Learning On the Land: Evaluating the Efficacy of Land-Based Programming

In recent years in Manitoba, there has been a rapid expansion of land-based learning as Divisions strive to implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the pillars of “Mamàhtawisiwin: The Wonder We Are Born With” Framework for learning. Yet, there are lingering and emerging questions of what it means to actively implement Indigenous ways of knowing within a school system that has western/European epistemologies integrated into its structural DNA.

Over the years, system leaders have focused on implementing data driven decision-making, practice supported by research, and measurable outputs to develop continuous improvement plans that are “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-bound). These strategies have led to substantive changes in the field of education and how data can be linked to improvements in practice but what does it now mean to bring in other ways of knowing? Should the other ways of knowing operate within the construct and constraints of a western/European model? More specifically, should we be looking at how to quantify and measure Indigenous ways of knowing and land-based learning? Or should we consider Indigenous ways of knowing as a parallel project to the western/European model? Or most radically, should our current system be overhauled to fit within a pedagogy of Indigenous ways of knowing?

In Lakeshore School Division, we have been working on several land-based projects that have evolved over time based on staffing, available expertise, student interest and funding. Some of our work has included canoe tripping programming with an eight-day backcountry trip and various iterations of embedding elders/knowledge keepers within the regular school day. More recently, we have been working on developing a land-based playbook which links curricular connections to expectations for integrating Indigenous ways of knowing at each grade level. While the value of these programs has been clear for those involved, there remains the fact that there are many positive things that we can do with students, but with limited resources we need to ask the question as to which programs provide the best value in working towards our end goals.

Our primary means of gathering evidence of efficacy in these land-based programs has been qualitative in nature and has included entrance and exit slips, artifacts, photovoice, and sharing circles. This data has been useful in gauging general progress and ensuring that the activities have meaning to students but do not provide easy metrics that mesh well with our overall system of data collection which often relies upon numerical representations of learning progress. How do you quantify the value of a student who was too shy to speak at the beginning of a canoe trip singing out loud in Ojibway as we round the last bend on the eighth day? How do you evaluate connection to the land?

When we have attempted to move to more quantitative analysis, we have found that land-based education is resistant to attempts to fit it within a western/European model of SMART goals. Rather than being specific, the learning is often general and more related to values/character than small, targeted skills/aptitudes. Instead of being measurable at an individual level, the learning is often collective, and success is a group experience. While agreed implies consensus on the goals, land-based learning is dynamic and Elders/knowledge keepers will often wait and let the land and situation dictate the learning for the day. There is also a tendency for the goals of land-based learning not to be realistic in the sense that they are not time bound and expand to an ongoing connection between the earth, nature, community, and oneself.

In addition to the tendency of land-based education to resist quantification, Goodhart’s law, that when any metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure, should serve as a warning against the wanting to delve further into breaking down and quantifying land-based education. While it might be possible to create numerical representations of learning in a land-based setting, whatever metric is agreed upon as a goal would quickly be corrupted and distorted as a data point by the fact that it a focus and will be gamified.

Given the problematic nature of attempting to place land-based learning within western/European ways of knowing, it is perhaps better to consider evaluating land-based program success through the lens of Indigenous ways of knowing as a parallel system. Rather than attempting to find quantitative ways of evaluating the efficacy of various land-based activities could we instead allow it to exist as a separate entity within our current system where rather than using metrics to determine value we instead use other means? Perhaps we need to allow space within our system to allow for trusting other ways of knowing in a substantive way.

Is it enough to simply facilitate a combination of factors, in this case, elders/knowledge keepers and a setting that allows connection with the earth and then allow for the land to teach in the way that it has for millennium? While this may sound appealing, a commitment to a parallel system means that western/European constructs such as fiscal accountability/value may have to be set aside and a formal separation created that ‘protects’ land-based education from having to justify its existence with the other framework.

Lastly, if we are to take reconciliation seriously, the question must be asked as to whether the ways of knowing that come through land-based education should or could form the basis for a revision of our entire school system. What would it look like if we were to invert the lens of colonialism? Instead of attempting to apply western/European ways of evaluating success to land-based programming what would happen if we were to instead use Indigenous ways of valuing outcomes to determine success in our entire school system? Instead of numerical marks, stories? Rather than pre-determined curricula and lesson plans, ceremony, and seasons? How could we leverage the best of various world views into the work we do?

Donald Nikkel is the Superintendent of HR, Policy, and Public Relations, Alternative Programming, for Lakeshore School Division.