Toward Inummarik (well-balanced humans): an investigation of the role of land-based learning programs in public education

ABSTRACT

As a reaction to imposed education systems, traditional land-based education can be viewed as a source of resistance against a capitalist settler state, and most importantly, for the maintenance of Indigenous autonomy and sovereignty. However, formal k-12 learning environments are dominated by values systems and orientations to environmental education that potentially undermine Indigenous land-based education values and approaches. Within Canada, though there is a growing body of literature outlining the advantages of land-based learning for academic success and student well-being in public schools, funding models and policy restrictions have been slower to change and can impede implementation. With this article we hope to add to the growing body of evidence, supporting land-based learning as a legitimate pedagogy in public education. We approach this through a cross-case analysis of the results of two separate research projects and identifying the parallel themes, which emerged: youth resilience, Inuit autonomy, and authenticity in learning. Although our results focus on the development of individuals, within our conclusion we extend the argument toward systemic changes needed in Canadian public education not only as an act of decolonization but in supporting the development of Innumarik.

KEYWORDS:

• Land-based learning
• Inuit
• education
• policy

Introduction

Inuit Nunangat, which is the Inuktitut term used to identify the traditional territory of Inuit in translation, refers to the ‘land, water and ice’ vital to Inuit culture and lifeways (ITK, n.d.). It is also the official term used to describe collectively the four distinct Inuit regions (Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, and Inuvialuit) within Canada, commonly identified on maps as the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Quebec, and coastal Labrador. Understanding differing relationships to land, the political divisions of people via geographic boundaries, and further divisions created by land claims agreements is critical to understanding conflicts in Canada that predate confederation. As public education can act as both an agent of unification and division, to position this article for a global audience before we begin our discussion of land-based learning we must briefly outline the background of the historical and ongoing conflict in public education that has shaped Inuit-Settler relationships.

Inuit are one of several Indigenous Peoples, who have inhabited Arctic regions since time immemorial. However, Inuit rights to lands and land management have been ignored and contested in iterative cycles since the first contact with Settlers. Our version of this history begins with the 1670 Royal Charter issued by King Charles II, which granted ownership rights to the entirety of Inuit Nunangat with no consideration of Inuit title to land, to a fur trading company, the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) (Hudson's Bay Company, n.d.). The 1869 HBC sold these rights through a ‘deed of surrender’ to the newly forming government of Canada, again with Inuit ownership ignored (Bonesteel, 2006). However, the actual influence of Settlers on the Inuit was predominantly limited to trading goods and the autonomy of both Inuit and Settlers was relatively uncontested, until the 1920s–1950s with the onset of the cold war. The Canadian Federal government determined it was important to illustrate sovereignty over the Arctic by building infrastructure, providing formal services, and establishing settlements on the boundaries of Canadian land claim areas (Bonesteel, 2006). This was the end of relatively peaceful coexistence, to assert these claims the Federal government relocated families and communities to the high arctic, instigated residentially, and day schools modeled on the earlier deplorable treatment of First Nations, and committed a host of other insipid acts, which are slowly becoming public knowledge. Many of these acts occurred, while Inuit and their lands had not officially become members of Canada. Inuit legally lived as a sovereign nation within Canada until the four relatively recent regional land claims agreements (James Bay and Northern Quebec 1975, Inuvialuit 1984, Nunavut 1993, and Nunatsiavut 2005). These agreements outlined both rights and limitations of rights for land and its usage between Inuit and the government of Canada. These land claims agreements paired with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) though imperfect finally offered grounds for collaboration and partnership by explicitly stating rights and responsibilities and recognizing Inuit voice and control of their own territories.

Why have we begun an article on land-based education and well-being, with a prolonged history of Inuit-Settler treaty negotiation? Because the Inuit-Settler relationship has always been about land, and this continues to be contentious because of differing viewpoints and relationships to land and humanity's role in stewardship. Furthermore, this conflict and the subsequent political and social structures arising from shared governance (or the lack of it) have had a dramatic impact on Inuit health, well-being, and survival. Inuit land has been bought, sold, traded, mined, and harvested with minimal consideration of Inuit rights and environmental sustainability. Settler relationships with Inuit themselves have been similar, with efforts made to oppress, manipulate, and silence Inuit, and it is this legacy that reformed education, seated in Inuit values and land-based learning is well suited to rebuilding.

