Can Personal Learning Pathways (PLPs) truly improve Indigenous education outcomes?

Background Indigenous people worldwide face significant educational challenges, with Australia’s Aboriginal students experiencing an academic achievement gap with their non-Aboriginal peers. Despite various policy initiatives, systemic issues continue to impact the educational experiences of Aboriginal students. Understanding the role of teacher qualities in engaging Aboriginal students is a critical step towards addressing these challenges. Purpose Using Indigenous Standpoint Theory, this study investigates how teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of the qualities needed to support Aboriginal students align with students’ and communities’ beliefs and aspirations. Method Qualitative data were collected from six New South Wales government high schools through semi-structured interviews with the six school principals and 22 teachers, as well as focus group discussions with 102 Aboriginal students and 36 parents and community members across the schools. Participants were asked about Aboriginal students’ schooling experiences, teacher expectations, school support, and student–teacher relationships. Findings Analysis revealed a disconnect between educators’ intentions and Aboriginal students’ self-articulated needs. The findings identified that educators’ efforts to support students were often hindered by practices that deeply embed Western concepts within the structures and policies of mandatory education, whereas Aboriginal students emphasised the importance of trust, compassion, and culturally relevant approaches in teacher–student relationships. These desires are frequently overlooked in current educational strategies. The study also found that challenges in engaging Aboriginal students in schools had little to do with capacities to learn but rather with a system designed to control students through institutional policies and practices that can hinder access to education aligned with their goals. Conclusion The study suggests that if teachers and school leaders educate from a perspective of Aboriginal strength and success, they could move away from deficit understandings and instead explore culturally relevant ways of engaging students in the classroom. This approach not only has the potential to support student ‘success as Aboriginal’ but also to address the systemic disconnect between educational practices and students’ cultural needs and aspirations.

Indigenous Peoples worldwide face persistent challenges in accessing equitable and culturally responsive education, and the Philippines is no exception. This study delves into the educational experiences of Indigenous Filipino students in higher education, examining their challenges, coping strategies, and recommendations for improvement. Drawing on qualitative case study methods and Indigenous Standpoint Theory, the research reveals the complex interplay of factors shaping Indigenous students' educational trajectories. The findings highlight the resilience of Indigenous students in adapting to the university environment and finding acceptance for their cultural identity. Despite positive experiences, challenges persist, including academic adjustment difficulties, financial constraints, and issues of discrimination and cultural identity. Indigenous students employ coping strategies such as maintaining a positive attitude and seeking support from peers. Participants offer recommendations for supporting Indigenous students, including establishing dedicated support organizations, expanding financial assistance, and promoting cultural awareness. By prioritizing Indigenous voices and perspectives, higher education institutions can create more inclusive and supportive environments, contributing to the broader goal of advancing Indigenous education and promoting social justice and equality.

This chapter extends the findings of a four-year investigation (2012–2015) into the processes, the data, the issues, the enablers and constraints, the opportunities and the successes associated with the transition of Indigenous students into higher education across the nation (Kinnane et al. ‘Can’t be what you can’t see’: the transition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into higher education: Final report 2014. Office for Learning and Teaching, Sydney, 2014). This research described exemplar thinking, principles of successful programs, and identified elements of leading practice in the context of current trends and overall policy shifts relating to Indigenous experiences of higher education in 26 universities across Australia. The research also outlined five models for Indigenous student transition, retention and graduation utilised by Australian universities. This foundational work was then used as a framework by which to conduct further research into online learning experiences for Indigenous students living and studying in remote communities. In this chapter, we examine particular elements within the identified models that afford maximum success and participation in higher education for Indigenous students studying in remote locations. It is noted that these models are also in transition, hybridised and dynamic, with the thinking, policy and programs that underpin them continually evolving. Based on interviews with educators in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia, we establish an informed and nuanced understanding of the experiences of Indigenous university students living and studying in remote, and very remote, locations of Australia and of what ‘success’ might look like in these particular geographical and cultural contexts. Further, we aim to contribute to the development of a culturally responsive approach in the higher education sector which seeks to (i) promote community and family awareness and engagement in these students’ learning experiences, (ii) strengthen student support and (iii) improve learning opportunities and enhance student engagement; the combined effect of all three being to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous higher education students studying online in remote and very remote communities. We argue that successful transition may actualise anywhere between enrolment in a university, retention in a course or successful completion, and that there are key areas where investment in success can be made. To this end, we identify online teaching and learning strategies based on the research findings, designed to enhance learning opportunities and promote family and community engagement.

