Content uploaded by Danielle Tessaro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Danielle Tessaro on Oct 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
125
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online
Learning: A Case Study of the First Nations
Schools’ Principals Course
Danielle Tessaro
University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Jean-Paul Restoule
University of Victoria
Patricia Gaviria
Joseph Flessa
University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Carlana Lindeman
Martin Family Initiative
Coleen Scully-Stewart
University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
This article focuses on the creation, implementation, experiences, and research sur-
rounding the first online professional development course for principals of First Na-
tions schools across Canada, named the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course
(FNSPC). First, we describe the contexts, goals, and designing of the FNSPC. Second,
we outline the complexities of bringing Indigenous values into an online educational
space. Lastly, we describe how using the Five R’s (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001;
Restoule, 2008) of respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, and relationships re-
casts the challenges of Indigenizing online education into opportunities for spaces of
traditional and non-traditional Indigenous learning through the FNSPC.
Keywords: Indigenous education; Aboriginal education; online education;
First Nations schools on reserve; principals’ professional development
course
Introduction
In 2016, Dr. Jean-Paul Restoule, along with a team of researchers, under-
took a research project exploring the experiences of the course planners,
funding agencies, and participants of the First Nations Schools’ Principals
Course (FNSPC) during the phases of course design, implementation of a
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
126
one-year pilot delivery of the course, subsequent course offerings, and the
move towards accreditation of the course by the Ontario College of Teach-
ers. The research project is part of a larger Partnership Development Grant
sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) of Canada and headed by Dr. Restoule.
This paper describes the story behind the FNSPC, its design and deliv-
ery, and provides some of the course experiences as examples. Notably, the
course design and delivery were centred around the Five R’s of respect,
relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, and relationships (Kirkness & Barn-
hardt, 2001; Restoule, 2008). As such, the latter half of the paper reflects the
centrality of the Five R’s, with each R being discussed as it pertains to the
FNSPC’s design and research. The Five R’s are highlighted as mitigators
for the contentious task of incorporating Indigenous knowledge and learn-
ing into online environments, whereby core values of Indigenous
education appear to conflict with the goals and uses of online education
(Restoule, 2017; Styres & Zinga, 2013). A prime example of this conflict
stems from Indigenous education usually being situated in a specific envi-
ronment and community context (Restoule, 2017), whereas online
education is accessible across multiple community or environmental con-
texts. Online education tends to be low context so that it can be consumed
by any user, anywhere, whereas traditional Indigenous education is highly
contextual (Hall, 1976). Castellano (2000) discusses numerous characteris-
tics of Indigenous knowledge, including that it’s experiential, holistic,
personal, orally transmitted, and uses narrative and metaphor. Given that
online education is transmitted through a computer or handheld device,
the aforementioned characteristics of Indigenous knowledge are not read-
ily incorporated in an online course. This paper further elucidates the
tensions of Indigenous educational approaches in online learning environ-
ments, as well as the processes, experiences, and challenges of using
e-learning as a vehicle for Indigenous knowledge.
After detailing some of the conflicting values of online and Indigenous
education, the paper focuses on the steps taken by the FNSPC design and
research teams in attempting to overcome the challenges of creating and
delivering an online course for First Nations schools’ principals. Each of
the Five R’s (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001; Restoule, 2008) are detailed for
their role in course design and delivery as a means of ensuring culturally
appropriate and meaningful learning experiences, and for how they can
serve as useful tools for educators going forward across a range of con-
texts: from those working in First Nations schools, to those designing
online courses, or simply for those who are interested in Indigenizing
learning environments.
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
127
Methodology
This article is based on the experiences of those involved in the FNSPC as
course designers, funders, teachers, and participants. These experiences
have been documented and collected as part of a research project begin-
ning after the first FNSPC offering and that is still underway. Specifically,
the research seeks to collect information from FNSPC participants, instruc-
tors, and others involved in the course to improve future offerings of the
course, as well as to contribute to the bodies of knowledge surrounding
Indigenous education, First Nations schools, and Indigenizing online edu-
cation. To collect the experiences and perspectives of persons and groups
involved in the FNSPC, various qualitative methods were used; thus far,
the research has included document analysis, interviews, and surveys.
Surveys were created on an online platform and used to collect data
from FNSPC pilot participants. Surveys inquired as to participants’ opin-
ions on what worked in the course, what did not, what they found most
valuable as school principals, and how they communicated with other par-
ticipants during and after the course, if applicable. The surveys were sent
several months after course completion to determine what aspects contin-
ued to inform the participants’ work. The data from the surveys
supplemented data from two days of focus groups, held with pilot partic-
ipants immediately following their course completion. The pilot
participants were selected to represent regions and schools from across
Canada, and they were invited with the request that they evaluate the
course while participating as learners. A notable exclusion in the course
participation was the northern territories. Participants were drawn from
schools in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, and Nova Scotia.
