underpinning (Houde, 2007, p. 4; Figure 1).
The three bottom faces are those that non-Indigenous scholars tend to focus on, because they embody
“concrete” science, whereas the remaining faces emphasize values, ethics, and cultural identities of
Indigenous peoples. This framework allowed us to present different stances and definitions of TEK
employed by scholars and educators in science education.
Following Houde’s (2007) polygon framework as a base, we synthesized the pedagogical typology of
different ways in which TEK has been conceptualized in science education literature and offered some
examples from Canadian science curricula. Considering our understanding of TEK as something dif-
ferent than Indigenous knowledges, we focused on scholarship that used the term TEK. From this, we
generated a science education TEK polygon, called the TEK pedagogical typology, which has five faces
(Figure 2).

Figure . The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge. Reproduced from Houde, , p. .
 4 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

Figure . TEK pedagogical polygon in science education.

The two faces at the bottom, which focus on environmental education perspectives, are in line with the
first three faces of Houde’s (2007) pentagon (Figure 1), which focus on factual knowledge, resource man-
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

agement systems and how they are adapted to local environments, and past and current uses of the envi-
ronment. In addition, some scholars use these two faces of pedagogical typology to emphasize the bene-
fits of integrating TEK into science education for all students (McConney, Oliver, Woods-McConney, &
Schibeci, 2011).

First face: Place-based teaching approach

Place-based education adopts the social, cultural, economic, political, and natural aspects of local envi-
ronments (G. A. Smith, 2002). However, much literature in science education tends to focus solely on the
natural environment. Indeed, with the growing interest in experiential and informal learning approaches,
teaching practices and curricula that involve local environments and students’ lived experiences are
becoming a popular research topic in the field of science education (Asghar, 2012). Place-based teaching
approaches engage students in learning science in their own context and provide them with opportuni-
ties to have authentic interactions with their social and physical environments.
TEK is seen as “closely tied to place … exceptionally detailed knowledge of local plants and animals
and their natural history” (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001, p. 16). In addition, pedagogy involving TEK offers a
direct, experiential learning within which the land and its inhabitants are recognized as primary knowl-
edge sources, thus incorporating learners’ lived experiences into the process of learning science. In this
light, TEK plays a role in guiding science students to experience their local land as a knowledge source,
which includes its climate, soil, water, mountains, lakes, and forests (Kimmerer, 2012). In essence, place-
based science teaching approaches emphasize the scientific and ecological worth that comes from the
locality of TEK.
van Eijck and Roth (2007) also celebrated the locality of TEK, arguing that its usefulness and practi-
cality could help overcome debates concerning universalism vs. multiculturalism in science education.
Viewing TEK as different than science and incommensurate to WMS, van Eijick and Roth (2007) sug-
gested that TEK is a legitimate form of knowledge to solve a diversity of problems in everyday life, par-
ticularly in the specific geographic locations where TEK is produced. This usage of local knowledge in
place-based approaches is seen in a few Canadian curricula. For instance, the British Columbia Ministry
of Education’s (2005) Grade 7 curriculum suggested that teachers “provide students with historical and
current information on the use of aquatic resources by First Nations peoples in B.C” (p. 67). As van Eijick
and Roth (2007) suggested, TEK is based on knowledge that has been acquired from enduring relation-
ships with geographical locations. Thus, it allows students to gain natural historical knowledge of local
places and make sense of their everyday lives and their surrounding environments and promotes their
decision-making skills with regards to environmental management (Lopik, 2012).
However, Alsop and Fawcett (2010) cautioned against uncritical celebration of the localness of TEK.
The notion of local knowledge as bounded and thus “pure” from globalization may produce a parochial
view of the environment and community knowledges, leading to topological essentialism. In turn, Alsop
and Fawcett (2010) and Mueller and Tippins (2010) advocated for a nondeterministic and evolving view
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 5

of TEK, because all things in a given place are inwardly connected to a specific history and politics and
multiple interpretations of the place, as well as connected outwardly to global society.
Moreover, the whole notion of place needs to be reconfigured as we attempt to strengthen a place-
based education approach that reflects Indigenous perspectives. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2002) has written
on the divergent views of time and space held by Indigenous peoples, noting that they have “different
orientations towards time and space, different positioning within time and space, and different systems
of language for making space and time ‘real’ underpin notions of past and present, of place and of
relationships to the land” (p. 52). However, the current notion of space is seen as consisting of parallel
or elliptical lines and is defined by Eurocentric mathematics and science-driven language that “attempts
to define with absolute exactness the parameters, dimensions, qualities and possibilities of space”
(L. T. Smith, 2002, p. 52). As L. T. Smith (2002) noted, this compartmentalized conception of space is
the result of colonization:
For the indigenous world, Western conceptions of space, of arrangements and display, of the relationship between
people and the landscape, of culture as an object of study, have meant that not only has the indigenous world been
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

represented in particular ways back to the West, but the indigenous world view, the land and the people, have been
radically transformed in the spatial image of the West. In other words, indigenous space has been colonized. (p. 52)