Our fundamental assumption is that Inuit land-based approaches are critical in revitalizing education toward enhancing student well-being and by extension sustainable development in the Arctic. We have constructed our argument through the literature review, which examines, first the cultural conflicts between colonial and Inuit ideologies of land and sustainability, next we examine the literature related to education, both Inuit and Settler values and finally we outline the association between sovereignty and identity. From this base, we justify our approach and methodology for the comparison of two different research study findings. Through the analysis of these projects parallel themes emerged of resilience, autonomy, and authenticity in learning that serve to amplify the voices of those calling for educational reform through the greater adoption of land-based learning. We conclude that land-based learning is fundamental to becoming Inummarik because it begins to address reconciliation by overturning power structures and struggles in education by acknowledging the values, traditions, and relationships of Inuit.

Settler and Inuit ideologies toward development and sustainability

The concept of development, as presented in Canadian mainstream educational materials, begins with colonization. The common story presents the arrival of various waves of settlers to inhabit and develop the large expanse of empty land, which later became Canada (Moreton-Robinson, 2017). Herein lies one of the foundational conflicts in Canada which have contributed to the internationally recognized and highly politicized Indigenous protests, such as the Oka crisis (1990), the Muskrat Falls occupation (2016), and the Wedzin Kwa Blockade (2020). These protests and public reaction to them serve as explicit examples of conflicting Settler-Indigenous relationships with the land and the deficit in public education to critically address broader worldviews in relation to definitions of sustainability.

Examining the Muskrat Falls occupation as an example, tensions were brought to the boiling point, when local Innu and Inuit community members gathered on the Nalcor Energy site to stop the construction of a hydro-electric dam that was anticipated to flood land Indigenous residents relied upon for physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Muskrat Falls was presented initially by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a cost-efficient and environmentally sustainable energy project that would, in turn, create local jobs (Thompson, 2019). At the same time, the environmental and socio-economic impacts on Inuit health and traditional livelihoods were not fully considered (Thompson, 2019). Understanding the differing perspectives on sustainable development requires responding to the environmental and human needs of local and cultural socio-ecological relationships (Gilio-Whitaker, 2019; Kirmayer et al., 2008). Colonial approaches to exploring sustainable development and climate issues have tended to prioritize sets of interconnected anthropocentric political, economic, judicial, medical, and social ideas that have diminished the land's meaning and value to mere capital and property to be exploited (Gilio-Whitaker, 2019). In contrast, Inuit approaches to sustainability have been characterized as a human-environmental relationship based on observation and communication between the living and non-living systems rather than management and resource development (Obed, 2017; Watt-Cloutier, 2015).

Prior to colonial development in North America, Indigenous knowledge and economy were based on activities aligned with natural cyclical seasons of life progression and renewal that have largely been replaced by government-mandated fiscal cycles that suit annual, monthly, and weekly productions of human labor (McGrath, 2012). Displacing ancient traditional Indigenous eco-stewardship, Settler colonial endeavors, of domination over land, have made way for capital enterprise and growth (Gilio-Whitaker, 2019). While beneficial for our modern technological advancements, colonial development approaches must be acknowledged as attributing to an unbalanced ‘growth’ rate that if not the cause, has contributed to the climate crisis we are now facing. Without decolonizing the definition and practice of sustainable development and mainstream public education concurrently, we risk perpetuating harm to the lands and people that lie at the core of land dispossession, ongoing resource extraction, and industrial and corporate pollution (Larsen & Johnson, 2017). If unfettered colonial approaches to development are the problem, then perhaps public education can contribute to the ‘cure’.