While authentic and sustained community involvement in the research process is critically important to making new technologies and interventions effective and socially acceptable, there is uneven participation across sociodemographic, racial, and ethnic communities in many research areas, including cancer early detection research. Currently, 18% of cancer in the United States impacts Hispanics and Latinos, this population accounts for < 10% of research participants. Understanding barriers and facilitators to cancer early detection research is imperative to the ultimate success of this research. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: understand Hispanic and Latino community perspectives in participation in cancer early detection research; and identify sustainable and mutually beneficial approaches to community engagement and involvement. The Oregon Case Study, led by Oregon Health & Science University's Community Outreach, Research and Engagement (CORE) in partnership with colleagues at Vocal, a partnership between Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Manchester and Cambridge University, adopted a participatory research approach to better understand participation in cancer early detection research from the perspectives of Oregon's Hispanic and Latino community members. We implemented two evidence-based community engagement models, the Community Engagement Studio and the Community Readiness Assessment Model. Using a facilitated format prescribed by each community engagement model, community members helped us to answer two research questions: (1) What methods help us increase participation of underrepresented communities in cancer early detection research?; and (2) How can we build trust between researchers and underrepresented communities within cancer early detection research? Quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistic) and qualitative (i.e., thematic analysis) analytic methods were used to measure and assess community knowledge, leadership, beliefs, and resources regarding participation in cancer early detection research. A total of 36 Hispanic and Latino community members participated in the two community engagement models. We identified three emergent themes pertaining to participation in cancer early detection research that include: low-level awareness of cancer early detection research and opportunities for research participation, structural barriers to research participation, and uncertainty of the benefits of research participation. Our approach, using two evidence-based community engagement models, yielded valuable insights about perceptions of research participation for Hispanic and Latino community members. These findings, synthesized into three key themes, led to actionable recommendations to increase research participation.

Nicaraguan and US nursing collaborative evaluation study: Identifying similarities and differences between US and Nicaraguan curricula and teaching modalities using the community engagement model

Remote dryland regions are characterised by sparse populations and socially marginalised voices which pose particular challenges to natural resource management. This paper considers the issue of how to achieve community engagement in regions with these characteristics. In doing so, the paper contributes to an expanding international research agenda focusing on the distinct characteristics of arid and semi-arid regions under the heading of 'dryland syndrome'. The paper draws on government liaison officer and local community perspectives of successful engagement in the case-study region of Lake Eyre Basin, Australia. The results demonstrate that widely recognised characteristics of successful engagement are required but insufficient for genuine engagement in remote dryland regions. In addition to building trust through community ownership, being inclusive, effective communication, and adequate resources, genuine community engagement in drylands also requires respecting the extreme conditions and extraordinary variability of these areas. Residents of dryland regions seek genuine engagement yet engage opportunistically when seasons are conducive and when tangible outcomes are visible. © 2011 The Authors. Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers.