Significance of the FNSPC
In 2014, the Martin Family Initiative approached the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education (OISE) with the aim of creating an online course for
principals of First Nations schools across Canada. Dr. Restoule became the
Indigenous curriculum design lead and worked with experts in educa-
tional leadership to design the course. The idea for an online course was
inspired by the pressing need for enhancing school leadership in areas
where professional development opportunities are scarce, particularly
leadership development for those working in a First Nations cultural con-
text. The partners at both the Martin Family Initiative and OISE were
acutely aware of the impact that could result for First Nations schools in
developing the skills and capacity of school leaders. According to Leith-
wood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), “leadership not only
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
128
matters: it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its
impact on student learning” (p. 3).
Given the allotted funding, it was decided that the course should focus
on the professional development and leadership capacity of the First
Nations schools’ principals. By doing so, the course would be able to
directly and indirectly impact the workspaces and education of the highest
number of people through each principal’s school and relevant sphere of
influence. Notably, research shows that effective educational leaders, espe-
cially principals, are a factor in high-performing First Nations schools and
First Nations student success (Bell, 2004; Fulford, 2007). First Nations
schools pose unique and often challenging circumstances for principals;
therefore, a course designed specifically to enhance their leadership capa-
bilities serves to benefit not only the principals but also the schools and
broader community.
Although there are exceptions, many principals of First Nations
schools experience the additional challenges of being in remote locations;
having higher turnover of teaching staff; serving dual goals of delivering
provincial curriculum plus local culture and language; being in communi-
ties with higher per capita rates of intergenerational trauma, substance
abuse, violence, and suicides; and having additional reporting and
accountability mechanisms while receiving less per student funding than
their provincial counterparts (Khan, 2008; Office of the Parliamentary
Budget Officer, 2016). These principals may or may not be First Nations
people and are often not from the same community where they are work-
ing. They often do not have the same amount of additional training that a
public school system principal has and most prior existing principal devel-
opment courses do not take into account the distinctive circumstances of
First Nations schools. The course was designed with these conditions
inmind.
The Martin Family Initiative sought to create an online version of the
FNSPC, with a similar number of hours and work (usually 180 to 250
hours) in a typical principal’s development course or program. To bring
the FNSPC course to fruition, an expert advisory panel composed of 22
members met with a course design team at OISE on two occasions. The
expert panel consisted of some of Canada’s leading educators, curriculum
developers, academics, and principals, including several recognized for
their success leading First Nations schools. After the panel and design
team’s deliberation, the course was designed as a 200-hour, 10-month
course that would be ready to launch in 2015.
The primary advantage of an online version of the FNSPC is aligned
with that of all online courses: the breaking down of geographical barriers
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
129
for participation and the possibility of completing the course from any dis-
tance. Essentially, the advantage of any online course is its accessibility. For
the FNSPC group, the offering of the course through digital means was the
best way to ensure diverse participation since First Nations schools are
spread all across Canada, many in remote locations. By having the course
available online, participants could remain active in their daytime princi-
pal roles while working on the course during their spare time.
During the design process, it was understood that the course would
require extremely careful and thoughtful planning so as to ensure mean-
ingful spaces for cultural and contextual relevance, community
development, and decolonization. The creation of the course specifically
for principals of First Nations schools and to be delivered online presented
an enormous opportunity for new modes of representing Indigenous
knowledge and understandings of Indigenous learning.
FNSPC Research
Given the course’s unique parameters, the course design team recognized
that the experiences of the persons involved in the FNSPC—from the fun-
ders, to the creators, instructors, and participants—could serve as useful
knowledge not only for future offerings of the course but also for under-
standing online spaces for Indigenous knowledge and learning. As such,
a research project was designed to better understand and document the
pedagogical experiences of the FNSPC, from its development, to its offer-
ings, and its lasting impact on course participants.
FNSPC research employed a decolonizing theoretical approach as well
as Indigenous research methodologies, informed and inspired by the work
of scholars such as Linda Smith in Decolonizing Methodologies (1999) and
Shawn Wilson in Research is Ceremony (2008). These frameworks meant that,
similar to the course design, the research approach ought to be culturally
aligned and based on respectful relationships (Styres & Zinga, 2013).
A research team of five members was assembled, consisting of four
members of the design team, Dr. Restoule, and a research-stream doctoral
student. Danielle Tessaro, a graduate student of Italian heritage, has pur-
sued coursework and research on Indigenous environmental well-being
and decolonizing education. Dr. Restoule, who is Anishinaabe and French-
Canadian, was raised in a small town northwest of Toronto. Connecting to
his Indigenous heritage in his early twenties, Dr. Restoule worked for a
number of urban Indigenous community organizations in Windsor and
Toronto. His research on urban Indigenous identity development led to
over 20 years of participation in research with Indigenous people in many
areas, including access to post-secondary education, decolonizing teacher
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
130
education, and fostering leadership in HIV prevention messaging. Along
with Dr. Restoule and Ms. Tessaro as the two lead authors, the co-authors
Carlana Lindeman, Patricia Gaviria, Joseph Flessa, and Coleen Scully-
Stewart were members of both the FNSPC design and research teams.
