Learning as nēhiyaw: Understanding Language Learning with the NEȾOLṈEW̱ Assessment Tool at the nēhiyawak Immersion Camp
Abstract
In the face of continuing pressure from colonial languages, many Indigenous languages are experiencing renewed growth through promising and essential practices such as immersion and land-based learning. This article illustrates the importance of a nēhiyaw (Cree) immersion camp steeped in nēhiyaw pedagogy and onto-epistemological underpinnings related to land. These beliefs embrace the nēhiyawak (Cree people) understanding that language is alive with spirit that enhances nēhiyaw identity. We engage in mixed methods research to explore the long-term witnessing of language learning on the land using the Indigenous-created NEȾOLṈEW̱ Assessment Tool and the lived experiences of those who attended the camp. This research was done with quantitative analyses of learners’ proficiency development during week-long immersion camps, as reflected by an assessment tool, over the course of 2 years and through qualitative feedback and reflections given by camp leaders, learners, and teachers. With this information, we reflect upon how the assessment tool can be adapted for specific use in Indigenous land-based language immersion settings. Additionally, we emphasize the criticality of immersive land-based learning and evaluation in giving strength to nēhiyawak, and indeed, all Indigenous languages across Turtle Island.
Keywords: assessment, Cree language, immersion camp, land-based learning, language immersion
Résumé
Devant la mainmise perpétuelle des langues coloniales, certaines langues autochtones trouvent un second souffle grâce à des pratiques prometteuses et vitales, comme l’immersion et l’apprentissage sur le territoire. Le présent article illustre l’importance d’un camp d’immersion nēhiyaw (cri) qui s’appuie sur la pédagogie nēhiyaw et sur des principes ontologiques et épistémologiques liés au territoire. Ces croyances s’inscrivent dans la philosophie nēhiyawak (un peuple cri), qui veut que la langue soit vivante et que son esprit renforce l’identité nēhiyaw. Au moyen de méthodes de recherche mixtes, nous observons à long terme l’apprentissage linguistique sur le territoire, en nous appuyant sur l’outil d’évaluation autochtone NEȾOLṈEW̱ et sur l’expérience vécue des personnes ayant participé au camp. Nous avons procédé à une analyse quantitative sur deux années de la progression des participantes et participants au camp d’immersion d’une semaine (mesurée à l’aide d’un outil d’évaluation), ainsi qu’à une analyse qualitative des commentaires et réflexions des monitrices et moniteurs, des cohortes et du corps enseignant. Ces renseignements nous éclairent sur les façons d’adapter l’outil d’évaluation à des contextes d’immersion linguistique autochtone fondée sur le territoire. De plus, nous soulignons le caractère essentiel de l’apprentissage et de l’évaluation immersifs et axés sur le territoire pour revitaliser le nēhiyawak et toutes les autres langues autochtones de l’île de la Tortue.
Mots clés : évaluation, langue crie, camp d’immersion, apprentissage axé sur le territoire, immersion linguistique
1Indigenous Education Dept, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
2Indigenous Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Received 18 July 2025; Accepted 3 November 2025; Published ahead of print 25 March 2026; Published online 26 June 2026.
© 2026 University of Toronto Press
Introduction
kitatamiskātināwāw. This is a Cree formal greeting of introduction when two entities meet in nēhiyawak contexts, such as people coming together and enriching each other’s lives by sharing and exchanging knowledge. This greeting is about coming away enriched, as we all have gifts to contribute and sometimes these gifts come in the form of knowledge. It is hoped that this article will add to the lived experiences of those working in the field of Indigenous language revitalization, but more specifically for adult Indigenous language learners in land-based immersion camps.
In showcasing one such camp, the two-decades-old nēhiyawak Language Experience (nLE) is a not-for-profit organization that hosts annual summer language immersion camps that bring families together to listen and learn to speak nēhiyawēwin (Cree language). This nēhiyaw (Cree) camp is steeped in its own pedagogy and onto-epistemology. Being on the land is an important part of nēhiyawi-kapēsiwin (Cree camp) – being on the land makes it pivotal to nēhiyaw identity, being land, language, and identity.
In this article, we discuss how a language proficiency assessment tool, which was developed by a team of researchers within the NEȾOLṈEW̱ project led by McIvor and Jacobs (2016), is adapted for the nLE, a land-based language camp, through participant and community-grounded research. Both NEȾOLṈEW̱ and nLE aim to address and build capacity within Indigenous adult language learning, as well as share a focus on assessment.
Introducing the research team
It is important to locate ourselves in this work (Absolon, 2011; Kovach, 2009; Martin-Booran Mirraboopa, 2003) as an example of resistance, resurgence, and reconciliation.
Current research
This article reports the findings of the first 2 years of a 4-year research study on nēhiyawēwin learning, with participants utilizing an assessment tool focused on individual experiences of understanding and speaking. In addition to showing what is being done at the language camp to adapt or reflectively continue to improve the assessment tool, the research has two main goals. The first goal is to analyze the existing results of the assessment tool (AT) to understand – at least at a quantifiable level – how nēhiyawak learning is taking place at the immersion camps. The second goal is to identify strengths and weaknesses of the AT, which was designed with master-apprentice programs in mind, and to develop recommendations for how it can be adapted to immersion camp settings. Importantly, these are not separate goals, but connect to and support each other. Using AT responses to identify different learning behaviours, for example, helps us think about learning patterns that the AT does not currently focus on. At the same time, by developing recommendations for an AT made for immersion camps, we can encourage the development of a tool that more accurately reflects the kinds of learning that are in fact taking place.
As most AT items involve learners selecting which answer applies best to them on a rating scale, this study interprets their answers quantitatively. However, it is critical to note that statistical analyses are only one piece of a complex and interconnected puzzle. Ongoing research focusing on the more experiential aspects is necessary to fully understand nēhiyaw language assessment in the immersion camp setting.
Rationale
The motivation for this article is to share what work has been done in nēhiyawēwin (the Cree language) language learning assessment in a land-based camp setting. In support of this work, we believe that “passing along our knowledges and wisdoms will ensure the survival of future generations. The meaning of this is simple: to share is to live” (Berndt & Robinson, 2023, p. 55). We want our languages to live. Because second-language assessment that is Indigenously grounded is a developing area of research, we aim to effectively illustrate what learners know and understand from a compilation of collective assessments. As it can be difficult to accurately capture what learners come to know in a one-week camp, we get a sense of learning and growth through using an Indigenously developed assessment tool together with witnessing from teachers. Here, witnessing takes place as a “long observation” over the one-week camp and annually, as there are learners who attend repeatedly over the years.
