Native Perspectives about Coupling Indigenous Traditional Knowledge with Western Science in Geoscience Education from a Focus Group Study

Traditional Knowledge (TK) from Native American/Alaska Native (NA/AN) communities is often met with dismissive attitudes due to its perceived qualitative nature, however, careful examination of what TK represents, and how it formed, leads to the realization that TK is a mixture of qualitative, quantitive, and spiritual knowledge utilizing the same rigor as western science. TK represents knowledge about place, historical insight, and spiritual beliefs with a longstanding and tested understanding about terrestrial and aquatic systems. Theoretical positioning of this study supports the ideology that providing NA/AN students with culturally aligned educational opportunities creates equitable and inclusive learning environments, thereby increasing sense of identity and belonging. We present focus group data collected from two national conferences focused on success of NA/AN students in geoscience. Using a small discussion group format respondents were asked to consider: (1) How do you define science?, (2) How do you define TK?, and (3) What does coupling TK and science mean to you? Our findings revealed a holistic definition of science using typical (e.g., biology, geology, etc.) and atypical (e.g., social science, cultural identity, equity) descriptors. These findings emphasize the importance of developing culturally www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 11 Published by SCHOLINK INC. aligned curriculum across all education levels to support NA/AN students.

benefit of using both knowledge systems to enhance our understanding of the world through STEM education. Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005) proposed a call to action to enhance Native students' understanding of STEM by developing a hybridized TK-STEM research and science education model. One challenge was the preservation of TK, culture, and language while providing STEM instruction. By implementing a hybridized educational model that incorporates cultural and western perspectives, Native students would be more successful in pursuing STEM disciplines than when taught from only a western perspective. Coupling TK and western science and infusing traditional ways of knowing into western pedagogy is an effective strategy to engage Native students in STEM disciplines, an area in which Native students have historically had little success compared to their non-Native counterparts (Price et al., 2008). In addition, teachers with an understanding of TK especially from the community where they teach, will allow them to have a better understanding of the worldview of their students, and thus allowing them to engage with their students on subjects such as science in an meaningful way, as they adopt a culturally relevant science pedagogy (Kawagley et al., 1998).
According to Snively and Corsiglia (2001), only 3% of students enroll in STEM programs, as they view science as "inaccessible and culturally irrelevant". Native students may find science content inaccessible if TK does not co-exist with STEM in their classrooms (Aikenhead, 2002), and students cannot engage in meaningful science learning until conflicts between what is taught and their cultural experiences are resolved (McKinley & Gan, 2014). Using a both/and approach in teaching rather than an either/or approach enables students to become fluent in multiple ways of knowing and thinking (Abrams & Hogg, 2004;Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999) better preparing them to become Native scientists and leaders. Despite the benefits, ontological differences between TK and STEM can challenge efforts to bring the two knowledge systems together (Mazzocchi, 2006), as there is a fundamental disconnect between the TK and STEM with regard to: 1) ways of knowing, 2) protocol for collecting and using TK, 3) interpretation of knowledge, and 4) the ethics of using and sharing TK (Chatterjee, 2019; Ragavan, 2001). This disconnect is often reflected in the history of the U.S. which has extracted from TK for science instruction, where few educators understand Native worldviews and its effect on student learning (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001;Kawagley et al., 1998). To this end, it has been suggested that western science may be functionally distinct from TK and these distinctions could contribute to the disconnect between Native worldviews and western science (Durie, 2004), resulting in western scientists being skeptical as to the value of TK because western science is considered objective and generalizable focusing heavily on technical skills, experimental design, and explanatory power of the data, whereas these attributes are not the focus of TK which is grounded in a particular culture (Abrams & Hogg, 2004). Despite ontological differences, these two worldviews possess similarities in that they both involve making observations and inferences about natural systems of understanding of the natural world (Hoagland, 2017;Martin, 2012

Methods
This case study was conducted using a dual moderator focus group format, in which moderator one posed discussion questions, and moderator two recorded all responses and ensured that all discussion questions were addressed by the group. We applied the Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework (ITKF) guidelines when posing questions, recoding, and analyzing data. ITKF emphasizes respect, protection, and the ethical use of TK systems, by reducing environmental, social, and cultural risk associated with the development of resources, by improving relationships, and strengthening public trust in environmental decisions driven by policy. ITKF is based on the following guiding principles for TK such that; TK is an important body of knowledge providing insight of the natural environment and is unique to the communities bearing the knowledge, that it is valuable and should be considered and acknowledged alongside western science; that TK belongs to the Native community who bears the knowledge and is under the authority and control of the community; that permission is required to collect, analyze, and disseminate knowledge; and TK will be discussed in a constructive manner building an atmosphere of mutual respect between stakeholders (CEMA, 2015).