This chapter explores the dynamics of collaboration among the Bachelor of Arts (Extended) teaching staff in the process of curriculum development. Based around the concept drawn from the Uluru Statement, that Indigenous students’ knowledge and experience is a ‘gift’ they bring with them into the teaching and learning space, this presentation understands curriculum development and pedagogical reflection as a type of ‘preparation for the gift’. This framework provides an alternative to the deficit discourses that frequently frame teaching and learning environments in the context of Indigenous education. It provides a way to conceive of best practice in a pedagogical context, which seeks to position Indigenous perspectives at the centre of the teaching and learning endeavour. The authors present an overview of key concepts drawn from Indigenous scholarships that have shaped curriculum development, such as Martin Nakata’s Indigenous standpoint theory, illustrating how these core concepts can work across a range of subjects to strengthen students’ intellectual and critical engagement as part of their academic practice. In describing this curriculum work, Lilly Brown and David Collis will tell the story of how these developments occurred within the BA (Ext) program over recent years, and the principles of collaboration that were involved in making it a reality.

The past two decades have been marked by increased community involvement in the research process. Community-engaged research (CEnR) is increasingly promoted in the literature, and academic programs with a community-academic partnership focus. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to frame equitable community involvement in research and is a critical component of the CEnR continuum. As with CEnR, noted benefits of using CBPR expressed in the literature, which include enhancing the relevance and application of the research data, expertise to complex problems at all stages of research, overcoming community distrust, and improving community health. This article presents a community engagement (CE) model that includes seven defined designations for CEnR. In addition, this model includes equity indicators and contextual factors for consideration at the various levels of engagement along the continuum. The CE model described in this article combines the principles of CE and CBPR in conjunction with a continuum model. The continuum integrates a focus on health equity and contextual factors providing perspectives from both community and academic partners at each point of engagement. A broadly defined CEnR continuum will allow researchers, community members and organizations to readily identify 1) where they are on the continuum of CEnR, 2) appropriate access points to enter the continuum based on existing contextual factors, and 3) actions to promote progression on the continuum. Funders have the opportunity to specify the appropriate level of CE needed to accomplish the goals of their identified priorities.

As Breast Cancer and Environment Research Center (BCERC) project leaders, we would like to address what we believe represents inaccuracies and omissions in the recent article by Baralt and McCormick (2010). Using self-citations, the authors asserted that genes and environment were not included in breast cancer research before advocacy efforts emerged. Yet the environment has long been implicated in breast cancer etiology; for example, for > 50 years the laboratory model of mammary carcinogenesis has involved administration of environmental chemicals (Medina 2007). Further, the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (LIBCSP) was not the first environment–breast cancer grant, as suggested by Baralt and McCormick. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences issued such grants as early as 1991, including “Environmental Factors and Breast Cancer in High-Risk Areas” [Request for Applications (RFA) CA/ES-93-024] in 1993. The LIBCSP has been enormously productive, continuing even now, with > 100 scientific publications and $21 million in grant funding using LIBCSP resources. Baralt and McCormick’s (2010) criticism of the LIBCSP ignores the rigorous review process of National Institutes of Health grants, requiring an undeniable hypothesis, scientific plausibility, and high probability of success. What Baralt and McCormick described is the dissatisfaction of some (but not all) advocates with that research process during the initial years of the LIBCSP. Baralt and McCormick (2010) used the word “frustration” 16 times, without noting the impressive contributions of the BCERC Community Outreach and Translation Cores (COTC) projects. Advocacy and COTC in the BCERC since 2003 have resulted in extensive and innovative dissemination of knowledge and new ideas (Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program 2011). Mutual learning was facilitated by the participation of advocates and research staff in weekly staff meetings, monthly epidemiology and COTC calls, 16 subcommittee meetings and calls, and organizing calls for the biannual meetings. Coordinated COTC, advocate, and scientific sessions were part of the biannual BCERC meetings. Rather than “frustration,” the past 7 years could be better summarized as an ongoing, interactive, collaborative, critical process of science and advocacy–indeed a new paradigm of scientific method. As noted by Baralt and McCormick (2010), the 2002 RFA for BCERC did not require adherence to principles of community-based participatory research. The BCERC COTC members represented a range of experience in community-based participatory research; few had training in basic science. Each center developed different COTC models of community involvement and engagement, not included by Baralt and McCormick in their article. The Bay Area COTC incorporated the principles of community-based, participatory research and used those principles to evaluate the extent to which the approach was participatory and to ascertain the benefits and challenges of the participatory aspects of the project as perceived variously by community, advocacy, and scientific partners (Van Olphen et al. 2009). Other centers used quite different models of community engagement and, accordingly, should be evaluated in a different fashion. Thus, it would have been appropriate for Baralt and McCormick (2010) to assess which model most effectively met the aims stated in the 2002 RFA. Another difference between centers was that, except for the Bay Area, the COTCs were part of a research or academic institution. Thus, we faced multiple challenges on how to effectively involve communities and advocates in research. Over the first 7 years, centers developed a continuum of strategies to create partnerships with the basic scientists and epidemiologists involved in BCERC. Baralt and McCormick (2010) omitted important details describing their methodology from the article. Specifically, in their Table 1 they included demographics about the sex and race/ethnicity of the investigators from BCERC centers, but no similar table characterized the participants in their study. [The Bay Area BCERC COTC included an African-American member, not four whites as Baralt and McCormick showed in their Table 1.] In addition, the authors did not discuss the involvement of advocates compared with nonadvocates in activities of COTCs at the four centers. It was unclear whether survey participants included only scientists and advocates formally connected with the centers (e.g., those listed in their Table 1) or if they included non-BCERC scientists and advocates who attended the conferences. Also, if the respondents in 2005 and 2007 were completely different, as suggested, it was not appropriate to pool the data nor to report any changes over time. We support advocate participation in research, and we recognize that methods for quantifying their contributions require unique approaches.