We add to the collective language work being done as we, nēhiyawak (Cree people), are standing our ground and our languages are still here because this is who we are. The nēhiyawak never gave up their languages, lands, or identities. This research on assessment is a testament to this truth, and to this way of being. For the purposes of our paper, we focus specifically on nēhiyawēwin (the Cree language), spoken by many communities across Treaty Six territory of the prairie provinces of Canada. Cree “are the largest Nation within what we now call Canada. Cree speakers live right across Canada, from British Columbia through Quebec, and into the United States” (Daniels & Custer, 2022, p. 9). The AT described in this article is also a reflection of how language learning is understood and spoken through “I can” statements and then is enhanced and adapted as holistic, spiritual, and connected to land. This method of learning is different from a solely Euro-Western conceptualization of language.
Background
Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island have been working on language revitalization and reclamation since the beginning. The beginning for us, as nēhiyawak (Cree People), means colonization:
Through many devastating events such as genocide, colonialism, linguistic imperialism, new diseases, forced relocation, the upset of Indigenous economic, social and political systems, as well as the most likely influential factor-the enforcement of English-only residential schools for all Indigenous children-Indigenous languages declined in use and existence. (McIvor, 2009, p. 1, citing McCarty, 2003; Spolsky, 2002)
Canada’s Indian Act of 1876 made it possible for nēhiyawak to have their language and identity stolen, in addition to the trauma-filled experiences that occurred in residential and day schools. Despite all of this trauma, our languages continue to live. Lands are significant in this connection; they are central to one’s identity, while the culture of the people is the tie that connects land, language, and identity in working together. It is life – it is what we refer to as pimātisiwin for the nēhiyawak.
The Indigenous Languages Act (2019) aims to lift up Indigenous languages and serve as a touchstone for nēhiyawak speakers and learners, as well as the communities in which they live, to enhance the recognition and sense of urgency of language reclamation. Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action add to this urgency, along with grassroots self-determination movements such as language gatherings, conferences, and celebratory events (e.g., Powwows and commemorations). Everywhere, in and out of federal, provincial, and treaty territories as well as across international borders, there are many nēhiyawak, Anishinaabe, Denesuline, W̱SÁNEĆ, and other Original Peoples working in language research.
nLE is just one approach that has been working towards inter-generational language transmission. It is a one-week summer camp that enables learners “to re-learn and reclaim our Cree mother tongue. This kind of experiential Cree learning cannot come from anywhere other than from the Cree themselves” (Daniels-Fiss, 2008, p. 243). In accounting for a great diversity of reasons that people decide to come and learn, the purpose of the camp is to facilitate an effective inter-generational transmission through second language speakers within families.
For the past two decades, this annual summer camp has been held in different places across Treaty Six Territory, moving throughout central Saskatchewan. The camp has been mainly hosted in Sturgeon Lake First Nation, Saskatchewan, and it is supported by the family of the founder, kakiyosēw. This camp has also been held in Lac La Ronge, Mistawasis First Nation, Candle Lake, Little Pine First Nation, and in Saskatoon. Participants, both learners and language teachers, come from across Canada to learn to speak nēhiyawēwin, whether they are nēhiyawak, Indigenous People from other communities, or settlers. Teachers are asked to join the camp annually and share their language expertise and methods. The registration opens on April 1 each year and is done by computer to ensure there is no picking and choosing of participants. Camp registration opens at 9 a.m. and is typically filled within hours. Soon after, comes the planning stage, which includes choosing a theme for that year’s camp.
The idea of long-observed witnessing and use of language and verbal assessment practices used in the nLE camp were inspired by Dr. Stephen Greymorning and his annual Gift of Language workshops held in Missoula, Montana. Greymorning is an Arapaho second language teacher who emphasizes the assessment of learner responses using images in a method he refers to as accelerated second language acquisition (ASLA). Greymorning (2019, p. 207) writes that “ASLA developed from both my teaching of Arapaho every year since 2004 and the running of well over 150 language instruction and acquisition workshops ever since 1996.” One of the main organizers of the nēhiyawak Language Experience began to implement the strategies learned from Greymorning’s ASLA workshops into the annual language camps. They learned these approaches and strategies, such as ASLA, task-based learning, direct method, and American Sign Language, over the course of an adult teacher career and contributed to the model of the nLE camp, where accumulated knowledge and assessment approaches became more rehearsed and practiced.
Today, the focus and emphasis of the language immersion experience is using second language methods throughout the day for a full week. The second language methods at camp include “Total Physical Response (TPR), Accelerated Second Language Acquisition (ASLA), communicative approach, task-based learning (TBL), the Direct Method, American Sign Language (ASL) and the grammar translation method” (Daniels et al., 2022, p. 9), memory games, and scaffolding. There are typically 4 to 6 teachers along with 40 to 50 adults, 5 to 8 youth, and 10-plus children attending the camp annually as learners. At each language station, the teacher uses various language methods for 30 to 45 minutes with a single group of 8 to 10 learners. Then, when that time is up, groups stop and move on to the next language station with a different teacher. As a result, the participants rotate through these stations throughout the day while being immersed in the language.
It is rigorous, captivating, and motivating for all involved – Old Ones, teachers, and learners alike. A language coach also follows the groups of students using the language, which is another teaching technique in itself. All of this effort helps learners and teachers stay in the language. More than half of the attendees are repeat learners, which is beneficial when analyzing their AT responses. The camp also includes ample opportunities to learn about land-based practices such as summer foraging and harvesting, identifying plants and trees, predicting weather, collecting natural materials for crafting (e.g., willow and birch bark for basketry, porcupine quills for jewelry making), fishing, snaring, hunting, making fire, using natural indicators for orientation, as well as language learning circles.
The teaching and assessment approaches have also become more organized over time in terms of determining group placements. During the last few years, language learners have been asked how many hours of language instruction they have received prior to coming to the camp, and in what contexts. These kinds of questions help learners set their own goals and support the overall success of camp. This idea comes from the work of Michele Johnson’s (2013) benchmarks, which include hours of experience. Self-assessment for adult Indigenous language learners has also been practiced at the beginning and end of the camp period for the past 3 years. When participant learners first register for the nēhiyawak Language Experience camp, we use the First Nations Language Proficiency Benchmarks (Miller, 2004) in combination with American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines for individual self-assessment to help us place them into learner peer groups.