Indeed, as Ruitenberg (2005) eloquently explained, “Each place has a spatial configuration through
which power and other socio-politico-cultural mechanisms are at play” (p. 215). Therefore, one must
understand other dimensions of a place—social, cultural, and political aspects—in order to understand
its locality. The place-based education approach to TEK needs to move beyond natural phenomena and
look toward the history and current politics of a place to consider the power dynamics between local
Indigenous groups and settlers before deploying TEK or any Indigenous knowledges and practices in
science teaching.
As noted above, current science education discourses heavily focus on the benefits of learning about
nature (environment/ecology) through a place-based approach. Similarly, TEK is packaged in a way that
emphasizes the ecological aspect of Indigenous knowledges, and this focuses on the ecological worth
of knowledge present within science education, especially environmental education for sustainability,
another arena of science education that is garnering attention.

Second face: Environmental education for sustainability

TEK is promoted intensively within the discourse of education for sustainability. Environmental edu-
cation for sustainability, which focuses on place-based education rooted in inquiry learning, aims to
provide a holistic view of the environment (Chandra, 2014). The growing recognition of the knowledges
and practices of Indigenous peoples is related to the growth of sustainable development around the globe.
In turn, environmental education, which includes “activities that are by, with, or about Indigenous peo-
ples, their environments, and the peoples’ relations to the living and non-livings around them” (Reid,
Teamey, & Dillon, 2004, p. 238), has been increasingly promoted. For instance, UNESCO created the
Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future: A Multimedia Teacher Education Program as part of its
Educating for a Sustainable Future project (UNESCO, 2002). This program underscores that when inte-
grated into curricula, Indigenous knowledges can enhance learning attitudes and values for a sustainable
future. These acknowledgements from the United Nations and UNESCO are also reflected through the
Council of Ministers of Education of Canada’s (1999) report Educating for Sustainability, which stated
“Canada may want to play a role in the implementation of this [UNESCO’s sustainability project]” (p. 6).
To respond to this call from UNESCO, the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (1999)
created Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future. Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future
provides principles of sustainable development that were intended to be integrated into the curricula at
all grade levels; principle 22 specifically focuses on the participation of Indigenous peoples in educating
students.
Impacted by a growing recognition of the role and importance of Indigenous peoples in educating for
a sustainable future, this second face of TEK pedagogy pays attention to the interests of various stake-
holders for the purpose of “improving the scientific enterprise’s contribution to our planet’s sustainable
 6 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

future” (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007, p. 541). Kimmerer (2002) suggested that we need a drift in our
culture in the context of sustainability rather than new data or technologies. Full of potential models
for reciprocal exchanges with the earth, TEK promotes a culture of gratitude in classrooms and further
fruitful discussions around sustainability and land care (Kimmerer, 2012; McConney et al., 2011).
The second face is very much in line with the fourth face of Houde’s (2007) TEK polygon in co-
management, ethics, and values (Figure 1), which represents the “expression of values concerning correct
attitudes, often identified as values of respect, to adopt toward nonhuman animals, the environment in
general, and between humans” (para. 12). These aspects of the knowledge system make the most promi-
nent appearance within the Canadian curricula (Kim & Dionne, 2014). For example, there is a curricular
focus in British Columbia and Nunavut that draws on TEK as a way to help students develop respect for
the land and an appreciation of the complexity and beauty in the creation of and order in our universe
(British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2005; Nunavut Department of Education, 2005). For example,
one of Nunavut’s main learning outcomes is to “discuss what stewardship means” (Nunavut Department
of Education, 2005, p. 85). The Nunavut Department of Education (2005) continued, “Stewardship is the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

