Adopt Mātauranga Māori in Digital Tech

Press the ▶️ button at the top-right of the page to view the presentation.

• Curriculum Development
• matuadoc.co.nz

• How to integrate it in Digitech
• Adopt a holistic approach
• Mātāpono Māori
• Challenges

• Emphasis is placed on Pākehā ways of knowing and doing
• Pākehā ways of knowing and doing are considered “normal”
• Often mātauranga Māori has been introduced as separate, complementary, or additional
• Pākehā views, values, and perspectives dominate
• The marginalisation of Māori occurs as a result

• To turn this…

• To turn this… into this!

It matters where that comes from!

• Considerations for “fitness for purpose”, “appropriateness”, and “Relevant implications” are made in view of:

  • The outcome’s purpose
  • The outcome’s end users
  • The outcome’s context

• They happen at the start of the project and come back at the end

• In a holistic view, these considerations are primordial

  • They are integral to every single aspect of the project
  • Rather than being considered only at the beginning, they should be examined and re-examined at every stage of the development process

• So far I’ve talked a lot about context and how it is as one with the skills, outcome, etc.

• But what must be considered?

• According to the Digital Technologies Learning Matrix (for Level 6), students will “understand how digital technologies impact on end users by considering the following mātāpono Māori”

• Kotahitanga: unity, collaboration, and collective action

• Whanaungatanga: a sense of relationship, connection, and belonging

• Manaakitanga: the process of showing respect and care; reciprocity between people, living things, and places

• Kaitiakitanga: guardianship, stewardship for living things and resources

• Tikanga: the system of values and practices that have developed over time and are deeply embedded in traditional and social context; the correct way of doing things

• Mātāpono Māori are values derived from te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori
• They are a fantastic drop-in replacement for “relevant implications”
• However, unlike relevant implications where students pick a couple, students should consider all of these at all times
• Let’s start by using a whakatauki…

Kaua e rangiruatia te hāpai o te hoe e kore tō tātou waka e ū ki uta

• Don’t paddle out of unison
• Our canoe will never reach the shore

• Unity, collaboration, and collective action

• Kotahitanga means “oneness”

• This describes togetherness, solidarity, and working together for a shared goal

• This means looking at:

  • End user considerations
  • Secondary stakeholders
  • Local community needs
  • Iwi/hapu needs

• If a digital technology outcome is not designed with stakeholders in mind, decisions will reflect the developer rather than the stakeholders
• This means the outcome might not fulfil its purpose
• It might also work in contradiction to the values of those affected by it
• It’s important the design process incorporates feedback from:
  • The people for whom the outcome is being designed and developed
  • Those who may be impacted (communities, iwi/hapu, etc.)
• Do not dismiss opinions as invalid just because you disagree

• Be very clear about the purpose of the outcome right from the start
  • To inform
  • To educate
  • To entertain
  • To persuade
• Be very clear about for whom the outcome is intended
  • Who are the primary end users?
  • Who are the secondary end users?
  • Who are the other stakeholders who benefit indirectly?
• Clarity about purpose and users helps designers and developers steer the waka to the intended port

• A sense of relationship, connection, and belonging
• Whanaungatanga refers to connectedness and relationships
• The outcome integrates with and follows the norms of the societies and cultures in which it is located
• The outcome treats those communities and their people inclusively, with respect

• If an outcome is not designed to integrate within its society, users may feel put off or discriminated against
• Failure to integrate can include:
  • Non-inclusive design or discriminatory content
  • Not following social norms (too formal, too much slang, etc.)
  • Unusual use of colours or icons, contrary to users’ expectations
• Language learned from the internet can be insensitive, ableist, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or bigoted without realising
  • But anything you can learn, you can also un-learn
• It’s important we work together with all kinds of people

• Avoid content or design that alienates, excludes, or disparages people across:
  • Nationalities and cultures
  • Belief systems
  • Sexualities and gender identity
  • Physical and mental ability
• Do tone checks, sensitivity checks, and consult with groups who may be affected
• Trial the outcome with end users during development to ensure it meets expectations
• Inclusive outcomes ensure nobody is left outside the waka