Once all participants are at camp, the NEȾOLṈEW̱ Indigenous Language Learning Assessment Tool is handed out at the beginning of the program, and then again at the end. This tool, originally designed for mentor-apprentice programs, has worked well in our camp because it provides direction, while at the same time it measures what a learner knows as demonstrated by speaking, listening, and creating a shared understanding.
Conventional assessment practices have tended to invoke anxiety among learners, thus decreasing performance, or at the very least not creating a representative view of speech. One thing that remains constant is that we support one another at camp. This witnessing takes place across different dimensions, such as at the individual level, smaller groups, and larger circle groups, and it is how we look at assessment from a nēhiyaw perspective. Assessment practices and results can create prevailing beliefs about one’s ability to learn and succeed academically, physically, emotionally, and socially in school and life in general (Preston & Claypool, 2021).
The coordinator of the camp appreciated this use of the NEȾOLṈEW̱ tool because it breaks down and isolates the areas of speaking and understanding. Furthermore, there is room for growth and modification, such as a spiritual connection to land and what learners are feeling, with this assessment tool while also going deeper into the specific aspects of the language.
When students demonstrate what they know – with a lot of practice – such examples of knowledge demonstration can “include performance, such as demonstrating tasks done in the language, portfolios, and student/peer self-assessment that align with real world tasks” (Coles-Ritchie & Charles, 2013, p. 115). When we do these multiple forms of assessment, much of it is done verbally, a practice which is in line with our oral histories and literacies. Assessment is done by teachers and learners themselves, emphasizing the learning spirit within, which is also attuned and open to the language spirit of nēhiyawēwin. There is a gut feeling when nēhiyawēwin is not correctly spoken.
Assessment is understood in Indigenous language revitalization to involve acquiring language. Reclamation is about living with (and in) the language on the land, just as our Ancestors did. It is where witnessing comes into play. Teachers are the mentors of the language and they observe the learners, while teacher-mentors elevate the learners through the language and demonstrate how to speak. They do this repeatedly as learners share and demonstrate what they understand by speaking in phrases of nēhiyawēwin through small and large circles. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021, p. 165) notes how “testimony is also a form through which the voice of a ‘witness’ is accorded space and protection.” The language camp must act as a safe space to speak, make mistakes, and heal through learning to speak nēhiyawēwin. Learners need to have ample opportunity to practice reclaiming the language in a way where “it can be constructed as a monologue and as a public performance” (Smith, 2021, p. 165). Teachers applaud and show happiness when they witness a voice speaking and sharing little stories about what is being learned.
In summary, we want First Nations communities to know that immersion is the best approach to learning a language deeply and inherently. Immersion on the land is where we can start as a family, a tribe, and ultimately, a Nation. There is strength in numbers, especially when we are standing on and rooted to the land. Here. This land is where our languages come from: We are nēhiyawak, nēhiyawak ōma kiyanaw, “which is a fluid, living culture with a vibrant language that is being used creatively on a daily basis” (Hermes & Haskins, 2018, p. 100). While at camp, the language spoken for us is a living relative; we fall in love with, or we are met with love for, nēhiyawēwin. Then, as the language camp comes to a close, we take pieces of our relative back to the home and “encourage the language to be spoken in the household” (Daniels & Custer, 2022, p. 92), which is where it belongs.
Literature review
We now turn to Indigenous scholarship within the Indigenous language assessment literature. Assessment is both a broad and a small area of practice and expertise in this area of research. Indigenous teachers and learners are helping to Indigenize assessment by drawing on the power of their place (land, spirit, ceremony) to align assessment to values, symbols, and practices of their communities (Coles-Ritchie & Charles, 2013). The camp is nēhiyaw, and the teachers are all Cree teachers. For this reason, teachers Indigenize instructional methods to make them useful for the learning experiences of their participants by telling/retelling, teaching/re-teaching, demonstrating, showing, mentoring, and observing while not emphasizing correction – we allow the spirit to do that. And while assessment is being taken on by Indigenous scholars especially, many allies are also coming to work together with Indigenous people.
In this literature review, we look at three areas: (a) tools, scales, techniques, and forms of assessment; (b) witnessing as a form of assessment drawn from place; and (c) the question of what exactly is being assessed. In discussion of these three areas, we draw on various scholars to help make sense of our primary question: How can the NEȾOLṈEW̱ Assessment Tool be adapted to adequately address language immersion camp contexts?
Tools, scales, and techniques
We look at a small sample of tools used to address language revitalization, learning, and reclamation while accounting for not only the people learning, but the land that they are a part of. O’Dwyer (2011, p. 1) explains language assessments as “the prerequisite both to understanding language shift and to take measures to reverse it.” When looking at the scope of language loss and retention, Fishman’s (1991) scale has been the most widely used when looking at language shifts. In this respect, it is difficult to pinpoint the degree of language vitality for nēhiyawēwin, as nēhiyawēwin is found to align with different areas of Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS). On the scale, nēhiyawēwin is ranked between Stage 6 and 7, meaning that (in short) the language is still being used by the older generation, but the transmission of the language to the younger generation is minimal. By implementing the guidance of GIDS, nēhiyawēwin is used throughout Treaty Six Territory, in both central Saskatchewan and Alberta schools as a subject in a handful of bilingual programs in Saskatchewan, in community by older generations, and now among second language adult speakers. nēhiyawēwin is still spoken in ceremonies and in other purposeful ways, including language camps.
When looking at language assessment tools and their purpose, “the assessment of [I]ndigenous language speakers’ proficiency should review the two basic guiding concepts in the field of testing and evaluation: validity and reliability” (Frances & Reyhner, 2002, p. 163). More specifically,
validity does not refer to the method or procedure itself, and not even, strictly speaking, to the information that the student’s responses provide. It refers to how the information is interpreted; that is, what meaning is attributed to the results that were gathered. (Frances & Reyhner, 2002, p. 164)
This definition is useful in the deeper meaning of understanding of being in the language.