responsibility humans have for care taking of the Earth. We have the unique position to be able to destroy
or live sustainably on the Earth” (p. 85). This learning outcome encompasses the idea of stewardship with
respect to both knowledge and political systems. Snively and Corsiglia (2001) pinpointed the environ-
mental and social influences of TEK and contrasted this with WMS, which often focuses on controlled
conditions in laboratories. TEK, on the other hand, views the world as whole laboratories where humans
are a part of nature. TEK therefore is replete with social and ethical values that are beneficial for students
to learn about in their science classes. Cajete (2000) suggested that although IK is integrated with regard
to a particular “place” in the goal of sustainability, it is closely tied to land and spirituality. In other words,
Indigenous knowledges and practices are appropriated for teaching students about sustainability.
However, as illustrated previously, TEK in this second face distilled the spiritual aspect from IK. This
would be an example of what Garroutte (1999) refers to as “amputation of specific aspects of Native
knowledge from their larger context” including information received from ceremonies or traditional
sacred narratives (p. 103). Under such a lens, the sources of spiritual knowledge may be recognized as
“(in the best case) as significant ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ or (in the worst case) as superstitions” (Garroutte,
1999, p. 104). Indeed, Carter (2008) elucidated the cultural appropriation celebrated in promoting TEK
as such in order to promote the usefulness and benefits of it in promoting environmental sustainability;
the differences between TEK and WMS are marked and emphasized and, in turn, these differences are
cause for an appropriation of TEK to meet the needs of environmental problems in the West. These
differences between TEK and WMS are even more apparent in the promotion of multiculturalism in
science education.

Third face: Fostering multiculturalism in science education

The multiculturalist perspective in science education views science as a collective product to which
many cultures contributed and rejects the notion of universalism. In this respect, scientific knowledge
is approached from diverse, pluralistic commonalities. Mueller and Tippins (2010) suggested that sci-
ence education should recognize culturally diverse ways of knowing, a perspective that has contributed
to modern sciences. Education that acknowledges multiple perspectives—the principle of diversity—
ensures that knowledge from one culture (mainly WMS) will not be exclusive. In turn, Alsop and Fawcett
(2010) echoed Mueller and Tippins’ (2010) idea on the integration of TEK as a way to foster divergent
discourses and acknowledge the principle of cultural diversity in science education. Integration of TEK
into science education thus fosters an appreciation for intellectual and epistemological pluralism and
respectful consideration of other ways of knowing in science education (Kim & Dionne, 2014). There-
fore, this face of TEK takes into account the ties between cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems
and further integrates cultural and postcolonial views into science curricula (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007).
This face also highlights the differences, similarities, and synergies of different types of knowledge
systems that work together. In this light, rather than viewing TEK and WMS as being incommensurate,
Mueller and Tippins (2010) proposed that one must acknowledge that some parts of TEK were drawn
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 7

from WMS and some parts originated from local Indigenous knowledge. Put another way, TEK and
WMS are not mutually exclusive; we echo Mueller and Tippins’ (2010) notion that TEK consists of dif-
ferent entities, some of which originate from Indigenous knowledges and others that are embedded and
distilled in WMS. Here, we argue that when approaching TEK within the pedagogy of multicultural-
ism (and/or principled diversity) in science education, one must attempt to acknowledge the differences
between and similarities of, as well as relations between, the two systems (i.e., Indigenous knowledges
and WMS).
Kimmerer (2012), an environmental educator, used Berkes’s (2008) comparative frameworks in her
science teaching because it provided “an opportunity to consider different forms of knowledge valida-
tion, transmission and, application” (p. 320). Likewise, the Nunavut Department of Education (2005)
underscored the benefits of learning both systems:
Much more value, importance, and significance is being assigned to traditional [ecological] knowledge. It is very
important that during this module, the teacher recognize and respect the contribution of Inuit knowledge, values,
and beliefs as well as the concepts and methodologies of Western science. It is now accepted that when used together,
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

both Western science and traditional [Inuit] can provide a more complete understanding or picture of the world.
(p. 7)

Such curricula embody a plurality of ways of knowing nature, without maintaining the status quo of
either knowledge system. Some curricula in Canada situate Indigenous peoples and their knowledges
in cultural curriculum content in order to offer “science programs for a multicultural society” (Atlantic
Science Curriculum, 2002, p. 41). This type of approach, however, emphasizes the cultural aspect, more
than the scientific values, of TEK. As a result, some documents construct “otherness” when introducing
TEK and as a result trivialize the knowledges and practices of Indigenous communities. For example,
in Manitoba’s Grade 7 science unit on forces and structure, Aboriginal building structures, such as tipis,
quinzhees, and igloos, were introduced as scientific contributions and linked to building structures in
different countries, such as the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall of China. Moreover, the contributions
of Canada’s Aboriginal people were often mentioned as an example of “other cultures” in the Atlantic
provinces’ curriculum (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1998, p. 39), alongside the contributions
of Ancient Egyptian, Indian, Aztec, and Mayan cultures. Contextualizing TEK and Indigenous people’s
contributions as “other” overlooks the knowledge aspect of TEK and promotes TEK as primitive and
non-innovative (Kim & Dione, 2014). This contrasts with the ideal that “teachers should acknowledge
that there are many views of the origin of life” (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1998, p. 39). This
representation of TEK, which focuses solely on cultural values, might promote a multiculturalist per-
spective in science; however, it trivializes TEK as a knowledge system and does not provide any scientific
knowledge from TEK for students to learn (Kim & Dionne, 2014). Indeed, Carter (2004) delineated the
strategy (e.g., cultural representation and translation) that works
to separate, domesticate, and subsume, regulating the boundaries and preserving the integrity of Western science
and science education. Hence, the inclusion of the Other’s science in school curricula risks an empty form of plu-
ralism implicated in restorationist agendas to reassert Western cultural control. (p. 832)