Inuit and Settler values of education

The same worldview conflict illustrated in approaches to development reappears in approaches to education. Rasmussen (2001) describing qallunology (the study of non-Inuit society) critiques Settler’s approaches to formal education as a compensatory mechanism invented to deal with uprootedness and the collapse of family and community relations, which is used to train converts to the new non-social economy (p. 88). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) (translated as the concept of what Inuit have always known to be true) serves as the basis for traditional values and goals for education and has been described in the foundational curriculum documents within Nunavut. Rather than an add-on to the curriculum, concepts of sustainability are directly addressed in one of the principals of IQ; avatittinnik kamatsiarniq (environmental stewardship) which outlines the importance of respect and care for the land, animals, and the environment, by only taking what is needed, while also stretching what has been taken to ensure every-thing is used respectfully (NDE, 2007). Other values of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit include Qanuqtuurniq (being innovative and resourceful), Piliriqatigiinniq (working together for a common cause), Pilimmaksarniq (developing skills through observation mentoring, and practice), and Pijitsirniq (being of service to others) which in the practical application has led to Inuit not only surviving but thriving in relationship to the environment for millennia (NDE, 2007). Illustrating knowledge and skills in all of the values of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit are considered important in becoming Inummarik or a well-balanced contributing human in society.

For decades, Inuit advocates have expressed the need for schooling to reflect Inuit culture, values, and worldview toward developing Inummarik (Zeheri, 2014). Despite significant changes since the establishment of Federal day schools across the Arctic, the imposed school system remains largely structured on southern Canadian school models and retains many of its colonial qualities (Berger, 2009; Berger & Epp, 2006). Often these qualities are inconsistent with Inuit approaches to raising children and knowledge transmission. Like all societies, Inuit have always had the education of youth as a foundation for survival and healthy families and communities. Traditional education was based on experiential, informal learning that was integrated with daily life and was not based on quantitative metric-based notions of achievement (Schissel & Wortherspoon, 2001). The traditional curriculum taught youth: who they were, what other beings were around them, and how humans related to the world while also maintaining a space for Elders as teachers (Miller, 1996). Kirmayer et al. (2008) claim through traditional education young people are prepared with skills and values fundamental for Inummarik; for example, through hunting, youth learn patience, resource-fulness, and how to provide for families.

However, upon contact with Settlers, mission-based schools, then federal schools including both residential and day schools fundamentally disrupted traditional education based on avatittinnik kamatsiarniq and Inuit qaujimajatuqangit. Zebedee Nungak and his former Federal day elementary teacher tell the story of one of their classroom conflicts, as Mr. Mallon attempted to ‘save’ Zebedee from failing school by dragging him back to class on a sunny afternoon. Zebedee escaped by physically fighting off his teacher, to return to the land to hunt. As both look back on the experience forty years later they grimace agreeing the small boy won because for him the stakes were higher and reflected a fight for his fundamental values and way of life (Sandiford, 2005).

The era directly following Federal Day schools, though still dominated by Qallunaat (non-Inuit) teachers in schools, reflects a beginning of renewal and partnerships between Inuit in community and schools that has led to a marginal shift in systemic colonial dominance of education (McGregor, 2010). At this point (late 1960s) Inuit traditional knowledge began to enter schools through various programming such as the ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’ (TEK) which consisted of both school activities and on land school-supported excursions (McGregor, 2010). In parallel, mainstream curricular reform from a southern perspective has begun to shift away from teaching about things in discrete disciplines to teaching through inquiry and real-world problem solving that better reflects the complexity of society. This illustrates, though most often positioned in opposition, as we too have done in thus far this article, Inuit, Indigenous, and Settler worldviews need not be entirely antagonistic. Settler and Indigenous scholars, such as Augustine (1998), Bartlett et al. (2012) and Kapyrka and Docstator (2012) suggest ‘middleground’, ‘two-eyed’ or ‘two-world’ perspectives, respectively to bridge gaps in pedagogical approaches and deepen learning for all.