Further to this point, we seek originality in tool assessment, especially in the context of the land. In Kahakalau’s work on the ANA ‘ŌLELO, a tool for both Hawaiian teachers and learners, assessment is
framed from a Hawaiian perspective … [and] needs … [that] measures not only linguistic abilities, like the ability to engage in conversions, but also the use of the language as a means of perpetuating and fortifying the native culture and traditions of Hawai’i and the values of our forefathers. (Kahakalau, 2017, p. 2)
Importantly, knowledge of traditional protocol and practices is also embedded in the ANA ‘ŌLELO tool. In attempting to understand exactly what is being assessed, we are inspired by Michele Johnson’s work, and we do circles of telling and retelling:
Retelling, or re-narration in the case of stories, can take two forms: oral or written; both forms are considered a highly integrative measure of language proficiency. The task also combines receptive (comprehension) and expressive skills, although it is the latter that is directly evaluated. (Frances & Reyhner, 2002, p. 182)
Moreover,
Narrative happens to be the most universally available of all text patterns. However, this, in turn, implies an important limitation from the point of view of the assessment of higher-order language proficiencies: being also the first to emerge, developmentally, proficiency in the re-narration of stories does not automatically extend to the more abstract and complex expository patterns. (Frances & Reyhner, 2002, p. 184)
Here in assessment, while at camp and measuring using the tool, “I can speak and understand” is captured and then exercised while in the language context. This practice is done both collectively and individually during circles, where circle work captures the teaching, demonstrating, and listening of the participants: open-ended vocabulary along with scaffolding enhances the speaking and thinking in the language that is taking place. Teachers are keen experts at teaching the language, which makes a difference versus a fluent person attempting to teach the language.
With the goal of developing a scale for the purpose of assessing N’sylixcen, a First Nations language spoken in and around territories in the Okanagan Valley, which is the unceded territory of the Syilx Okanagan Peoples in the area known as central-south British Columbia, Canada, Johnson (2013, 2017) has provided discussions of research and work in Indigenous language assessment. For instance, Johnson examined discontinuity in Indigenous language assessment, writing that
language assessment is seldom employed or discussed in Indigenous Language programs (Miller 2004; Peter et al., 2003; Haynes et al., 2010), which does not make any sense, possibly due to mistrust and fear of negative evaluations and political consequences (Peter et al., 2003; Peter & Hirata-Edds, 2006). (Johnson, 2013, p. 121)
Despite a limited use of Indigenous language assessment, Johnson (2013) argues that assessment scales and tools for Indigenous languages are important and useful as the lack of a scale, method, or continuum leads to the use of “undefinable terms like speaker, semi-speaker, semi-fluent and fluent” (Johnson, 2013, p. 123), which are not useful because generic scales for other languages are not made for nēhiyawēwin. In contrast, Kahakalau (2017) uses levels of comprehension from the Talk Story method (which is a method of sharing personal narratives in a casual setting). Here, however, we feel the need to account for typically undefined terms, such as “beginner” and “intermediate” speakers. Regardless of the scale, Johnson (2017), Kahakalau (2017), and McIvor (2020) agree that assessment and evaluation of Indigenous languages are critical to the success of Indigenous language programs and models, and they need to be developed by nēhiyawak people.
Tools similar to the NEȾOLṈEW̱’s Assessment Tool have been created in other contexts, including initiatives to assess Māori language proficiency in New Zealand schools dating back to 1989 (Johnson, 2013). Additionally, Johnson reviews a five-step scale known as Kaiaka Reo, a three-tiered assessment known as the Hawaiian Oral Language Assessment (Housman et al., 2011, p. 24), a set of benchmarks used in the northwestern United States called a Native Language Proficiency Benchmark (NILI 2012; Underriner et al., 2012), and a set of proficiency benchmarks known as the First Nations Language Proficiency Benchmarks (Miller, 2004).
In Johnson’s review of assessment scales, she examines benchmarks developed for other languages, including the Canadian Language Benchmarks developed by the federal government for assessment of English as a second language. Additionally, she draws from three scales to design her own assessment model consisting of nine benchmark levels. She explains her scale in the following terms:
Because of its task-based descriptions and strength in describing advanced levels, the CLB is my favoured assessment strategy for Indigenous language application, used in combination with Miller and ACTFL. For simplicity’s sake, I merge CLB, ACTFL, and Miller’s classifications into Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced, divided into low-, mid-, and high- subcategories (127). I conflate CLB’s twelve categories into nine benchmarks (I conflate their second and third of four tiers into “mid”). I blend assessment strategies with my understanding of N’syilxcn acquisition stages. (Johnson, 2017, p. 113)
Despite all of this effort, language scales and benchmarks for Indigenous languages remain a relatively new area of research, and emerging theories and approaches are constantly being developed.
Witnessing as a form of assessment drawn from place
We are nēhiyaw, and in truly being nēhiyaw in our practice of teaching, and for a time BE-ing in our camp, we also indigenize instructional approaches to circularize the content that is taught. It is not knowledge that comes from a book, but experience, and “experience is knowledge” (Ermine, 1995, p. 104).
Here, it is safe. It is a space where learners practice speaking what they know, where they communicate and practice daily dialogue as previously mentioned. Marie Battiste states in Coles-Ritchie and Charles (2013) that these knowledge systems are dynamic, embedded in context, derived from local practices of individuals and communities and subject to change over time. Being out on the land, being in community, and having a knowledge keeper and Elder, such as Willie Ermine, come and share knowledge in the language is the focus – the purpose – in our practiced understanding. There are many other examples of cultural and land-based knowledge that are taught, including the importance of getting up early, going to bed when the birds stop singing, knowing the names of the plants and trees, as well as their medicinal purposes in the area, and knowing where to pick medicines such as sweetgrass, sage, mint, and chaga. Knowing how to say these terms in nēhiyawēwin is paramount to the nēhiyaw identity, and knowing the names of the land and its environment is kinship. When learners can use the language in this way, we know through observation that they are advancing in their language competencies.
What is being assessed?
As Reyhner and Francis (2002, p. 182) put it, “retelling, or re-narration in the case of stories, can take two forms: oral or written; both forms are considered a highly integrative measure of language proficiency,” but also in “retelling … test-takers listen to a story or news event and simply retell or summarize it, either orally (on an audiotape) or in writing.” During the small circle groups in teacher stations, teachers are observing the spoken language. Then, in a large circle, a long-observed witnessing happens throughout the week, meaning that, again, learners can demonstrate what they understand, share stories, and talk about the happenings of the day; for the repeat learners, this is long term practice, one that is about connecting to place and remembering the language through each of the summers attended – it is continuous, a process, a journey. It is also organic, situated within a significant time (i.e., time-oriented) validating nēhiyaw time (Hermes & Haskins, 2018), which is based on season and the environment.