This type of inclusion of the knowledge and practices of Indigenous peoples involves “selecting bits
of indigenous knowledge that fit, thus decontextualizing them from their basis” (Afonso, 2013, p. 27).
Moreover, we cannot overlook the hegemonic influences of WMS in constructing the discourses
around IK and TEK under the umbrella of the principle of diversity. Reis and Ng-A-Fook (2010)
reminded us of the power of language practice for creating and manifesting “socio-spatial separation”
(p. 1019) of Indigenous peoples (outsiders) and non-Indigenous peoples (insiders), especially within
discourses found in curricula and teaching communities, and suggested that “as teachers and educa-
tional researchers who are committed to braiding such diverse narrative strands we must pay particular
attention to the potential danger of reinscribing colonial frontier logics as yet another form of discursive
appropriation” (p. 1021). We concur with Reis and Ng-A-Fook (2010) regarding the danger of discur-
sive appropriation for IK, and we add that teachers and researchers also need to consider the risk of
essentializing the diversity of different Indigenous communities. Within the discourse of the principle of
 8 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

diversity, Indigenous peoples and their knowledges, often represented as “Others” in science curricula,
are also essentialized and tokenized, as seen in the curricula example above.

Fourth face: Culturally relevant curricula for Indigenous students

Scholars, including Mueller and Tippins (2010), have suggested that the integration of TEK should meet
the needs of Indigenous students. Unlike the others, this TEK face specifically targets the benefits of cul-
turally relevant/responsive pedagogies and curriculum for Indigenous students. This face of TEK focuses
on revitalizing Indigenous students’ cultural identities as well as facilitating their learning in science.
Aikenhead and Michell (2011), Hatcher, Bartlett, Marshall, and Marshall (2009), and Jegede (1999) high-
lighted the importance of culturally relevant curricula for Indigenous students; that is, curricula that inte-
grate both Western and Indigenous sciences (e.g., cultural border crossing; two-eyed learning; collateral
learning theory). Battiste (2007) supported this type of cross-cultural pedagogy, because it “strengthens
their [Indigenous students’] fluency in examining and critiquing their own scientific framework and pro-
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

vides experience in working within an alternative worldview” (p. 320). Snively and Corsglia (2001) also
echoed the benefits of integrating TEK for Indigenous students as it offers a space for “teachers to probe
for and incorporate the prior belief of Indigenous children” (p. 26), which in turn encourages mutual
respect and appreciation for Indigenous knowledges in science classrooms. Such science education can
give them an incredible tie to the past and respect for the future and can help restore their historical pride
(Hamlin, 2013; Lopik, 2012). However, given that TEK is a Western approach that proves a packaged and
distilled version of Indigenous knowledges (Nadasdy, 1999; Simpson, 1999), we raise the question: How
could a construct that emerged from Western processes help revitalize cultural identities for the Indige-
nous students? To answer these questions, it is important to look at the cosmological grounding of the
conceptualization of TEK in science education.