For the FNSPC research, data collection commenced after the course’s
pilot year and included new data from course participants through surveys
and interviews as well as existent data from coursework and the self-reflec-
tions of the designers and instructors. The goals of the research included
understanding the challenges and opportunities of incorporating Indige-
nous knowledge into spaces of online education, the findings of which are
discussed by Restoule (2017). Research also explored the ways that the
course could provide new e-learning opportunities to invite all learners to
engage with Indigenous knowledges, worldviews, and pedagogies in cul-
turally appropriate, respectful, and meaningful ways.
Ultimately, the FNSPC research addresses a significant gap in the lit-
erature. While there is voluminous context available for understanding the
professional development of teachers (Cranton, 1996; Garet, Porter, Desi-
mone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Guskey & Huberman, 1995), there is
significantly less for that of principals (Gross, 2009; Rowland, 2017). More-
over, since the FNSPC was the first online course for principals of First
Nations schools with national scope and reach, there is limited research
that has been done on a course similar to the FNSPC. The project thereby
addresses the need for such research, including the need for more research
drawing from the voices of school principals (Prothero, 2015). Further, the
project is not only significant for its contribution to understandings of a
professional development course for First Nations schools’ principals; it
also significant in that it is offered online, an aspect requiring unique con-
templation and understanding.
Indigenizing Online Education
The decision to explore the processes and outcomes of the FNSPC is based
on the knowledge that the content and delivery of these courses is inher-
ently conflictual due to the opposing fundamentals of Indigenous
education versus online education. Indigenous pedagogy emphasizes
teaching and learning as immersed in community, place, and context
(Cajete, 1994; Hall, 1976) and customized by the teacher around an intimate
awareness of the learner (Styres & Zinga, 2013). Indigenous education is
meant to engage each person on a holistic level, involving the emotional,
intellectual, spiritual, and physical aspects of their being (Bopp, Bopp,
Brown, & Lane, 1984; Cajete, 1994). The relationship a learner has to the
teacher, community, and place where the learning occurs is of such great
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
131
importance in Indigenous education that the community and environment
tend to be synonymous with the sources and content of learning.
In successful Indigenous education approaches, teacher and learner
often have knowledge of each other’s backgrounds, capacities, and learn-
ing experiences, thus enabling teachers to tailor lessons accordingly. This
approach is in stark contrast to online education where teacher and learner
may never know one another. Pedagogy for online education is not situ-
ated in one place, community, or context but meant to be accessed beyond
the confines of one geographical space. In some ways, the virtual space of
the online classroom can mean that the learning is rather place-less. Fur-
thermore, the knowledge transfer in online settings is usually low context
to allow for any user to easily access material and interact with the course
shell. For online education, community is often a virtual construct where
communication takes place through a computer or handheld screen, mean-
ing all interactions are mediated (Restoule, 2017).
As previously noted, the opposing values of Indigenous versus online
education meant that the FNSPC had to be carefully designed and imple-
mented, which is where the Five R’s (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001;
Restoule, 2008) became essential tools. Prior to the detailing of the context
and application of each R, this section describes the structure and content
of the FNSPC. Through its 10 modules, the course trajectory was designed
to move from the exploration of principals’ relationship with self, to the
school, to school community, and then to structures beyond the commu-
nity. This trajectory was based on the philosophy that a person needs to
understand and know self in order to relate to others. As such, the
course’s early modules centre on the exploration of one’s own assump-
tions about the role of principal. Following these early modules, the
course situates the principal in their relationship to their respective First
Nations school and the school community, including staff, teachers, stu-
dents, and parents. The next layer of modules was very practical, offering
guided activities and resources to manage First Nations school improve-
ment. The final modules were focused on nurturing a school culture of
support and well-being, while keeping students at the centre. A list of the
original modules is as follows:
Module 1: Principal as leader—Who am I?
Module 2: What’s my role and who’s the team?
Module 3: What are our school resources and how can we use them?
Module 4: How to manage the school?
Module 5: What are strategies for meaningful school organization?
Module 6: How can I improve my school?
Module 7: How can data be used for school improvement?
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
132
Module 8: How can students be supported?
Module 9: How can school, family, and community relationships be
nurtured?
Module 10: How can we make a positive difference for our students?
Every module was organized around a query concerning principals’
everyday experiences, and activities and resources were organized to sup-
port exploration of the query. Discussion forums and online journal entries
as assignments were incorporated to further explore each module’s query.
In this sense, the material became living knowledge through principals’
narrated experience. Additionally, the delivery of the modules was asyn-
chronous. There was a timeline for each module’s completion and check-in
points to assure everyone’s engagement. Every discussion post and journal
entry was reviewed by course instructors or facilitators, which encouraged
further participation and nurtured relationships.