Learners’ speech improves over time and with confidence, in line with the “Vygotskian-based practice of dynamic assessment, a dialogic approach to assessment that demonstrates an individual’s responsiveness” (Coles-Ritchie & Charles, 2013, p. 110). It is also about guided learning and constant encouragement, and an organic, holistic, and healing way of assessing each other. We now turn to the creation and history of NEȾOLṈEW̱.
Background of NEȾOLṈEW̱
NEȾOLṈEW̱, translated as “one mind, one people” or “doing things as one” in the SENĆOŦEN language, is a partnership based at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, with nine Indigenous community partners. The project broadly aims to address and build capacity within Indigenous adult language learning. Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), this national and multidimensional study focuses on adults, particularly those who are increasingly learning their languages but have few domains in which to practice them, something which is crucial to passing the languages onto emerging generations. NEȾOLṈEW̱ addresses this issue through fostering relationship-building among and between the university team and communities, co-creating and implementing Indigenous language revitalization research with communities, and making this research more accessible to policy makers and scholars in addition to community members.
The NEȾOLṈEW̱ project takes a comprehensive approach by recognizing that learning Indigenous languages involves the whole community, not just individuals, and happens in different places that include schools, communities, and families. They seek to understand how adults learn their Indigenous languages and find effective ways to teach them. By working closely alongside Indigenous communities and knowledge holders, the partnership hopes to strengthen the networks that make language learning possible and help the larger effort of promoting the creation of new speakers. Additionally, NEȾOLṈEW̱ supports the goals set by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, aiming to influence policies, develop more resources, and encourage growth by helping strengthen Indigenous languages.
In practice, NEȾOLṈEW̱ aims to support and create new speakers holistically through several study areas, including the development of an online portal for Indigenous language educators, the investigation of Indigenous language pedagogies and ways of learning, and the development of an adaptable language learning assessment tool (discussed within this article) specifically for Indigenous language learning contexts. It is this assessment tool that is being studied in the nēhiyawak Immersion Experience, as it allows for learners experiencing the immersion environment to be assessed by those who know them best – themselves.
Figure 1: The assessment tool (sample pages)
Source: NEȾOLṈEW̱ Language Learning Assessment Tool (McIvor & Jacobs, 2016).
The NEȾOLṈEW̱ Language Learning Assessment Tool (McIvor & Jacobs, 2016) is a context-relevant assessment tool designed to document and evaluate language learning progress specific to the learning situation, such as a master-apprentice program. The NEȾOLṈEW̱ Assessment Tool (AT) has been developed collaboratively with community partners, apprentices, and researchers, as well as through feedback from learners and their mentors (McIvor, 2020). The AT focuses on dimensions related to learners’ abilities to both speak and understand the language, which is done at levels that were designated as “beginner” and “intermediate,” defined in a similar way to Johnson’s (2017) merged account of the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB, 2006; Pawlikowska-Smith, 2000), American Council for Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2013), the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2020), and Miller’s (2004) Indigenous Language Benchmarks:
Simply put, a “beginner” level can be thought of as including first speech, such as individual words and short utterances. On the other hand, the “intermediate” level includes more clear speech patterns with learners making use of detailed, purposeful sentences. (Johnson, 2017, p. 115)
The AT has a wheel-like layout. There are 24 items per dimension (e.g., Speaking-beginner), 21 of which are in the form of statements (e.g., “I set my own language learning goals”) that learners rate their level of agreement with (i.e., not yet, rarely, sometimes, mostly, always). The remaining three items in each dimension are blank spaces where learners can add their own milestones. Responses such as not yet were developed as a conscious effort to recognize the inherent growth in learning a language, as well as give opportunities to set language learning goals (McIvor & Jacobs, 2018). Similarly, the AT was designed to encourage good assessment experiences using positively focused “I can …” statements that emphasize what the learner already feels capable of doing. There is also space for learners to add their own notes related to their experiences, and an optional section where learners can follow written prompts such as “For my language learning, I worked a lot on …” to reflect upon their learning experiences.
The AT was developed as one of the main themes of the NEȾOLṈEW̱ research partnership in seeking to create an assessment tool specifically designed – not adapted – for use in Indigenous language learning contexts. Along with the collaboration of community partners and researchers with expertise in linguistics and education, the feedback of learners was critical in shaping the AT as a tool that more deeply captured the Indigenous language learning experience. The AT was originally developed for use in master-apprentice programs (MAPs), whereby a fluent speaker and a learner are paired and work together to hand the language down through real-life situations (Grant & Turner, 2013). However, the AT is supported by CC BY licensing, meaning that it can be used and changed without permission (provided that credit is given to the original developers), and it is not used for commercial purposes. As such, it is intended for reuse and adaptation in other language learning situations and is intended for use well outside the partnership that created it.
Research and methods
Ethics
The Founder kakiyosēw offers tobacco to ask the land, ancestors, and community to do the language work in the space and place of the area. A matotsān usually is a part of the “ask,” offering of wēpināsowina, along with food. Prayers are also said by the nēhiyawak Language Experience teachers and speakers. This ceremonial work is continuous and ongoing.
The research was approved by the UVic Human Research Ethics team prior to camp, and consent forms are printed, signed by participants, and securely stored.
Research questions
The analyses in this research are guided by the following focus of inquiry, in the form of three questions:
1.
What nēhiyawak learning growth took place in the language immersion camps?
2.
What recommendations do we have for adapting the AT to the immersion camp setting?
3.
What are some recommendations for improving the AT globally?
Furthermore, this research identifies several objectives, outlined in the consent form, operationalized into research questions that directed our quantitative analysis:
1.
Monitor nēhiyawēwin acquisition progress: Here, the guiding question would be, Are there measurable differences in learners’ scores between the start and completion of the camp? Our answer will be ascertained via paired samples t-tests that compare participants’ pre-immersion averages against their post-immersion averages. Paired samples t-tests are used when it can be reasonably assumed that Group 1 (i.e., pre-immersion averages) is related to Group 2 (i.e., post-immersion averages). Given that the participants who complete the assessment tool before the camp begins are the same as those at the end, this pairwise assumption is reasonable.
2.
Figure out how consistent these overall scores are between 2022 and 2023: This information is not directly ascertained in the consent forms, but these measures will help develop insights into the consistency of the use of the AT between 2022 and 2023. These insights will be obtained via unpaired samples t-tests that compare the overall average of self-reported scores in 2022 and 2023. Importantly, unpaired samples t-tests are used when it is assumed that Group 1 (i.e., 2022 scores) is not related to Group 2 (i.e., 2023 scores). In this case, the participants in 2022 and 2023 were slightly different sets of people.