Fifth face: TEK cosmology

This face of TEK provides the cosmological underpinning of the TEK polygon. It relates to “the assump-
tions and beliefs about how things work” (Houde, 2007, para. 23). Native sciences do not believe that all
variables can be accounted for (i.e., the world cannot be controlled; each community has its own rules;
Lopik, 2012). Rather, Native sciences emphasize the interconnectedness of all things and their relations
to the land (Cajete, 2000; Menzies & Butler, 2006).
Because TEK is land based and culturally specific, it holds a wide variety of knowledges. Cultural cos-
mology therefore plays a large role in the lives of people who live in different landscapes, as they construct
and dynamically interpret their experiences and knowledge. Houde (2007) pinpointed some of the chal-
lenges of this face. He noted that scholars have tended to perceive TEK as a different and separate system
than Western modern science, thus creating a divide between the knowledge systems. However, we argue
that TEK is partially embedded in WMS and is appropriated for the purpose of complementing WMS-
based research and education (Simpson, 1999). TEK cosmology thus is different from IK cosmology.
Whereas IK cosmology is grounded in creation, TEK cosmology relies on specific ecological knowledge
and practices that parallel WMS and are void of any of the spiritual aspects from IKS (Simpson, 2004).
To uncover the cosmology of TEK represented in science education, we turn to Lee Maracle’s (personal
communication, February 27, 2014) concept of teaching about relationships among different knowledge
systems.
Referring to the medicinal wheel, L. Maracle (personal communication, February 27, 2014), a tradi-
tional teacher of Salish and Cree ancestry and a member of the Stó:lō Nation, noted that in Indigenous
perspectives, learning should engage four different elements of the human: mind, body, emotion, and
spirit. Kimmerer (2012) also highlighted the importance of incorporating these elements as the philo-
sophical grounding for TEK in science education. In Indigenous perspectives, knowledge is a collective
construct and it comes with responsibility. Thus, not all knowledge is meant to be shared, as is reflected in
the belief that some spiritual knowledge should not be taught in the classroom (Kimmerer, 2012). McGre-
gor (2004) highlighted the importance of knowing Indigenous peoples’ understandings of the world in
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 9

the form of Creation stories or those conceptual frameworks that provide an Indigenous understanding
of relationships with all of Creation. McGregor (2006) pointed out that these Creation stories highlight
interconnectedness and also that “knowledge comes from the Creator and from Creation itself ” (p. 388).
However, this relationship with Creation, which provides the cosmological grounding of Indigenous
knowledge systems, is virtually missing in current conceptualizations of TEK in science education. Spir-
ituality was distilled in the packaging process under the empiricist philosophy of science. For example,
scientists and resource managers interested in gathering the TEK of Dall sheep were only interested in
certain kinds of information (e.g., community members’ observations of sheep). They were not inter-
ested in the worldviews, stories, and values of the community members, although these are vital aspects
of the knowledge (Nadasdy, 1999). Unfortunately, this is the current treatment of TEK cosmology in sci-
ence education. The knowledge may have originated from Indigenous knowledges, which was grounded
in spiritual realms and had a holistic meaning for knowledge holders; however, the emphasis on the
environment of the non-Indigenous empiricist point of view resulted in the extraction and packaging of
selective parts of the knowledge system to make them accessible to students as TEK.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

For example, Hamlin (2013) introduced the Vitality Index of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
(VITEK) to identify and use TEK to make science teaching culturally relevant for Mayan girls. The
VITEK shows how IK was packaged in order to complement WMS in the name of providing TEK con-
tent for culturally responsive teaching. This tool introduces the “cosmopolitan domains of TEK,” which
are subdivided into two overarching domain categories: conceptual knowledge (e.g., animal and plant
relationships) and practical skills (e.g., food preservation skills) (Hamlin, 2013, p. 765). VITEK is an
example of Carter’s (2004) notion of the cultural translation of TEK:
The superimposition of the dominant way of seeing, speaking, and thinking onto the colonized is apparent in TEK
configured by Western researchers … the degree of value depends on TEK’s translatability, that is, its removal
from the original historical and cultural context of production and its ease of relocation into the mainstream.
(pp. 829–830)

Indeed, Mueller and Tippins (2010) also echoed the nature of TEK, stating that although TEK should
be validated as a legitimate construct, it is “a Western conception of traditional ways of knowing the
natural world” (p. 996). As a result, many Indigenous scholars (e.g., Battiste, 2007; Dei, Hall, & Rosenberg,
2001; McGregor, 2004; Simpson, 2004; L. T. Smith, 2002) have been concerned about what happens when
Indigenous knowledges leave Indigenous communities. For instance, Indigenous peoples do not often
get invited to participate in science education policymaking processes. It is important to have Indigenous
peoples involved in both the extraction of knowledge (i.e., collecting and documenting) and the sharing
process (i.e., teaching and curriculum development). This could include bringing knowledge holders
into the classroom, as well as bringing students to the knowledge holders outside the classroom (Kim
& Dionne, 2014). This would allow Indigenous knowledge holders to have governance over knowledge
systems within the public domain.