An example of a core activity was the practicum project where partic-
ipants were requested to consider and work on school improvement. They
presented their proposals to FNSPC instructors in Module 6 and, from
then on, met with instructors to shape their practicums. Participants pre-
sented their practicums in a final forum where members of the advisory
panel were also present. The idea of creating a network of First Nations
schools nationwide emerged from these presentations. Here, the notion
of relationships played a significant role in the course structure and out-
comes, which demonstrates a key component of the interplay of one of
the Five R’s.
The Five R’s
In this paper, we refer to the Five R’s, originally described as the Four R’s
by Kirkness and Barnhardt (2001). The Four R’s are respect, relevance, rec-
iprocity, and responsibility. The fifth R of relationships was added over
time in works such as those by Harris and Wasilewski (2004), Restoule
(2008), and Styres and Zinga (2013). The fifth R is included here as it under-
pins all aspects of course and research design. By applying each R to the
course design, structure, and delivery, it was found that the challenges of
bridging Indigenous and online education could be effectively mitigated
and these could act instead as opportunities for new types of learning.
That’s not to say that the course ran without any hiccups but by conduct-
ing the research, gathering course feedback, and respecting the input of
course participants, each challenge could be learned from and adapted for
future offerings. After providing context for the conception of the Four R’s
(Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001), the paper outlines how each R played a role
in the FNSPC or the research that surrounded it.
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
133
The Four R’s were outlined by Kirkness and Barnhardt (2001) as a
response to institutional approaches towards Indigenous university stu-
dents. Problematically, institutional approaches centred on the ideas that
Indigenous students would fare best if well-integrated into the schooling
system and well-adapted to university values, with the ultimate goal of
retaining First Nations students until graduation. Such approaches can be
likened to a form of assimilation, requiring that First Nations students dis-
tance themselves from their traditional community values, at least while
at university. The institutional approaches that focus on First Nations stu-
dents adapting to school’s values are ineffective and have only
perpetuated the poor retention rates for these students (Willett, 2007; Huff-
man, 2008).
The Four R’s (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001) demonstrate an alternative
to the typical university approach. Here, education should accommodate
and adapt to First Nations students and Indigenous knowledge and learn-
ing, instead of the other way around. For Harris and Wasilewski (2004),
the Four R’s are critical components of Indigenous learning as opposed to
the “Two P’s” of “Power and Profit” that tend to inform dominant institu-
tional practice. Since their inception by Kirkness and Barnhardt (2001), the
Four R’s have been revisited by scholars and program developers as core
foundations for Indigenous education (Wimmer, 2016; White, 2013) and
would serve well to become a staple for universities across Canada and
elsewhere. Here, we describe each R and how it has been applied through
the creation and implementation of the FNSPC and, where applicable, the
outcomes of each R as indicated by the FNSPC research project.
Respect
In the context of the Five R’s, respect refers to the need to recognize and
respect First Nations cultural norms and values (Harris & Wasilewski, 2004;
Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001; Restoule, 2008; Styres & Zinga, 2013). Impor-
tantly, Indigenous worldviews are holistic, meaning that hierarchies and
separation between beings are not inherent (Dove, Campos, Mathews,
Meitzner Yoder, Rademacher, Rhee, & Smith, 2003). For Indigenous cultures,
a holistic worldview encompasses attitudes towards nature, community, and
education (Gill, 2002). Therefore, universities can be a cultural mismatch for
First Nations people within a bureaucratic, highly-structured, and hierarchi-
cal system. That being said, while still needing to engage in the requirements
of a bureaucratic and structured organization, such as requiring assignment
submission and evaluation, the design of the FNSPC sought respect by
remaining respectful of the cultural context of the community where each
course participant was working. For example, course content stressed that
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
134
principals use culturally appropriate curriculum and assessment. This meant
that the material chosen for the course was written by First Nations authors
and educators wherever possible. Video recorded interviews with Indige-
nous educators, academics, and Elders were also incorporated. Coursework
via activities and assignments sought to have participants immerse them-
selves in local experiences and traditions, to ensure learning experiences that
were respectful of local culture.
The FNSPC was also designed with a capacity to incorporate partici-
pant feedback, which speaks to the respect for the local community’s
values and perspectives instead of the expectation that students accept and
adapt to a strict curriculum. Balancing the need to provide transferable
leadership skills that apply to any principal while enhancing the ability of
principals to work with their respective communities was a key course
design challenge. Thus, the design team attempted to provide widely
applicable content by creating activities that required respect for local real-
ities. For instance, one activity included connecting with a community
member and seeing the school through their eyes. Another assessed the
school’s learning spaces and documented how much cultural symbolism,
language, and artwork was visible. Instructors would then collect individ-
ual reflections and share their insights, pose further questions, recommend
assignments, or suggest peer interaction on specific issues. One participant
reflected on her/his challenges with upward bullying in First Nations
schools. The instructor recommended posting that reflection in the discus-
sion forum. Upon consent, the reflection was posted. Fellow participants
shared their experiences and resources. Upward bullying in First Nations
schools was then introduced as a topic in the next iteration of the course.