Study Structure and Focus Group Questions
This is a collective case study of two focus groups from two STEM conferences focused on Native students and scholars. The focus group A took place at Conference A, a three-day gathering of tribal mentors, college students, faculty, research centers, elders, and tribal community members. The mission of the conference was to promote participation of Native students in the applied science disciplines with the purpose of encouraging students from largely two-year institutions such as community or tribal colleges, to consider transitions to four-year institutions while build peer and mentor networks. Additionally, Conference A focused on supporting Native students on developing their identities as Native scientists. Conference B, while similar to Conference A, focused on increasing representation of Native students, scientists, and professionals in STEM disciplines. Conference B brought together Native college students, pre-college students, faculty, professionals, and industry partners working in STEM disciplines. Students who attended Conference B were primarily from 4-year universities and graduate programs with fewer tribal college students and faculty represented.
Conference B provided professional development opportunities for students by providing mentors and resources for resume writing, onsite job interviews, information for academic scholarships, and providing students an opportunity to present research in a culturally aware welcoming environment.
For this study, convenience sampling was used as respondents (n=50) self-selected to participate in the focus groups as advertised at both conference programs as an opportunity to discuss their perspectives on the relationships (if any) between STEM and TK.

Data Sources and Analysis
Qualitative data for this study was collected from focus group responses to a series of three discussion questions (Wilkinson, 2004). Namely, each group was provided with materials with which to record both individual and group responses as data sources (Duggleby, 2005). Data collected was used to construct an open coding schema organized into a matrix that was organized according to each question and conference (A or B). Constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965) was used to analyze the focus group responses from the matrix. The first round of coding consisted of open coding as described by Saldana (2013). Next, axial coding was used to sort data into sub-category topics within the context of each question. Finally, line-by-line coding was used to develop themes. The frequency of each theme was determined by tabulating the of responses falling within each theme (Glaser, 1978(Glaser, , 1992Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Strauss, 1987).

Results and Discussion
Through our coding schema, we developed a matrix to address the manner in which focus groups made sense of discussion questions (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). The first discussion question examined how respondents defined science (Table 1). Responses to question one (How do you define science?) were provided by 82% of respondents. These respondents described science using both traditional disciplines (e.g., biology, geology, chemistry, etc.) in addition to disciplines and concepts not typically considered when describing science, such as social justice, equity, social science, politics, and cultural identity, resulting in a more holistic definition of science (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005;Hart, 2010

Frequency of the Cited Themes across Conferences A and B
Responses to question two (How do you define TK?) were provided by 82% of respondents, in which a majority of respondents from both conferences (A and B) discussed a definition of TK as related to practices, beliefs, histories, customs and values of their community, as it relates to individual identity (Table 2). There were a number of respondents from conference B that discussed knowledge sharing as important to defining TK. It is somewhat unexpected that the concept of sharing knowledges outside of the community would be part of this defining (Brush, 1993;Coombe, 1998;Iseke-Barnes, 2006 Kawagley, 2005;Brush, 1993;Cobern & Loving, 2001;Coombe, 1998;Iseke-Barnes, 2006;Menzies & Butler, 2006). However, of those who did respond, we noted positive views on the importance of coupling TK and STEM knowledge systems in which respondents viewed TK as equal to STEM, without the typically imposed hierarchy. However, there were notable differences between Conference A and B between the number of respondents highlighting this theme, again this may be due to life experience and alterations in worldview. A second major theme identified was in the desire for youth to reclaim TK to support their identity and leadership in STEM disciplines, and respondents discussed the importance of sharing TK with others, as found from question two.  Analysis of focus group responses revealed several findings and themes around the perceived interdisciplinary potential of geosciences education, the potential impact of western science on Native communities, and the need to share knowledge across cultural groups and communities to support the betterment of education for all. Themes represented here highlight the interconnected nature of STEM identities to cultural identities. Respondents highlighted the differences in worldviews seen between these two cultures, where TK was described as observations of the natural world and learning how to adapt for survival, and where STEM was described as a field that was an addition to what was already known by elders in the community. The acknowledgment that TK and STEM are relevant knowledge systems and necessary to survive was a theme that repeatedly emerged.
Respondents from both conferences (A and B) stated that they felt their TK was marginalized in academia and agreed that coupling of these two knowledge systems would be positive for Native students, with the idea that integration would result in increased pre-college graduation rates, and an increase in post-secondary degree completion in STEM disciplines (Dee & Penner, 2017). Brayboy and Castagno (2009) have shown how a culturally responsive education model is successful in improving student self-efficacy, as "culturally responsive education recognizes, respects, and uses students' identities and backgrounds as meaningful sources for creating optimal learning environments". When the importance of TK is understood and weighted as possessing value, STEM education can create a learning community that is supportive of Native students and valuing of two knowledge systems which are truly innovative, problem solvers capable of providing powerful solutions to complex scientific problems through the