Completing our journey

As observed in past academic research from different disciplines, such as science education, anthropol-
ogy, and resource management, the arbitrariness and ambiguity of what TEK entails, as well its relation-
ship with IK, have contributed to a lack of shared understanding of the nature of TEK. Because the use
and validation of the knowledge of Indigenous peoples is socially and politically constructed, it is impor-
tant for scholars and practitioners in science education to look at the sociology and politics of science in
which TEK is embedded.
Nadasdy (1999) wrote about the danger of TEK becoming “a meaningless buzzword” (p. 11). Indeed,
he asserted that TEK is often used to avoid the difficult task of specific cross-cultural negotiation and
understanding that is inherent in academia. Thus, we need to begin with the understanding that TEK is
the product of Western packaging of Indigenous knowledges that does not represent Indigenous knowl-
edge systems in their entirety and that is not wholly grounded in Indigenous philosophical and spiritual
relationships with the Creator and the land.
 10 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

This leads us back to a question we raised in the discussion of the fourth face (i.e., culturally rele-
vant curricula for Indigenous students): How could a construct that emerged from Western processes
help revitalize the education of Indigenous students? To answer this, we turn to First Nations, Metis,
and Inuit holistic lifelong learning models (Canadian Council on Learning, 2007). Although there was
no mention of Western knowledge in the Métis model, both the First Nations and Inuit models repre-
sent their sources of knowledge domains as having come from both Indigenous and Western knowledge
systems. The First Nations model refers to the intertwining presence of Indigenous and Western knowl-
edge, and the Inuit model refers to walking in two worlds. However, as Lee Maracle (personal commu-
nication, February 27, 2014) stated, Western knowledge and Indigenous knowledges may go together
like a cup and coffee. They may complement one another and work together, but the cup is not the cof-
fee and the coffee is not the cup; hence, they should not be treated as one and the same. She further
illustrated the relationship between different knowledge systems by comparing them to rivers. There
are many rivers on the land. Some rivers merge; some go separate ways. However, if all rivers were to
merge together, there would be a catastrophe and the world would die. IK and WMS are like streams
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

of a river. They may come together at some points, but they are not the same. When trying to work
within both systems, we must see the relationships between the systems and facilitate them to work
together, but we need to acknowledge their separateness as well. Such a view of looking at IK and WMS
resonates with McGregor’s (2000) co-existence model, which “promotes functioning of both systems
side by side … the model of co-existence encourages equality, mutual respect, support, and coopera-
tion” (p. 454). Garroutte (1999) also suggested that such “explicit recognition of different ways of know-
ing” nature allows teachers and students to embrace diverse sources of knowledge to understand nature
(p. 104).
TEK may be the merging point of IK and WMS, as an example of Mueller and Tippins’ (2010)
both/and pedagogy, which focuses on relational epistemologies that look at different knowledges with
“nonhierarchical and nondualistic thinking” to achieve “more inclusive and respectful of other [non-
WMS] voices of scholars who contributed to the diversity of science” (p. 999). Such both/and pedagogy
is transcultural and transdisciplanary. Meanwhile, as L. Maracle (personal communication, February
27, 2014) stated, when “trying to put two knowledge systems together, one of them will be diminished,
which no longer represents the knowledge within its own context.” Therefore, when integrating Indige-
nous knowledges into science education, it is essential to create a venue for true experts to share their
knowledge directly with learners (Garoutte, 1999; Kim & Dionne, 2014). In addition, proper credit to
knowledge holders and communities must be given in order to avoid diminishing or misrepresenting
knowledges.
In this article, we have explored the history and origin of TEK and current pedagogical conceptu-
alizations of the knowledge system in science education. The traveling story of TEK tells us that TEK
should not be treated as identical to IK because it has undergone processes of compartmentalization and
distillation. TEK is a product of fitting IK into a WMS framework and therefore the appropriation of IK.
Instead of appropriating the knowledge as one entity, it must be understood that TEK is the product of
both WMS and IK. Rather than teaching future generations about TEK as if it were Indigenous knowl-
edge, we need to acknowledge its origins and the role it plays in colonizing our education system. Yet, the
dichotomous positions of IK and WMS continue to be perpetuated within science education literature.
We contend that educators and researchers must appreciate different ways of knowing and be open to the
knowledge that can be gained by drawing on both systems to gain a broader understanding of our world
(Aikenhead, 2002; McGregor, 2000). Instead of pitting knowledge systems against each other, such as IK
versus WMS, both knowledge systems should be allowed to coexist harmoniously, such as IK vis-à-vis
WMS, to encourage as Fitznor (2012) remarked:
critically and wholistically grounded educators [and researchers] [who] look beyond the general Euro-dominant
mapping of our scholarships and commit to embed them with clearly articulated principles of diversity, inclusion,
advocacy, activism, transformative learning, spirituality, shape-shifting understanding and voice-raising to prevent
further infringement upon peoples at risk: Indigenous peoples, cultures and ecosystems. (p. 271)
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 11