Several additional aspects of the course were redesigned based on data
gathered from pilot participants via surveys, email conversations, and
video chats. For instance, sequencing and pacing of modules was modified
to account for time constraints, with some modules moved to align with
school calendars. Reflection spaces per module were reduced, such as less-
ening the journal requirements to one entry at the end of each module. An
additional change was introducing videos from the pilot and various other
resources as main activities. Finally, whereas the pilot had staggered con-
siderations of the practicum, the post-pilot course changed such that the
practicum was introduced more comprehensively at the beginning of the
course; this enabled participants to consider the practicum from a more
cumulative perspective from the start of the course so the flow of learning
would not be interrupted later on.
For the pilot, a course-wide video check-in was to take place only once
at the course’s halfway point. However, based on pilot participant feed-
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
135
back, subsequent offerings have included video chat rooms at the start of
each module. Partcipant data from surveys and conversations demonstrate
that participants benefit from seeing each other in real time more fre-
quently. Another change in subsequent offerings resulting from participant
feedback was the posting and releasing of modules only at certain times.
The first offering had all of the modules posted at the start to allow partic-
ipants to move at their own pace but this meant some participants were
soon further ahead than others. The change to the timed release of the
modules was then made to ensure all participants worked through the
modules at approximately the same time, to aim for optimal participation.
All these inputs demonstrate to the researchers that critical reflection and
adaptation, based on course feedback, should be an essential component
for designing and redesigning spaces of Indigenous learning. The changes
also reflect the element of respect: respect of participant opinions, circum-
stances, and perspectives.
Reciprocity
Indigenous scholars underline the significance of reciprocity as imperative
for Indigenous research (Absolon, 2011; Wilson, 2008; Wilson & Restoule,
2010). Emphasis on reciprocity for Indigenous research is a result of
decades of First Nations exploitation by researchers and their institutions
(Smith, 1999). Histories of exploitative research are borne by one-sided
projects that simply aim to accomplish academic milestones while often
ignoring the goals and concerns of the community (Sunseri, 2007). Reci-
procity means that research must be mutually beneficial to researcher and
participants instead of solely to the researcher (First Nations Centre, 2005;
Wilson, 2008).
The same emphasis on reciprocity is applied as being fundamental to
Indigenous education. Reciprocity should frame course design and rela-
tionships between instructor and pupil. Student voices should be actively
listened to, and their needs and goals should be accommodated. For Kirk-
ness and Barnhardt (2001):
the emphasis is on making teaching and learning two-way processes, in which the give-and-
take between faculty and students opens up new levels of understanding for everyone. Such
reciprocity is achieved when the faculty member makes an effort to understand and build
upon the cultural background of the students, and the students are able to gain access to the
inner-workings of the culture (and the institution) to which they are being introduced. (p. 11)
Reciprocity was integral to FNSPC course design, underlining relation-
ships between instructor and participant as well as between participant
and their relevant schools and communities. Instead of a transmission
model of teaching, where the instructor imparts information to a passive
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
136
student, the FNSPC incorporated many elements of horizontal sharing
(Avalos, 2011) among course participants. Furthermore, two of the 10 mod-
ules were designed to be held face-to-face. Initial planning discussions saw
the course as being entirely online and portable, able to be offered at any
institution after the pilot evaluation. However, when designing the course
and in discussion with the expert advisory panel, these plans changed.
Instead, it was deemed necessary to first build community among partic-
ipants and instructors in person, given the pilot participants’ additional
role as course evaluators. Meeting in person would also aid in the fostering
of a cohort mentality for shared support. As a result of these intentions, the
first module of the pilot was delivered in person at OISE over two and a
half days. During this time, the group discussed their dual responsibility:
they were participating as students while simultaneously evaluating the
course. For instance, as a monthly course task, participants evaluated each
module’s content and pedagogy. Ultimately, having the in-person meeting
in the first month allowed FNSPC instructors, planners, and participants
to be clear about the expectations and mutual obligations to each other.
The second face-to-face module was also the course closing. Partici-
pants were brought back to OISE to present their final capstone project,
receive completion certificates, and provide a final round of evaluative
comments on the course. At this get-together, instructors were able to ask
more global questions about the course experience. This style of critical
reflection on and adaption of the course was used throughout the pilot
year. A great example of the responsiveness to participant feedback hap-
pened at the halfway point. Module 6 was designed to be a synchronous
videoconference session where the cohort and design team could all check
in and discuss the capstone assignment. Participants found meeting syn-
chronously so valuable that it was requested for each of the remaining
modules. The course facilitator and project manager then arranged multi-
ple videoconference sessions each month to ensure everyone had time for
a check-in. This mode of meeting was carried into subsequent offerings.
Again, alternative to a passive model, for the FNSPC knowledge is
transferred both ways between participant and instructor. Following the
pilot course, instructors were asked to reflect on their experiences and to use
these as well as participant commentary to redesign components of the
course for future offerings. Changes for future offerings included more video
interviews with principals from across Canada and more focus on the most
useful readings as described by the principals in the FNSPC survey results.