3.
Put levelled learning assessments for adults into action: The guiding question here is, Are there measurable differences between the component levels of the AT (i.e., beginner vs. intermediate scores)? Our answer was ascertained via paired samples t-tests that compare participants’ pre-immersion averages (Group 1) against their post-immersion averages (Group 2).
4.
Understand learners’ speaking, listening, and understanding abilities: This is guided by the question, Are there measurable differences between learners’ scores in the Speaking dimensions (beginner vs. intermediate) and Understanding dimensions (beginner vs. intermediate) of the AT? Our answer used paired samples t-tests that compare participants’ beginner and intermediate Speaking averages (Group 1) against their beginner and intermediate Understanding averages (Group 2).
Participation
When initially given, the AT was introduced by email to camp participants, then hard copies were printed and given out at the beginning of camp. Participants were offered specific times to complete it, but this time also coincided with downtime, or visiting time. Subsequently, a second AT was given out on the last day of camp. Again, this took place during participants’ own downtime, and it did not always work well for participants. People were notified of this assessment research, and while it was an expectation when coming to camp, it is not enforced. Due to these experiences, it was subsequently added to the camp schedule.
It is noteworthy that approximately 50% of learners fully completed the AT in 2022 and 2023. This level of participation led to an average of 20% missing data per learner. As learners were not specifically required to complete every aspect of the AT, it is possible that they were not aware that all AT items should be completed. While the data were still found to be normally distributed, future investigations would benefit from complete assessments to develop a clearer sense of the learning that takes place at the immersion camps, making space for assessment in immersion camp settings and Indigenous language education more broadly.
Process
Printed AT sheets filled out by learners at the immersion camps were collected and manually imported into Microsoft Excel by a research assistant at the University of Victoria in the fall of 2023. Descriptive statistical analyses – including gathering data into one place and calculating averages – were also performed within Microsoft Excel by a NEȾOLṈEW̱ staff member, while tests of significance were performed in SPSS. Reports were communicated using both Microsoft Word and Google Docs for collaborative composition.
The following sections share the analysis of nēhiyawak language learners’ progress in the two language immersion camps in 2022 and 2023. To assess changes in spoken and comprehension abilities during the immersion period, learners self-reported their degrees of proficiency using the AT, where responses such as not yet were given a value of 0, up to always, given a value of 5. In each year, participants were assessed twice: at the beginning and at the end of their immersion period.
Results
Considerations in interpretation
While a total of 19 individual learners from 2022 and 2023 filled out the AT, just 12 of these sets of results were considered complete. There were a total of 17 complete and incomplete sets of results from 2022, and 11 from 2023, owing to the fact that some participants completed the AT for both years, while others completed the AT in either 2022 or 2023.
Data analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS statistics software. Data were screened for potential errors and missing values, followed by testing of assumptions. For all variables included in this research, the missing values rate for AT results ranged from 0% to 100%, with an average missing rate of 20% per learner. It should be noted that learners either completed the AT in full, missed a section of the AT, or only completed the AT before or after the immersion camp. However, individual sections (e.g., Speaking-beginner) of the AT did not have partial entries. The data are normally distributed for both years according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests.
Alhough the data were gathered via Likert scale questions and thus arguably ordinal in their raw form, the data were analyzed as scale data due to a greater capacity for techniques such as parametric tests that enhance precision in significance testing. However, in continuing to explore this understudied area of language assessment, future studies of this nature may wish to develop methods that interpret ordinal data directly as well.
Statistical results
The abbreviations used for this study refer to different levels of proficiency, for instance BU means beginning to understand, BS means beginning to speak, IU means intermediate understanding and IS means intermediated speaking. The following statistical tests were performed to answer the following question: What nēhiyawak learning growth took place in the language immersion camps?
1. Are there measurable differences in learners’ scores between the start and completion of the camp?
Assuming a one-sided p-value of 0.05 as a cutoff for significance, paired samples t-tests found significant and near-significant differences in 2022 between the mean self-reported proficiency scores of participants before and after the immersion program (see Table 1).
| M (Pre-immersion) | SD | M (Post-immersion) | SD | Diff | t | df | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BU | 3.51 | 0.73 | 3.82 | 0.74 | 0.31 | 1.589 | 12 | 0.069 |
| BS | 3.22 | 0.74 | 3.61 | 0.8 | 0.39 | 2.66 | 12 | 0.010* |
| IU | 2.79 | 0.83 | 3.14 | 0.8 | 0.36 | 2.994 | 9 | 0.008** |
| IS | 2.49 | 0.83 | 2.81 | 0.92 | 0.32 | 2.286 | 9 | 0.024* |
*
p < 0.05,
**
p < 0.01.
To account for potential bias due to the small number of participants (N = 17) and unequal distribution of responses, Hedges’ correction (g) was applied to measures of Cohen’s d, and it suggests a moderate learning effect during the immersion setting, with post-immersion scores compared to pre-immersion scores (see Table 2).
| d | g | Lower (95% CI) | Higher (85% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BU | 0.71 | 0.76 | −0.130 | 0.939 |
| BS | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.103 | 1.258 |
| IU | 0.38 | 0.41 | 0.160 | 1.539 |
| IS | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.005 | 1.288 |
Additional paired samples t-tests found significant differences in 2023 between the pre-immersion and post-immersion self-reported scores (see Table 3).
| M (Pre-immersion) | SD | M (Post-immersion) | SD | Diff | t | df | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BU | 3.84 | 0.61 | 4.1 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 2.414 | 7 | 0.026* |
| BS | 3.48 | 0.57 | 4.1 | 0.55 | 0.59 | 3.800 | 7 | 0.004** |
| IU | 2.71 | 0.37 | 3.37 | 0.48 | 0.66 | 3.033 | 9 | 0.008** |
| IS | 2.75 | 0.52 | 3.22 | 0.59 | 0.47 | 2.794 | 9 | 0.012* |
*
p < 0.05,
**
p < 0.01.