Impact of educational sovereignty on identity and participation

Few socio-political structures have been as dramatically devastating to Inuit well-being as public education. Today communities are still healing from the residential and federal day education policies, which saw children relocated, families split, language lost, sickness, and a disruption of traditional learning, community members’ roles, and economies at a scale that is difficult to comprehend. A current examination of public education within Inuit Nunangat reveals a wide range of cultural and social learning incongruities remain in current educational offerings due to the systemic adoption of colonial education structures (BDEC, 2018; Corneau, 2018; McNeil, 2018). The resulting narrative of disappointing attendance rates, student academic performance, educational outcomes, graduation numbers, teacher development, and retention, as well as Inuktut (the composite term used to include all Inuit languages and dialects) use and fluency in schools, dominates current literature (ITK, 2011; Martin, 2017; Zeheri, 2014). Most, if not all of these challenge areas can be attributed directly and indirectly to fundamental differences in worldview and educational philosophies paired with the profound impacts of socio-economic inequities, assimilationist policies, land dispossession, and ongoing colonial extractivist practices (Berger, 2002; Fryberg et al., 2013; ITK, 2016). Public education in Canada has acted and continues to act as a tool of cultural assimilation at the cost of well-being for youth (Arnaquq, 2008; Coulthard, 2014; Simpson, 2017).

However, education can be and is being transformed to play a role in repairing the damage caused. Since the closure of the last Federal Day school in 1970 education within Inuit Nunangat has been undergoing a transformation that better reflects Inuit values. For example, in 2010 Pinasuaqtavut (the Bathurst mandate), directed the creation of a curriculum made for and by Inuit in Nunavut based on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit traditional knowledge). Since its implementation, Inuit student graduation from grade 12 has been increasing; 247 students graduated in Nunavut in 2016 compared to 98 in 1999 (Skura, 2017). A curriculum seated in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit sees the restoration of traditional skills and values into mainstream education (Karatek et al., 2017). This restorative educational approach sees formal education aligned more closely with the context of day-to-day life, outdoors ‘on the land’ and includes the values of interdependent and reciprocal relationality among people and the natural world through direct observation, engagement, and practices with ourselves, each other and the environment (Black & William, 2009; NDE, 2018). However, critical challenges exist when shifting education away from mainstream activities to land-based learning.

Describing implementation of land-based education in Inuit Nunangat

Both Elders and academics agree that part of the middle ground in educational reform is the adoption of land-based learning (Karetak et al., 2017; Scully, 2012). However, the degree to which land-based education is adopted within Inuit Nunangat is influenced by a number of factors. These can include both the length of time and the degree to which the territory has exerted autonomous control of the education system alongside the history in terms of land claims, colonization, and the relationships built between the provincial and territorial governments of the region. There have been innovative shifts coming from schools through language and cultural learning since as early as the 1960 s (McGregor, 2010). For example in 2017, Nunavik (Northern Quebec – the territory with the oldest formalized land claim agreement and the longest-standing Inuit controlled education system) adopted an Inuit-centric curricular framework that sees the transformation of mainstream science and technology courses repositioned with a cyclical and holistic curriculum seated in local cultural and land knowledge (Watt, 2018). The aim was to meet and even exceed the requirements for the Quebec Ministry of Education Science expectations, which have been problematic for the territory for several years (Strong, 2017; Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Within Nunatsiavut the Ilusivut and Inosiuvit language, culture and land-based learning courses pre-date the Labrador School board's merger into the Newfoundland and Labrador English Language School Board in 2013. While Nunavut/NWT was teaching TEK in schools prior to the formation of Nunavut. All of the aforementioned programs involved some form of Inuit knowledge holder and community engagement.

The majority of the research related to outcomes of land-based learning within Inuit Nunangat exists in internal evaluations and community reports of informal land-based learning programs outside of public education (Mearns & Healey, 2015; Noah & Healey, 2010). Therefore, with this research we sought to bridge the gap, by analyzing the results of participant interviews discussing the role of informal and public school land-based education programs in parallel, to create a direct link between the outcomes of the two types of programming.

Approach and methodology

We conducted a cross-case analysis (Khan & van Wynsberghe, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 2006) of two independently conducted research studies. In discussion, we determined that our original research project questions though similar reflected very different research approaches and positioning. The two cases are positioned external and internal to public education and led by insider and outsider researchers, respectively. The power of the cross-case analysis as stated by George and Bennett (2005) in this work is to uncover the themes common within differing contexts which in our case provides a tangible link to the applicability of informal Land-based education to formalized education through shared outcomes.