Community engagement: learning from low-income countries

Understanding the perspectives of Indigenous medical students as they approach opportunities for postgraduate medical training

Health Systems Need to Transform Data Collection to Advance Health Equity.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a parasitic skin disease endemic in at least 88 countries where it presents an urgent, albeit often “neglected” public health problem. In this paper, we discuss our model of decolonial community engagement in the ECLIPSE global health research program, which aims to improve physical and mental health outcomes for people with CL. The ECLIPSE program has four interlinked phases and underpinning each of these phases is sustained and robust community engagement and involvement that guides and informs all activities in ECLIPSE. Our decolonial approach implies that the model for community engagement will be different in Brazil, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka. Indeed, we adopt a critical anthropological approach to engaging with community members and it is precisely this approach we evaluate in this paper. The data and material we draw on were collected through qualitative research methods during community engagement activities. We established 13 Community Advisory Groups (CAGs): in Brazil (n = 4), Ethiopia (n = 6), and Sri Lanka (n = 3). We identified four overarching themes during a thematic analysis of the data set: (1) Establishing community advisory groups, (2) CAG membership and community representation, (3) Culturally appropriate and context-bespoke engagement, and (4) Relationships between researchers and community members. During our first period of ECLIPSE community engagement, we have debunked myths (for instance about communities being “disempowered”), critiqued our own practices (changing approaches in bringing together CAG members) and celebrated successes (notably fruitful online engagement during a challenging COVID-19 pandemic context). Our evaluation revealed a gap between the exemplary community engagement frameworks available in the literature and the messy, everyday reality of working in communities. In the ECLIPSE program, we have translated ideal(istic) principles espoused by such community engagement guidance into the practical realities of “doing engagement” in low-resourced communities. Our community engagement was underpinned by such ideal principles, but adapted to local sociocultural contexts, working within certain funding and regulatory constraints imposed on researchers. We conclude with a set of lessons learned and recommendations for the conduct of decolonial community engagement in global health research.