With an additional small number of participants (N = 11) and unequal distribution of responses, Hedges’ correction (g) to Cohen’s d suggests a moderate learning effect during the immersion setting, with post-immersion scores compared to pre-immersion scores (see Table 4).
| d | g | Lower (95% CI) | Higher (85% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BU | 0.28 | 0.32 | −0.007 | 1.549 |
| BS | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.283 | 2.168 |
| IU | 0.65 | 0.72 | 0.159 | 1.630 |
| IS | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.108 | 1.539 |
2. Are there measurable differences between the component levels of the AT (i.e., beginner vs. intermediate scores)?
Assuming a one-sided p-value of < 0.05 as a cut-off for significance, paired samples t-tests found significant differences in both years between beginner-level questions (BS and BU) and intermediate-level questions (IS and IU).
In 2022, participants scored themselves significantly higher in beginner-level dimensions (M = 3.6, SD = 0.74) than in intermediate-level dimensions (M = 2.63, SD = 0.86), t(10) = 6.825; p < 0.001; d = 0.47; g = 0.51. Similarly, in 2023, beginner-level self-scores (M = 3.87, SD = 0.44) were significantly higher than intermediate-level self-scores (M = 2.85, SD = 0.38), t(7) = 11.425; p < 0.001; d = 0.25; g = 0.28.
3. Are there measurable differences between learners’ scores in the Speaking dimensions (BS/IS) and Understanding dimensions (BU/IU) of the AT?
In accordance with the existing literature describing the recall and recognition processes in language learning, we hypothesized that learners would find elements related to Understanding (i.e., recognition) easier than Speaking (i.e., recall). As such, a one-sided p-value of 0.05 as a cut-off for significance was assumed. Paired samples t-tests for 2022 data found that learners did indeed score significantly higher on BU/IU dimensions (M = 3.37, SD = 0.63) than on BS/IS dimensions (M = 3.32, SD = 0.69), t(16) = 3.382; p = 0.002; d = 0.31; g = 0.32.
In 2023, however, BU/IU scores (M = 3.39, SD = 0.33) were not significantly higher than BS/IS scores (M = 3.32, SD = 0.41), t(10) = 0.573; p = 0.290; d = 0.37; g = 0.4. This finding is interesting given that it differs from 2022 in terms of levels of significance. As such, the overall Speaking and Understanding scores between 2022 and 2023 were compared to identify any differences between these years.
4. How consistent are these overall scores across 2022 and 2023?
Unpaired samples t-tests found no significant differences between participants’ average Understanding scores in 2022 (M = 3.39, SD = 0.33) and 2023 (M = 3.37, SD = 0.62), t(26) = 0.0709; p = 0.9440. Similarly, no significant differences were found between Speaking scores in 2022 (M = 3.32, SD = 0.41) and 2023 (M = 3.12, SD = 0.68), t(26) = 0.8813; p = 0.3862.
Quantitative results and making-meaning
Learners report overall improvements in their language abilities. There are significant differences in learners’ scores observed between the start and finish of the camp across conditions. These findings were observed for both years. Additionally, the differences in scores were shown to have moderate effect sizes, meaning that the differences in scores before and after the immersion camp are meaningful beyond simply being significant. That is, on average, learners self-reported increased ability to use the language after participating in the language immersion camp.
Learners reported less improvement in their beginner-level Understanding. The learning effect only approached the significance cutoff of 0.05 in the beginner-level Understanding dimension in 2022. This observation that learners in 2022 reported improving their Understanding abilities related to beginner-level items to a lesser extent than other areas coincides with a lower relative significance level in 2023 for the same dimension. This finding leads us to ask why there are comparably less significant improvements in Understanding recorded at the beginner level. More specifically, it leads us to ask why learners report improving less in their beginner-level Understanding abilities.
Speculatively, while learners’ language abilities increased, their confidence in their own abilities decreased as they gained more knowledge of what they still needed to learn. This observation could be an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect observed in social psychology, where individuals with low ability tend to overestimate their competence, while those with high ability tend to underestimate it (Dunning, 2011). As such, learners may have under-reported their own competency levels after increasing their knowledge in the language. This is an important possibility to investigate given that this effect is present in language assessment situations (Saito et al., 2020). Additionally, it is found strongest among learners with no prior experience in the specific assessment style or who have not explicitly discussed their ongoing proficiency growth prior to the assessment (Babaii et al., 2016).
As such, these observed results may be influenced by nuances in learners’ self-confidence that the AT does not (yet) record. For many, coming to the immersion camp to learn nēhiyawēwin is a cherished opportunity to connect with the land, ancestors, themselves, a community of learners, and a sense of a more complete nēhiyaw way of being. Because of this view – along with lived experiences of having the language purposefully erased – learning, speaking, and having one’s language abilities assessed can be an emotionally charged and complex experience. What learners view as their “proficiency” in the language is strongly personal, and it is likely shaped by factors that extend beyond specific Speaking and Understanding abilities.
However, this proposed link with the Dunning–Kruger effect and self-confidence does not account for reported significant learning effects in the intermediate-level understanding and in both levels of Speaking. As recall tasks (analogous to speaking) are more difficult than recognition tasks (analogous to understanding) in language learning – due to the cognitive requirements of searching for and retrieving correct information (Jones, 2004) – we would expect learning to occur more slowly for Speaking items. Therefore, there are likely additional factors in the immersion learning process to account for, such as the extent to which learning to speak is prioritized over increasing comprehension.
Findings
Beginner-intermediate differences suggest internal consistency of AT
To test if the AT intermediate-level dimensions were indeed more difficult than beginner-level dimensions, learners’ average beginner scores were compared to their average intermediate scores. This comparison was done as a way of confirming that the AT itself was capturing the levels of learners’ experiences as anticipated. Unsurprisingly, intermediate-level scores were significantly lower than beginner-level scores, and this finding holds true for both years, confirming that intermediate-level items were more challenging to learners. While tests such as this one do not enrich our understanding of learning patterns within the nLE immersion camps per se, they are important for providing insights into the behaviour of the AT itself and contribute to making the analysis part of an informed, reflective practice.
Understanding scores were higher than Speaking scores
Understanding scores were significantly higher than Speaking scores in 2022. This behaviour resembles what is observed in the literature (e.g., Jones, 2004) in that second language learners’ more passive recognition of linguistic elements tends to be stronger than the more active process of recalling information. No significant differences between skills were observed in 2023, however, indicating differences likely exist in either the immersion camp conditions between 2022 and 2023, in the data between the years, or both. In exploring data across both years, average scores across Understanding and Speaking conditions were compared between 2022 and 2023. Interestingly, no significant differences were found among Speaking scores or among Understanding scores between 2022 and 2023, suggesting learners reported similar overall abilities for both years.