The first research project, conducted and led by Diane during her graduate studies (2017) explored the question: How do Inuit cultural competencies develop through land-based learning impact student outcomes? Data for this project were collected through a narrative inquiry process, with interviews of 36 Inuit participants located in 3 Inuit communities within Nunavut and Nunatsiavut. The participants discussed their participation in land-based learning projects held in the community. Diane, as an Inuit beneficiary originally from Nunatsiavut, was in a unique position to discuss challenges with education from an insider position. Her project was supported by funding from the Nunatsiavut Government. The second research project which kathy represents was the result of a national research project examining public education. The project ‘Foundations for Student Success and Persistence’ (2017–2019) was led by a team of non-Inuit researchers funded by ArcticNet (an independent center for excellence in research) seeking answers to the research question: What are the factors that support or hinder student success in public (K-12 education). Within this project, a case study methodology was adopted, with in-depth examinations of five cases (schools in five separate communities in Inuit Nunangat) and semi-structured interviews of 20–40 people within each case/community. Through a re-examination of interviews from both projects, we sought to discover the parallels, if any, from these two different vantage points, with regard to the role of land-based learning in schools for supporting concepts of sustainable development. Thematic analysis of interviews was guided by Denzin (1989), through a cyclical process of thematic coding first separately and then together.

Results and analysis: what we learned

It is important to understand that land-based education is not simply a field trip nor outdoor education, and it is this misconception by some teachers and administrators that has led to the problematic implementation of land-based education in Canada. For the clarity of subsequent discussion within this paper, the definition we derived for land-based learning from listening to our participants includes learning that supports the development of cultural competencies, language, and skills in relation to traditional learning underpinned by the cultural values of relationship-building with the land. With this definition, land-based learning could be conducted inside the walls of the school, but as the participants, we spoke to described, is ideally situated outside in relation to the land and environment.

In describing land-based education in this way we observed three overlapping continua: the first seated in a physical location, from inside, to outside, to distance from the school grounds/community (a measure of remoteness); the second is time, from a short school period length to multi-day excursions; and the third resourcing which included ad hoc volunteer-driven activities to normalized budget/schedule for people and supplies. For example, in some regions/programs land-based education may exist as a reliable annual budget item for land-based educators, and/or Elders in residence, while in others it is primarily volunteer-driven or relies on receiving external grant funding or discretionary decisions of the school principal. In describing the outdoor activities participants engaged in specifically, at one end of the continua were activities that left school/community center property and traveled more than a travel day distance away, where there are no services or supplies beyond what the participants prepared and brought. We qualified these as immersive experiences. These activities occurred less frequently and consisted of multi-day land trips usually associated with specific seasonal activities, such as a hunting trip during the caribou migration period. Slightly closer along the continua, examples of single-day or half-day excursions to nearby territorial parks or simply outside of town limits, where participants could quickly travel back to the community for supplies and there is no expectation of camping/sleeping away from home. Next were land-based activities that took place on school grounds or within the town limits, generally over shorter periods, such as children following an Elder to the designated place in the community and learning how to build an Igloo. In this example, proximity to school, or home as well as the duration of the activity was short, but traditional skills and relationships with Elders were developed. Finally, land-based skills may be modeled or developed within a classroom setting, where youth remained in the school, perhaps even in a typical institutional classroom, space and materials were brought to teach skills, for example, a recently harvested seal might be brought to the school and youth learned how to respectfully handle, store, and prepare the products of the seal following traditional values. Elders in residence might also be observed story-telling both formally and informally in the classroom or within the school, sharing views and history about land-based themes and knowledge. In some cases, the Elder might be brought in as a leader of the activities, as a consultant, or as an expert in the theme addressed. Finally, land-based education was also observed as integrated into ‘mainstream’ curricular outcomes, for example, an examination of ecosystems from the Settler scientist position, with the additional lens of Inuit world view on relationship to the land included. Where formal land-based programming existed it was frequently challenged by funding and/or policy restrictions that limited its implementation to the far end of the spectrum, ‘safer’, ‘smaller’ activities, such as inclusion in mainstream curricula, rather than extended on the land trips.