• Showing respect and care
• Reciprocity between people, living things, and places
• Manaakitanga refers to caring for others and their wellbeing, to elevate their mana
• Prioritise design and outcomes that show respect and care
• Design with accessibility in mind so it’s usable by everybody
• Overlap with whanaungatanga

• If an outcome is not easy to operate, end users will not achieve their goals
• This defeats the purpose of the outcome
• Usability principles can make programs and websites work in the service of all
• Consider the needs of people with:
  • Low vision, colour blindness, etc.
  • Hearing loss or deafness
  • Dyslexia, autism, or other processing difficulties

• Evaluate your design and outcome against Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics
• Use accessibility tools such as:
  • Contrast checkers
  • Screen readers
  • Writing checkers
• Collect feedback from people affected by conditions such as:
  • Low vision or blindness
  • Hearing loss or deafness
  • Dyslexia, autism, or other processing difficulties
• Ensuring everybody can use the outcome helps all move together

• Guardianship and stewardship for living things and resources
• Kaitiakitanga means “guardianship”
• Ensure the outcome minimises harm to the environment
  • Where harm cannot be avoided: what do we give back? How do we heal?
• Ensure the outcome does not cause people physical or mental harm

• If an outcome does not account for environmental impact, it could cause harm
• Inefficient programs use more CPU and therefore more energy
• Requiring the latest devices can treat older machines as e-waste
• Outcomes should take care not to damage the user’s computer

• Prioritise less intensive technologies
  • Avoid unnecessary JavaScript
  • Choose efficient algorithms
• Measure energy impact using resource monitors and debugging tools
• Design and develop outcomes that operate well on more than just the latest devices
• We ride the waves, we respect the winds; those who don’t, their waka capsizes

• Values and practices deeply embedded in traditional and social context
• The correct way of doing things
• Tikanga means “the correct way of doing things”
• Ensure the outcome embodies the values of the societies in which it’s used
• The outcome must not break the law in the places it’s used
  • Respect intellectual property and copyright
  • Law is a kind of tikanga

• Failing to embody ethical values risks alienating users or promoting harmful views
• Not abiding by laws (IP, copyright, privacy) can create liability
• Intellectual property and copyright mean respecting:
  • Other people’s designs
  • Inventions
  • Patents and copyrights
• Privacy means:
  • Treating private information with respect
  • Not sharing with unauthorised parties
  • Taking responsibility for leaked data

• Be aware of relevant laws and regulations, namely:
  • Privacy laws
  • Harmful digital communications laws
  • Intellectual property laws
• We all row the waka together; remember who else is holding the paddle

• Much of digital technologies teaching comes from overseas (favouring kaupapa Pākehā)
• How can we embed kaupapa Māori without:
  • Adding unnecessarily to the documentation workload of students?
  • Confusing students about what is “correct” — KM or KP?
  • Allowing non-Māori students to continue to see themselves in learning and assessment?

• Students should consider the mātāpono at every stage in the project
• Does that mean writing about them at each stage?
  • In each iteration?
  • For every component?
• You don’t need to record this evidence
• If you want to, use alternative evidence such as video/audio interviews
  • Example prompt: “How do you feel your work this sprint reflects manaakitanga?”

• For our curriculum area, “correct” vs “incorrect” is the wrong framing
• It’s not a zero sum game
  • For MM to be right, MP doesn’t have to be wrong
• MP is not the bad guy
• They should have mana orite — they are equal
• Be up front with your students
  • Don’t try to “hide” it
  • “We are using MM as our framework”
  • “We are doing so for these reasons…”
  • “It is different from MP in these ways…”
  • “They are similar in these ways…”

• Make it crystal clear: using MM as a framework does not inherently mean MP is out
• Encourage students to find the connections
• Discuss what is valuable about both approaches
• Depending on the context, explicitly looking at other approaches (e.g., Pasifika) may be appropriate
  • These can still be related back to MM
  • Bridging Pasifika ways of thinking to MM should be fairly easy