Additionally, principals were asked to show reciprocity towards their
school and community, to contribute to their betterment following the
course. The practicum or capstone activity entailed “giving-back” to the
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
137
school. The design team considered the high turnover rate of staff in First
Nations schools and was concerned about inadvertently designing a
course that would lead exclusively to one individual’s development, with
the school not necessarily benefiting from the course skills and knowledge.
Therefore, the final assignment was intended to stay with the school, and
continue to service the students and staff even if the principal left. This
goal was explained in the course introduction and participants shared
prospective topics during Modules 1 and 6, receiving feedback and guid-
ance from instructors to ensure the topics gave back to the school or
community. Admittedly, not much steering was required since pilot par-
ticipants were already strongly committed to the thriving of their schools
and communities.
Relevance
The centrality of bettering the principals’ schools and communities is also
pertinent to the third R: relevance. As part of the Five R’s, learning should
be relevant to First Nations culture and ways of knowing, which means
going beyond books (Goody, 1982; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001). Learning
that is relevant to First Nations culture should be based typically in com-
munity and oral communication. As an online course across a range of
First Nation communities, and where communication takes place over a
computer, a culturally relevant course meant that the FNSPC designers
had to get creative. Beyond the group-wide meetings of the pilot course,
video chat rooms, video lectures, and other forms of online reposited
videos were relied on as oral communication and comprised a significant
portion of course engagement. To ensure basis in community, which is an
important component of Indigenous knowledge and learning (Castellano,
2000), tasks and assignments included hands-on activities within the
school and community. One example of such an activity required partici-
pants to reach out to a community member not regularly engaged in
school activities and to tour the school with that person, asking the guest
to comment on their impressions of the school. Principals received an
assessment of how culturally relevant the school appeared to a community
member, how welcoming it was, and how representative it was of local
First Nations culture, language, and arts.
A concern around relevance for the design team was the attempt to
align course modules with activities that typically arise for a First Nations
school principal over the course of an academic year. As all principals
would have to engage with the nominal roll reporting process in the fall,
the course module that contained tips and support around this process was
placed in the overall course sequencing to align with the time a little before
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
138
the roll was due in the principals’ actual schedule. By doing so, the learn-
ing aligned with the duty, informing the principals’ work as they were
taking the course. Rather than approach course participation as an activity
that is wholly external to their working lives, the design team sought to
ensure that the course enabled and assisted the professionals in carrying
out their roles and responsibilities. Therefore, learning was directly rele-
vant to the First Nations schools, local contexts, and the daily work of the
principal. Ultimately, relevance played a significant role in course design
and delivery, informing course material and assignment choices that could
speak to the principals’ daily lives, school environments, and communities
instead of being based solely on theory and books.
Responsibility
In Indigenous education, both the teacher and learner have a responsibility
to recognize and uphold First Nations values, practices, and ways of
knowing (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001). Further, personal responsibilities
and relationships, such as to family members, work, or community, are
acknowledged for their role in the functioning of society and the shaping
of daily experiences. Thus, responsibility to culture and to various aspects
of being was an essential component of the FNSPC.
The course incorporated responsibility in multiple ways and through
multiple relationships. As discussed, this was partially demonstrated by
principals upholding their responsibilities to First Nations culture, which
was achieved through course assignments and tasks to be completed
directly within their communities and schools. The course fostered the
responsibilities of the participants as principals and equipped them with
the tools and resources to engage further into the areas of school and com-
munity. Additionally, the flexibility of the online course allowed
participants to both maintain and develop their responsibilities as princi-
pals, family members, and community members. As such, the course was
able to highlight the responsibilities of the principals to their schools, local
cultures, and student needs.
While responsibility towards Indigenous culture and ways of knowing
is essential, for Indigenous education, the application of this fundamental
R to a university setting is nuanced by the additional responsibility of meet-
ing institutional needs and requirements. This became pertinent for the
FNSPC whereby responsibility to its home institution, OISE, and to its fun-
ders could not be ignored. While seeking to remain as culturally relevant
as possible, the FNSPC design still had to meet the requirements of an OISE
course via enrolment and assignment deadlines, structures, grades, and
written components. In fact, the FNSPC is currently undergoing an accred-
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
139
itation process whereby it is being evaluated by the Ontario College of
Teachers. To be accredited, which will be of added value to future partici-
pants, the responsibility towards institutional standards is especially
emphasized as a necessity. In this way, the course could not be wholly
decolonizing, since underlying course requirements are still derived from
the colonial schooling system, to which the FNSPC designers and instruc-
tors have some responsibility to uphold as part of their work.
Similarly, the principals of the First Nations schools, while expected to
immerse themselves into local contexts and culture, are responsible to
uphold certain school organizational structures and requirements that are
also derived from beyond local contexts. As such, working on ways to nav-
igate responsibilities to institutions of the Canadian schooling system was
part of the FNSPC’s content and these components were appreciated by
participants, according to FNSPC data collected through interviews and
surveys. Therefore, for the FNSPC, the idea of responsibility is multifac-
eted: responsibility of the course to respect First Nations values; the
personal responsibilities of the participants to their families, schools, and
communities; and the responsibilities to conventional school standards.