From describing and defining the varied forms of land-based education participants experienced, we moved to an examination of the outcomes of land-based learning as reported by participants. Three parallel themes that participants identified regardless of format (informal/formal/immersive/school-based) emerged: authentic engagement, development of resilience, and autonomy. Each of these will be discussed in sequence and situated in current literature. Within each section, at least one citation from each project has been shared to illustrate the parallel findings.

Resilience for self and land which is inseparable

Colonial educational design continues to be a point of disconnect for Inuit students, though efforts have been made to ‘Indigenize’ curriculum and teaching and learning in Inuit Nunangat, the changes at the classroom level are not enough. As one Elder in Nunavut states:

The whole premise on which education is based, is very different from Inuit cultural perspective versus the economic, technology-based education. The damage, the offset of that is going to show up. Could be global warming. The holistic perspective is greatly underestimated, as it doesn't have a platform, Inuit culture is designed to accommodate a holistic perspective.

The disconnect outlined by the Elder was repeated in various ways by most participants, either questioning why some academic topics were not related to local knowledge or in relation to academic approach versus traditional approach to learning. Inuit are at the forefront of many land management debates, yet also have to advocate for opportunities to return youth outside to learn about the environment they are working to preserve (Redvers et al., 2015; Zoe, 2010). The interconnection between the health of the environment and the health of humans was made by many participants but arose more commonly from adults and Elders. As illustrated by a parental comment from Nunatsiavut, in describing observations of their children:

when they are going through a hard time whether it be depression or hard family situations, the biggest healer I’ve seen and I’ve heard is to go off on the land, the scenery, it will take all your problems away and you’re just enjoying the day, the water, the sky, the animals, everything else is gone, you’re just there in that world.

As Cherpako (2019) writes in her rationale for land-based learning states ‘ [it] has mental health benefits, improves understanding for active learners, and cap help students to develop environmental awareness and a connection to the land’ (p. 3). At its most superficial level, land-based education served as a motivation factor, for youth who attend a school specifically so they could participate in land-based activities. Within Nunatsiavut, children, parents, and Elders all discussed a pivotal grade 9 annual multi-day excursion as critical to school engagement. As a school staff member explains:

I know with the grade nines, we take them for a week where they go out in the country, in a tent. It's probably the only time during the year when we have 100% attendance in grade nine. Not because they’re in a classroom in school but because they’re in a classroom out on the land. And they appreciate that.

In outlining the student perspective related to the grade 9 trip, all youth stated in some way the anticipated participation in the grade 9 trip kept them motivated to participate in school, a few mentioned this anticipation was the major factor in their decision to stay in school, at least until the end of grade 9. Although purely anecdotal from staff interviews, the school had very few occurrences of drop-out until grade 10. The principal of the school directly attributed this to the grade 9 trip, which he felt delayed the leaving decision for students at least in part. Schools, positioned as places of healing, through land-based learning begin to reframe the relationship youth have with school, from objective and institutional to caring and community. McLarty (2020) has outlined the importance of whole-class land-based activities for motivation and relationship building early in an academic year as it allows teachers and students to work together in the development of ikajuqtigiinnig (working together for a common cause) through the skills of flexibility, shared leadership, and respect for one another and the environment. The importance of these skills for youth in developing resiliency cannot be understated. Epidemic rates of youth suicide are a long-standing challenge across Inuit Nunangat. Hanson (2011; 2012) identify the universal role that the land healing camps have for women and men in promoting healing and well-being through the development of resilience. Kral (2012) posits that suicide within Inuit Nunangat is a response to a social deconstruction of Inuit identity caused by colonization, leaving many Inuit feeling disconnected.

