The impetus to decolonise high schools and universities has been gaining momentum in Southern locations such as South Africa and Australia. In this article, we use a polyvocal approach, juxtaposing different creative and scholarly voices, to argue that poetry offers a range of generative possibilities for the decolonisation of high school and university curricula. Australian First Nations’ poetry has been at the forefront of the Indigenous political protest movement for land rights, recognition, justice and Treaty since the British settlement/invasion. Poetry has provided Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a powerful vehicle for speaking back to colonial power. In this article, a team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers argue that poetry can be a powerful vehicle for Indigenous voices and Knowledges. We suggest that poetry can create spaces for deep listening (dadirri), and that listening with the heart can promote truth-telling and build connections between First Nations and white settler communities.  These decolonising efforts underpin the “Wandiny (gathering together)—Listen with the Heart: Uniting Nations through Poetry” research that we discuss in this article. We model our call-and-response methodology by including the poetry of our co-author and Aboriginal Elder of the Kungarakan people in the Northern Territory, Aunty Sue Stanton, with poetic responses by some of her co-authors.

No abstract

While attempts to decolonise the school curriculum have been ongoing since the 1970s, the recent Black Lives Matter protests around the world have drawn urgent attention to the vast inequities faced by Black and First Nations peoples and people of colour. Decolonising education and other public institutions has become a front-line public concern around the world. In this article, we argue that poetry offers generative possibilities for the decolonisation of Australian high school (and university) curricula. Inspired by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander approaches to knowledge creation as intergenerational, iterative and intercultural, and by postcolonial and decolonial theories, we explore ways in which poetry events can begin decolonising and diversifying the school curriculum. We suggest that poetry creates spaces for deep listening with the heart (dadirri) that can promote truth-telling about colonial histories and the strengths, achievements and contributions of First Nations Australians. These decolonising efforts underpin the Wandiny (Gathering Together) – Listen With the Heart: Uniting Nations Through Poetry research that we discuss in this article. In these ways, we argue that decolonised curricula create the conditions for cognitive justice in schooling that is an important precursor to other forms of social justice, such as equality, diversity and inclusion.

According to creative writing pedagogies academic Susanne Gannon (English in Australia, 54(2), 43–56, 2019), and the Federal government-commissioned NAPLAN review (McGaw et al., 2020), NAPLAN has restricted how writing is taught in secondary schools. A NAPLAN-influenced structural approach to teaching writing has subsumed the development of imaginative capacity. Given the considerable negative criticism of the NAPLAN writing tests, including the negative impact it has had on the teaching of writing, there is a need, we argue, for a fit-for-purpose assessment rubric that assesses creative writing. In a 10-week project, teaching creative writing with three classes of Year 9 students in Steiner schools, we evaluated the use of a novel creative writing rubric, created by published creative writers and lecturers (the second and third authors), to assess the students’ creative writing pre- and post-program. Consecutively, the NAPLAN narrative criteria were also used to assess the same writing scripts as a point of comparison. The creative writing criteria privileged craft-based approaches to imaginative writing compared to the function and form-focused criteria of NAPLAN. Statistical analyses of the reliability and validity of the creative writing rubric showed that the construct can be scored with a significant moderate level of reliably by different raters (r = 0.5–0.7; ICC = 0.6). Internal consistency reliability of the criteria was found to be excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). Content validity of the instrument was found to be strong (r = 0.7–0.9) and significant. Unexpectedly, analyses for concurrent validity showed that the instrument correlates strongly (r = 0.7) and significantly with the NAPLAN narrative rubric, suggesting some overlap, but not parity with the NAPLAN assessment. We found that students’ post-project writing improved in all aspects according to the creative writing rubric, with a statistically significant improvement in students’ structural elements and presentation and group average improvement approaching significance in two other criteria: words, sentence, and voice and characters and context (effect sizes d = 0.3–0.4). However, there were no significant improvements in the students’ post-program writing according to the NAPLAN criteria, possibly because the NAPLAN narrative task criteria did not capture student development of a unique writing style or individual “voice” or other craft-based standards of proficiency measured by the creative writing rubric. Given the validity and reliability evidence, we conclude that the creative writing rubric is a fit-for-purpose guide to school-based learning and assessment of creative writing.

No abstract