Relationships
Relationships are the fifth R, as the other Four R’s of respect, reciprocity,
relevance, and responsibility can only truly be realized through conscious
tending and effort to relationships. Relationships between teacher and
learner, and between community, culture, and school underlie all aspects
of Indigenous education (Restoule, 2017). Relationships are meant to be
reciprocal on behalf of teacher and pupil, and education should foster
growth of personal relationships to community. In a school setting, rela-
tionships between the students themselves also need to be fostered.
The significance of relationships was recognized by the course design
team and panel of experts prior to the creation of the FNSPC. As such,
assignments were designed to encourage the principals to examine and
fortify relationships with teachers, students, family members, the local
community, and the land. For instance, as part of the pre-course module,
the principals were required to share a photo of the place where they live
and work, and to share a story about its personal meaning. The idea was
to have them reflect on the meaning of place and their relationship to it.
Further, the necessity of participants to form relationships with each other
and with instructors was part of the rationale behind the preliminary meet-
ings at OISE. The first module of the course also focused on community
and relationship building, again due to an understanding of the signifi-
cance of relationships for Indigenous learning.
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
140
While these aspects of relationships were planned for, the FNSPC pilot
fostered relationships in unexpected ways. For online courses, direct com-
munication can be seldom and is often limited to forums or discussion
rooms within the course website. In these settings, communication tends
to remain planned and formal or even viewed as something required and
only associated with assignments. This lack of direct interaction can act as
a barrier for student-student relationships in an online course.
Such was not the case for the FNSPC. Surprisingly, relationship build-
ing between the participants was one of its greatest successes. In some of
the conversations in person and online during the pilot course, as well as
in interviews for the FNSPC research, many participants indicated that
their daily work as principals tends to be rather lonely. At work, each prin-
cipal must operate as an individual and maintain a sense of neutrality
amongst their staff and students, and also when representing the school to
the community and to parents. The daily encounters of a principal can be
very challenging, and the inability to casually debrief and discuss these
challenges with their peers only adds to feelings of isolation. For principals
working in First Nations contexts, this loneliness can be heightened by the
specificities of the role, remoteness of schools, and the added challenges of
being members of small and tight-knit communities (Restoule, 2017).
Based on feedback obtained through the FNSPC research via interviews
and surveys, participants expressed that the FNSPC provided them with
a valuable network of fellow principals. What’s more, this group of prin-
cipals was unified for the first time as a group specifically from First
Nations schools, a rare source of common ground. The FNSPC’s connect-
ing of this network was and is invaluable to the principals.
As such, friendships and support networks developed and, instead of
being limited by online mediums, ongoing communication between the
participants in remote areas was enabled. For instance, during the course
participants reached out to each other outside of the confines of the course
forums, such as by email, text, or other messaging applications. Following
the course, as part of the FNSPC research, participants were asked via sur-
vey or interview about their reasons for communication with other
participants. Responses included following up on in-course commentary
and on stories about personal experiences as principals that were told dur-
ing the group-wide video conferences. Essentially, it was indicated that
communication external to course platforms was used to offer support
and that relationships with one another were fostered from there. Thus,
while relationships underlined components of course design and plan-
ning, the significance of relationships for the FNSPC was much greater
than expected.
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
141
Conclusion
At first glance, online education can appear to conflict with the ideals of
Indigenous learning by virtue of its being tied to no particular location
along with other characteristics such as the removal of intimate, face-to-
face teacher-learner interaction. At the same time, there are surprising
opportunities afforded by its enhanced accessibility and removal of geo-
graphical distances. Where Indigenous education is tied to oral
communication, context, community, and land, an online learning commu-
nity is a virtual construct, where communication is mediated by
technological interface. The opposition between the two types of learning
could have stopped the creation of the FNSPC in its tracks. Instead, by
focusing on the Five R’s of respect, reciprocity, relevance, responsibility,
and relationships, the potential challenges of the FNSPC as an online offer-
ing were not only mitigated—they were turned into strengths.
Overall, FNSPC participants and instructors indicated that the course
was a valuable learning experience. Due to the success of the pilot year as
built around the Five R’s, the course has been offered two more times with
full enrolment and a growing waitlist. Seeking to provide additional incen-
tives for aspiring principals to take the course, the design team sought
accreditation for the FNSPC. When a rationale was brought to the Ontario
College of Teachers, they struggled to evaluate the course as it did not fit
neatly into existing categories. Since the course is unique, a new category
for its evaluation had to be created. Serving as reviewers of guidelines for
a professional development course for principals working in First Nations
contexts, members of the design team put forward the Five R’s framework
as a way of ensuring First Nations cultures and communities are included
with respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relevance. Notably, based on
the work of the FNSPC research group, the application of the Five R’s will
become an essential component for all First Nations schools’ principals
courses going forward and is now becoming part of the accreditation
requirements. The adaptation of the Five R’s framework by the Ontario
College of Teachers is not only a sign of success for the FNSPC but for
Indigenous education as a whole.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of SSHRC, The Martin Family Initia-
tive, and OISE/University of Toronto for support of the FNSPC pilot. Thank you to the ex-
pert advisory panel, the pilot participants, and the reviewers for their contributions.