Authentic connection to education – clear relevance and applicability

Current literature and indeed educational best practices highlight the critical importance of relevant context and context for engagement and success in learning (Arnaquq, 2008; NDE, 2018). This can be highlighted in examples of absence, such as the stories told by Zebedee Nungak, looking back at learning to read from ‘Dick and Jane’ readers, with illustrations of trees and escalators and other typically ‘southern’ objects and concepts not found in his home community (Sandiford, 2005) but also in positive examples of the learning that occurs in the presence of local context (NDE, 2018). Ministries across Inuit Nunangat have worked to develop culturally relevant curricula frameworks, such as IQ, wellness curricula (Aulajaaqtut in Nunavut), and land-based learning (Ilusivut in Nunatsiavut), are critical examples. Our participants further evidenced the need for maintaining and growing these programs to support youth. As one participant stated:

You can read so much about learning in a book in school, that's only going to get you so far, like when you’re out there, when it gets cold, how you gonna get used to the cold, the elements, when you’re in a storm, your thinking changes, when you’re caught in a white-out or something. You can't read that stuff in a book […] I think the only way to teach land-based knowledge is to actually take the time to bring kids out on the land, whether that would be a class, that would’ve been awesome if we could’ve had that in school, whether that would’ve been a whole class for half the day or something. […] I sat for days in the classroom looking out the window.

This profound statement explains how Inuit learning, with and on the land, relies upon being embodied and active, rather than the disembodied and passive approach that often occurs in formal academic settings. Disembodiment is now being referred to as one of humanity's largest social ailments, as it disconnects us from the natural elements, and our holistic selves (Obed, 2017). In simpler terms, land-based learning provided the context for mainstream curriculum objectives that may have been missing through more passive approaches to learning. As one recent high school graduate related:

I found when I did some of the math, people said you’ll never need to know these formulas, but when I built my shed I knew there was a certain formula I could use to do my rafters the real technical way to get my pitch. And I used my formula and I actually called up my teacher and asked for the formula.

So many skills needed to thrive in Inuit Nunangat are directly related to the ability to fend for oneself rather than rely on experts or stores to provide needed services and items. Additionally the ability to understand the environment, read the weather, understand patterns of movement of animals, and be able to work and respond to ever-changing conditions with the resources that are readily available. University preparation and classroom success can appear to be inauthentic learning experiences, beyond the external pressure of ‘need to get grade 12’, which was a goal both celebrated and mourned by participants. Graduation is mourned by some as a sign of loss of traditional economies, and celebrated by others as a pathway to new opportunities.

Identity development, self-worth, and autonomy

The role of land-based learning and connection for positive mental health has been illustrated by Kral (2012) and was also evidenced in our work. Youth have received mixed messages about what they need to do to be ‘good citizens’ from popular media which illustrates southern ideals, to Elders who promote traditional lifestyles and Inummarik ideals. Youth must negotiate and find peace with themselves in both worlds. Being a teenager is difficult for everyone, but in describing the Inuit experience one teacher outlines:

They [youth] have to know who they are but people tell them this and that. They’re really mixed, like they don't have a really good foundation of who they are or where they came from. Maybe that's another thing because they’re not doing so well in Inuit culture, they’re not doing so well in qallunaat culture.

Opportunity on the land offers youth a chance to succeed and develop a sense of pride and leadership where they might not be successful in other areas. As one recent graduate stated, land-based learning taught them:

To not only look at one direction but to try to integrate everything. Everything around you, if I can't do this what do I do? It really helped a lot for me and it taught me so much about who I am.

While an Elder outlined the same concept, but from the opposite position, the impact of no land-based skills, as explained to us through a translator:

a young person today who had quit school because he's stayed in a house all his life, and he hasn't gone out to the land because of circumstances that are beyond his control, he cannot survive. The youth knows that, and because he has no English education, his survival skills are very limited because he has no cultural experience at all. Culturally he's lost.

In personal communication later, the Elder's wife outlined, how much the Elder wanted to start a land-based education program for the youth, particularly young men, who were early school leavers, as he viewed this as a critical means to support their identity and ensure that the young men were able to support themselves into the future. The Elder was deeply worried about the future of young men in particular. Tootoo (2015) also identified the importance of hands-on and land-based skills as critical to young men's success as for many this ability to hunt and fish offered the first glimpse of how they could support their families, both now and in the future.