ORCID
Eun-Ji Amy Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6545-1035

References
Afonso, E. Z. (2013). Rethinking the history of inclusion of IKS in school curricula: Endeavoring to legitimate the subject.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 23–42. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9382-8
Aikenhead, G. S. (2002). Cross-cultural science teaching: Rekindling Traditions for Aboriginal students. Canadian Journal
of Science, Mathmatics and Technology Education, 2(3), 287–304. doi:10.1080/14926150209556522
Aikenhead, G. S., & Michell, H. (2011). Bridging cultures: Indigenous and scientific ways of knowing nature. Don Mills, ON,
Canada: Pearson.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural Studies of Science Education,
2(3), 539–620. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

Alsop, S., & Fawcett, L. (2010). After this nothing happened. Cultural Studies of Education, 5(4), 1027–1045.
doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9298-y
Asghar, A. (2012). Informal science context: Implications of formal science learning. Learning Landscape, 5(2), 55–72.
Atlantic Science Curriculum. (2002). Science Grade 7. Retrieved from http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/ed_gr7_scig
uide.pdf
Ballard, M. (2001). Flooding sustainable livelihoods of the Lake St. Martin First Nation: The need to enhance the role of
gender and language in Anishinaabe knowledge systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Battiste, M. (2007). The struggle and renaissance of Indigenous knowledge in Eurocentric education. In M. Villegas, S. Rak
Neugebauer, & K. R. Venegas (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge and education: Sites of struggle, strength, and survivance
[Harvard Education Review Reprint Series No. 44] (pp. 85–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing
Group.
Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge. Saskatoon, SK,
Canada: Purich Press Publishing.
Berkes, F. (2003). Alternatives to conventional management: Lessons from small-scale fisheries. Environments, 31(1), 5–19.
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2005). Science Grade 7. In Integrated Resource Package 2005. Retrieved from
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp//pdfs/sciences/2005scik7.pdf
Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2007). Lessons in learning: The cultural divide in science education for Aboriginal learners.
Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/Feb-01-07-The-cultural-divide-in-science.pdf
Carter, L. (2004). Thinking differently about cultural diversity: Using postcolonial theory to (re)read science education.
Science Education, 88(6), 819–836. doi:10.1002/sce.20000
Carter, L. (2008). Recovering traditional ecological knowledge (TEK): Is it always what it seems? Transnational Curriculum
Inquiry, 5(1), 17–25.
Chandra, D. V. (2014). Re-examining the importance of Indigenous perspectives in the Western environmental education
for sustainability: “From tribal to mainstream education.” Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(1), 117–
127. doi:10.2478/jtes-2014-0007
Cordell, J. (1995). Review of traditional ecological knowledge (N. M. Williams and G. Baines Eds.). Journal of Political
Ecology, 2, 43–47. Retrieved from http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_2/cordellvol2.htm
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1999). Educating for sustainability: The status of sustainable development in
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/9/environment.en.pdf
Dei, G. J., Hall, B. L., & Rosenberg, G. D. (2001). Introduction. In G. Sefa, B. L. Hall, & G. D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous
knowledge in global contexts: Multiple readings of our worlds (pp. 3–20). Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Dudgeon, R. C., & Berkes, F. (2003). Local understandings of the land: Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous
knowledge. In H. Selin (Ed.), Nature across (pp. 75–96). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fitznor, L. (2012). Indigenous scholars and writing through narratives and storying for healing and bridging. In J. Hendry
& L. Fitznor (Eds.), Anthropologies, Indigenous scholars and the research endeavour (pp. 270–284). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Garroutte, E. M. (1999). American Indian science education: The second step. American Indian Culture and Research Jour-
nal, 23(4), 91–114. doi:10.17953/aicr.23.4.n4j384015lx12423
Hamlin, M. L. (2013). “Yo soy indigena”: Identifying and using traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to make the
teaching of science culturally responsive for Maya girls. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(4), 759–776.
doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9514-7
 12 E.-J. A. KIM ET AL.

Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-eyed seeing in the classroom environment: Con-
cepts, approaches, and challenges. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(3), 141–153.
doi:10.1080/14926150903118342
Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian
co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34. doi:10.5751/ES-02270-120234. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34
Jegede, O. J. (1999). Science education in nonwestern cultures: Towards a theory of collateral learning. In L. M. Semali &
J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), What is Indigenous knowledge?: Voices from the academy (pp. 119–142). New York, NY: Falmer
Press.
Johannes, R. E. (1989). Introduction. In R. E. Johannes (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: A collection of essays
(pp. 5–9). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN (The World Conservation Union).
Kim, E. A., & Dionne, L. (2014). Traditional ecological knowledge in science education and its integration in Grades 7
and 8 Canadian science curriculum documents. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
14(4), 311–329. doi:10.1080/14926156.2014.970906
Kimmerer, R. W. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience,
52(5), 432–438. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5b0432:WTEKIB%5d2.0.CO;2
Kimmerer, R. W. (2012). Searching for synergy: Integrating traditional scientific ecological knowledge in environmental
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017

science education. Journal of Environmental Studies of Science, 2(4), 317–323. doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0091-y

Lopik, W. (2012). Traditional ecological knowledge in the tribal college classroom. Journal Environmental Studies Science,
2(4), 341–345. doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0095-7
McConney, A., Oliver, M., Woods-McConney, A., & Schibeci, R. (2011). Bridging the gap? A comparative, retrospective
analysis of science literacy and interests in science for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 2017–2035. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.529477
McGregor, D. (2000). The state of traditional ecological knowledge research in Canada: A critique of current theory and
practice. In R. F. Laliberte, P. Sette, J. B. Waldram, R. Innes, B. Macdougall, L. McBain, & F. L. Barron (Eds.), Expressions
in Canadian native studies (pp. 436–458). Saskatoon, SK, Canada: University of Saskatchewan Extension Press.
McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment and our future. American Indian Quarterly,
28, 385–410. doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0101
McGregor, D. (2006). Traditional ecological knowledge. Ideas: The Arts and Science Review, 3. Retrieved from
http://www.silvafor.org/assets/silva/PDF/DebMcGregor.pdf
McKinley, E., & Stewart, G. M. (2012). Out of place: Indigenous knowledge (IK) in the science curriculum. In B. Fraser,
K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 541–554). New York, NY:
Springer.
Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. (2006). Introduction: Understanding ecological knowledge. In C. R. Menzies (Ed.), Traditional
ecological knowledge and natural resource management (pp. 1–21). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Mueller, M., & Tippins, D. (2009). van Eijck and Roth’s utilitarian science education: Why the recalibration of science
and traditional ecological knowledge invokes multiple perspectives to protect science education from being exclusive.
Cultural Studies in Science Education, 5(4), 993–1007.
Mueller, M., & Tippins, D. (2010). van Eijck and Roth’s utilitarian science education: Why the recalibration of science
and traditional ecological knowledge invokes multiple perspectives to protect science education from being exclusive.
Cultural Studies in Science Education, 5(4), 993–1007 doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9236-z
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the “integration” of knowledge. Artic Anthropology, 36(1–2), 1–18.
National Round Table on Environment and Economy. (1999). Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_gs/mod0b.html
Nova Scotia Department of Education. (1998). Foundations of the Atlantic Canada Science Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.ednet.ns.ca/files/curriculum/camet/foundations-science.pdf
Nunavut Department of Education. (2005). Diversity: A teacher’s resource package for Grades 7 to 9 science. Author.
Reid, A., Teamey, K., & Dillon, J. (2004). Valuing and utilizing TEK: Tensions in the context of educational and the envi-
ronment. Environmental Education Research, 10(2), 237–254. doi:10.1080/13504620242000198195
Reis, G., & Ng-A-Fook, N. (2010). TEK talk: So what? Language and the decolonization of narrative gatekeepers of science
education curriculum. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 1009–1026. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9299-x
Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Deconstructing the experience of the local: Toward a radical pedagogy of place. In K. Howe (Ed.),
Philosophy of education 2005 (pp. 212–220). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Said, E. (1983). The world, the text, the critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Simpson, L. R. (1999). The construction of TEK: Issues, implications and insights (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
University of Manitoba Theses Data Base: http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/handle/1993/2210
Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous knowledge. American Indian
Quarterly, 28, 373–384. doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0107
Smith, G. A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 584–594.
doi:10.1177/003172170208300806
Smith, L. T. (2002). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London, England: Zed.
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 13

Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering Indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education,
85(1), 6–34. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1%3c6::AID-SCE3%3e3.0.CO;2-R
Snively, G., & Williams, W. L. (2016). Knowing home: Braiding Indigenous science with Western science, Book 1. Victoria,
BC, Canada: University of Victoria Press.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Calls to action. Retrieved from http://www.trc.ca/websites/
trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
UNESCO. (2002). Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0012/001252/125238e.pdf
van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2007). Keeping the local local: Recalibrating the status of science and traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK) in science education. Science Education, 91(6), 926–947. doi:10.1002/sce.20227
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 06:15 07 December 2017