BackgroundCommunity engagement has been advanced as a promising way of improving health and reducing health inequalities; however, the approach is not yet supported by a strong evidence base.ObjectivesTo undertake a multimethod systematic review which builds on the evidence that underpins the current UK guidance on community engagement; to identify theoretical models underpinning community engagement; to explore mechanisms and contexts through which communities are engaged; to identify community engagement approaches that are effective in reducing health inequalities, under what circumstances and for whom; and to determine the processes and costs associated with their implementation.Data sourcesDatabases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), The Campbell Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and EPPI-Centre’s Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) were searched from 1990 to August 2011 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Trials evaluating community engagement interventions reporting health outcomes were included.Review methodsStudy eligibility criteria: published after 1990; outcome, economic, or process evaluation; intervention relevant to community engagement; written in English; measured and reported health or community outcomes, or presents cost, resource, or implementation data characterises study populations or reports differential impacts in terms of social determinants of health; conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Study appraisal: risk of bias for outcome evaluations; assessment of validity and relevance for process evaluations; comparison against an economic evaluation checklist for economic evaluations. Synthesis methods: four synthesis approaches were adopted for the different evidence types: theoretical, quantitative, process, and economic evidence.ResultsThe theoretical synthesis identified key models of community engagement that are underpinned by different theories of changes. Results from 131 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that there is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on health behaviours, health consequences, self-efficacy and perceived social support outcomes, across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence – particularly for long-term outcomes and indirect beneficiaries – to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is likely to be more effective than any other. There are also insufficient data to test the effects on health inequalities, although there is some evidence to suggest that interventions that improve social inequalities (as measured by social support) also improve health behaviours. There is weak evidence from the effectiveness and process evaluations that certain implementation factors may affect intervention success. From the economic analysis, there is weak but inconsistent evidence that community engagement interventions are cost-effective. By combining findings across the syntheses, we produced a new conceptual framework.LimitationsDifferences in the populations, intervention approaches and health outcomes made it difficult to pinpoint specific strategies for intervention effectiveness. The syntheses of process and economic evidence were limited by the small (generally not rigorous) evidence base.ConclusionsCommunity engagement interventions are effective across a wide range of contexts and using a variety of mechanisms. Public health initiatives should incorporate community engagement into intervention design. Evaluations should place greater emphasis on long-term outcomes, outcomes for indirect beneficiaries, process evaluation, and reporting costs and resources data. The theories of change identified and the newly developed conceptual framework are useful tools for researchers and practitioners. We identified trends in the evidence that could provide useful directions for future intervention design and evaluation.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

BackgroundGovernment policy increasingly supports engaging communities to promote health. It is critical to consider whether such strategies are effective, for whom, and under what circumstances. However, ‘community engagement’ is defined in diverse ways and employed for different reasons. Considering the theory and context we developed a conceptual framework which informs understanding about what makes an effective (or ineffective) community engagement intervention.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of community engagement in public health interventions using: stakeholder involvement; searching, screening, appraisal and coding of research literature; and iterative thematic syntheses and meta-analysis. A conceptual framework of community engagement was refined, following interactions between the framework and each review stage.ResultsFrom 335 included reports, three products emerged: (1) two strong theoretical ‘meta-narratives’: one, concerning the theory and practice of empowerment/engagement as an independent objective; and a more utilitarian perspective optimally configuring health services to achieve defined outcomes. These informed (2) models that were operationalized in subsequent meta-analysis. Both refined (3) the final conceptual framework. This identified multiple dimensions by which community engagement interventions may differ. Diverse combinations of intervention purpose, theory and implementation were noted, including: ways of defining communities and health needs; initial motivations for community engagement; types of participation; conditions and actions necessary for engagement; and potential issues influencing impact. Some dimensions consistently co-occurred, leading to three overarching models of effective engagement which either: utilised peer-led delivery; employed varying degrees of collaboration between communities and health services; or built on empowerment philosophies.ConclusionsOur conceptual framework and models are useful tools for considering appropriate and effective approaches to community engagement. These should be tested and adapted to facilitate intervention design and evaluation. Using this framework may disentangle the relative effectiveness of different models of community engagement, promoting effective, sustainable and appropriate initiatives.