Illustrating the interconnection of the themes, autonomy, and cultural identity confidence was reiterated as development of resilience, by Elders, parents, community members, and teachers. As exemplified by this statement from a teacher in Nunavut:

I can take them out hunting, so they can learn too. So, they can eat, and keep their traditional knowledge. It not only works in school but in life, if they have something to be proud of like their tradition, their culture then they will want to be out there to keep them out of trouble. Keep them out of alcohol, drugs … Anything like that. It will. We got to make sure that the student has a goal and when they have that goal they will reach it. It will give them confidence even when the time gets hard.

Youth discussions of identity, self-worth, and self-efficacy were for the most part unclear and echoed Ittusardjuat (2015) reflecting on her life in transition, from traditional land-based to residential school and then becoming a teacher herself stated ‘I know our identity evolves according to what we experience, but I have to find my Inuk self again because there always seemed to be a missing link’ (p. 41). Referring to her past in this way, and the disconnect she felt from family, community, and land, caused by school. Cherpako (2019) claims land-based learning is central to providing a safe and nurturing space for youth to not only develop their own connection to land but to become empowered to protect their rights to their own land.

Reflections and final thoughts

Through an examination of both cases, land-based learning appears to support three wholistic aspects of becoming Inummarik relevant to public education success. The three aspects being: the development of resilience, authentic contextually development skills along with a sense of self-worth and autonomy. Land-based learning reinforces Inuit values and traditional approaches to learning and through this decenters Settler approaches to education opening the door to discussions of the relationship to land and land usage from both perspectives of Settlers and Inuit towards sustainable development. Considering the impact on individuals, one of the main conclusions our analysis supports is that Inuit land-based learning not only promotes staying connected to the lands but preserves eco-centric cultural identities. Repeated in messaging from young and old was that land-based education grounded in epistemologies and methods developed over many generations for survival in challenging landscapes helps to build tangible connections between the learner's embodied sense of self and their learning environments. Situating the learner in the context of their surrounding environment is a holistic pedagogical tool that promotes personal reconnection to the land and by extension a deeper understanding of our symbiotic relationship with the earth (Larsen & Johnson, 2017; Methot, 2019). This increased awareness of the land as active in learning generates increased possibilities and healthy alignment with youth who are the beneficiaries of the teachings. Connection and relationships with knowledge acquired through direct immersion and experience rather than as abstract concepts engage learners holistically, thus anchoring that knowledge in a local context, needs, and values. Indigenous education as a holistic experience stimulates learners beyond the intellectual to include the whole self, the physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects that provide conditions conducive to a felt sense of our human interdependence to the natural world, thus becoming inummarik (Obed, 2017; Wilson, 2008).

Moving beyond the Inuit student experience, land-based education is a critical component of decolonizing education and provides skills and strategies to promote reconciliation among all Canadians. Returning to the Muskrat Falls conflict, we can only speculate how this might have been avoided if both sides shared understanding of sustainable development. We would pose that contextually and culturally rich land-based education offers an approach to building common understandings through an experiential relationship with the land. However, while land-based learning and by extension decolonizing education is vital and necessary in promoting Indigenous knowledge renewal and preserving biodiversity, this must be accompanied by education that raises awareness of the role of self in that process. As we have heard from this work, Inuit youth find a connection to land and disconnection from land as critical impacts to identity and well-being and as a nation perhaps we need to re-examine our own individual and collective positionalities. For effective intercultural collaborations to emerge, we must be willing to critically explore and understand our own positionality in relation to histories of conflict over land that continue to shape patterns of behavior that create ongoing imbalances. As the authors mapped in this paper, understanding the past, the tension points, and listening to the voices of those most impacted provides potential solutions; however, it cannot occur without shifting understanding of goals both for education and environmental stewardship.

Acknowledgements

The original projects informing this work could not have been developed without the support and guidance from Jodie Lane of the Nunatsiavut Government and members of the National Council on Inuit Education (NCIE).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This included site selection, guidance, and funding support provided by the Ministry of Education and Economic Development (Nunatsiavut), Inuit Taparit Kanitami (ITK), the National Committee on Inuit Education (NCIE) and ArcticNet.