Thanks to Cathy Lee, the first FNSPC project coordinator, for all her intellectual contribu-
tions to the course design.
Canadian Journal of Native Education Volume 40 Number 1
142
References
Absolon, K. E. (2011). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood
Publishing.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education
over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
Bell, D. (2004). In Raham H. (Ed.),Sharing our success: Ten case studies in Aboriginal schooling
(1st ed.).Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
Bopp, J., Bopp, M., Brown, L., & Lane, P., Jr. (1984). The sacred tree: Reflections on Native
American spirituality. Lethbridge, AB: Four Worlds International Institute.
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Durango, CO:
Kivaki Press.
Castellano, M. B. (2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In G. J. S. Dei, B. L.
Hall, & D. G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings
of our world (pp. 21-35). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for
teachers of adults (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dove, M., Campos, M. T., Mathews, A. S., Meitzner Yoder, L. J., Rademacher, A., Rhee, S. B.,
& Smith, D. S. (2003). The global mobilization of environmental concepts: Re-thinking
the Western/non-Western divide. In H. Selin & A. Kalland (Eds.), Nature across cultures:
Views of nature and the environment in non-Western cultures (pp. 19-46). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
First Nations Centre. (2005). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-
determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research
and some options for First Nations communities. Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Health
Organization. Available at
https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/30539/1/OCAP_Critical_Analysis_2005.pdf
Fulford, G. (2007). In Raham H. (Ed.),Sharing our success: More case studies in aboriginal
schooling. (2nd ed.). Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in
Schooling.
Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New
paradigms and practices. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915
Gill, J. H. (2002). Native American worldviews: An introduction. Amherst, NY: Humanity
Books.
Goody, J. R. (1982). Alternative paths to knowledge in oral and literate cultures. In D.
Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 201-216).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Gross, S. J. (2009). Establishing meaningful leadership mentoring in school settings:
Transcending simplistic rhetoric, self-congratulation, and claims of panacea. In M. D.
Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the
education of school leaders (pp. 515-533). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Harris, L. D., & Wasilewski, J. (2004). Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: Four R’s
(relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit):
Sharing the journey towards conscious evolution. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 21(5), 489-503.
Huffman, T. E. (2008). American Indian higher educational experiences: Cultural visions and
personal journeys. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Khan, S. (2008). Aboriginal mental health: The statistical reality. Visions Journal, 5(1), 6-7.
The Five R’s for Indigenizing Online Learning: A Case Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa,
Study of the First Nations Schools’ Principals Course Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart
143
Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (2001). First nations and higher education: The four R’s:
Respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge
across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 75-90). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning: Review of research. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2016, December 6). Federal spending on primary
and secondary education on First Nations reserves. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Prothero, A. (2015, January 21). For principals, continuous learning critical to career
success. Education Week. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/21/for-principals-continuous-
learning-critical-to-career.html
Restoule, J.-P. (2008, November 26). The five R’s of Indigenous research: Relationship, respect,
relevance, responsibility, and reciprocity. Workshop presented at the Wise Practices II:
Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network Research and Capacity Building Conference,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Restoule, J.-P. (2017). Where Indigenous knowledge lives: Bringing Indigenous perspectives
to online learning environments. In E. A. McKinley & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of
Indigenous education. New York, NY: Springer.
Rowland, C. (2017). Principal professional development: New opportunities for a renewed state
focus. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Education Policy Center.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York,
NY: Zed Books.
Styres, S., & Zinga, D. (2013). The community-first land-centred theoretical framework:
Bringing a ‘good mind’ to Indigenous education research? Canadian Journal of
Education, 36(2), 284-313.
Sunseri, L. (2007). Indigenous voice matters: Claiming our space through decolonising
research. Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue, 9(2007), 93-106.
White, J. P. (2013). Policy research: Good or bad? The International Indigenous Policy Journal,
4(3), 1-3. doi:10.18584/iipj.2013.4.3.2
Willet, C. (2007). Ahkameyimo (Persevere): The experience of Aboriginal undergraduates.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wilson, D. D., & Restoule, J.-P. (2010). Tobacco ties: The relationship of the sacred to
research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 33(1), 29-45.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood
Publishing.
Wimmer, R. J. (2016). The “4 Rs revisited,” again: Aboriginal education in Canada and
implications for leadership in higher education. In L. Shultz & M. Viczko (Eds.),
Assembling and governing the higher education institution: Democracy, social justice and
leadership in global higher education (pp. 256-270). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