One possible reason for the discrepancy comes in the different number of entries between 2022 (17 learners) and 2023 (11 learners). The small sample sizes – at least from a statistical perspective – as well as incomplete entries from some of the learners may have had a confounding effect. When employing a conservative test typically used for controlling for the possibility of violated assumptions of normality and homogeneity (Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) post hoc, however, the same general pattern between Speaking and Understanding dimensions was found for 2022 (p = 0.006) and 2023 (p = 0.594). As such, while future applications of the AT in immersion camp settings should encourage complete entries and greater participation, there are likely additional effects that cannot be explained by the distribution of the complete and missing data alone.
Furthermore, this study – together with nēhiyaw long-observed witnessing – shows that collective learning happens and that no one is leaving anyone behind – family, peer, and individual learning is evident. What this statement means, in combination with the results of this study, is that the AT can be adapted, and modified to parallel the land-based camps that are pivotal to the nēhiyawak collective identity. Counter to this notion, as an individual, the role of the AT in goal setting sets up a plan, a plan in language vocabulary, which is what is wanted and needed in nēhiyaw language growth. The AT illustrates this point. This research remains ongoing, parallel to the growing immersion camps.
Recommendations
This annual camp has grown in interest and awareness among participants and teachers wanting to learn more about how to teach additional languages. The demand is high, particularly with doctors and scientists. One such partnership with the nēhiyawak Language Experience and York University is a neuroscientific research study. In that study, we are not only learning how our nēhiyaw language makes us happy, joyful, and permeates healing, but how it is a restorative remedy that awakens the soul and gives purpose. This ongoing study will be utilizing EEGs and a mobile MRIs to measure brain waves before and after camp to capture the mind’s state of happiness while learning nēhiyawēwin. We are currently entering the second year of this collaboration, moving slowly to build relationships and trust with learners and teachers due to the scientific nature of this study.
Finally, based on the analyses and subsequent reflections in this study, there are a number of recommendations to adapt the current AT for immersion camp settings.
Recommendation 1: Add an emotional aspect (currently inadequately/indirectly captured)
Currently, factors related to learners’ emotional experiences, such as more general or overall self-confidence in the language, are not addressed directly in the AT. While such feelings are also important in master-apprentice programs, they are in some ways more nuanced and difficult to capture in the immersion camp setting, as the learner-to-teacher ratio is higher and all those in attendance have less time to get to know each other. As a result, learners may not have the same opportunities to communicate and understand, consciously or otherwise, some of the more fine-grained aspects of their language learning experience. An AT specifically designed for immersion camps should thus make a point to look into emotional experiences more closely.
Speculatively, one way of doing so could be to add one or two short-answer questions that ask about their level of confidence in where they are currently to the items already present at the beginning of the AT. While this question would be an important first step, additional questions should be embedded directly in the assessment wheels – perhaps taking the place of a couple of items that are currently blank spaces.
Recommendation 2: Corroborate with teacher assessments
It must be noted that as a study of learners’ self-reported abilities, these scores are ultimately based on learners’ perception of their own abilities and not based on evaluations of a specific instance of language use, evaluations such as oral exams, observations, or any number of other assessment formats. While information of this kind is undeniably important to understanding language learning in a holistic way, functional linguistic knowledge is understood (e.g., Chater, McCauley, & Christiansen, 2016) to be a skill, not abstract knowledge, suggesting some kind of disconnect between our actual abilities in a language and what we understand our abilities to be.
A second assessment – from a teacher who knows the language and the learner – could be an important way of building a bridge across this disconnect. This is because they would not have the same internal feelings, like self-confidence, that may impact the AT scores. Furthermore, the need for additional perspective in an immersion camp–based AT is important, as learners usually have comparably less time in an immersion camp to come to terms with what they do and do not know. As such, this teacher’s assessment would be analyzed alongside learners’ self-assessment, with the goal of understanding linguistic competence from both sides: the speaker and the listener.
Recommendation 3: Educate learners that a complete AT provides a more detailed understanding of language learning
It should be stressed that learners not be made to feel obliged to complete the AT against their will or comfort. Indeed, they should continue to know that they are free to decline or stop filling out the AT, even if it is incomplete. However, the effect that immersion camps have on learners’ own success in nēhiyawak can be understood more thoroughly with more complete results. So, a straightforward but impactful step could be to remind learners before they enter items into the AT that aiming for entries that are as complete as possible will help the camp (and perhaps their own learning) to continue improving in future years.
Conclusion: What can we learn from using an assessment tool in a language immersion camp context?
In closing, we are left asking what we were taught by modifying and adapting the assessment tool along with long-observed witnessing. This small-scale study showed us that language learning camps work to assist with language learning despite the relatively short time spent immersed in the language. In these one-week immersion experiences, there is enhanced nēhiyawēwin learning beyond the technical language learning – that of feelings of emotional and spiritual connection. All the learners and language carriers learn and grow in many different ways. Whether it is strengthening relationships with the people or with the land, everyone feels loved and supported, and for those who are nēhiyaw, they know where and how they belong to a Nation. Learners connect with the language spirit and both spirits are united for a time BE-ing: “[L]istening involves using all of our wholistic realms of heart/emotional, mind/intellectual, body/physical, and spirit in relationships to oneself, family, community, or Nation” (Archibald, 2019, p. 3). By understanding nēhiyawēwin phrases, nēhiyawak root themselves to the land, similar to the trees and plants they live with while at camp. The nēhiyawak Language Experience, with the help of the assessment tool, offers evidence that language and land-based camps fulfill the desire to speak and understand nēhiyawēwin. It is nēhiyaw miyo pimātisiwin: the good Cree life.
References
Absolon, K.E. (2011). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know: Indigenous re-search methodologies. Fernwood.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. ACTFL.
Archibald, J., & Parent, A. (2019). Hands back, hands forward for Indigenous storywork as methodology. In S. Windchief & T. San Pedro (Eds.), Applying Indigenous research methods: Storying with peoples and communities (1st ed., pp. 3–20). Routledge. Crossref
Babaii, E., Taghaddomi, S., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2016). Speaking self-assessment: Mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ criteria. Language Testing, 33(3), 411–437. Crossref
Berndt, J.C.P., & Robinson, B. (2023). To share is to live. In M. Kress & K. Horn-Miller (Eds.), Land as relation: Teaching and learning through place, people, and practices (pp. 55–64). Canadian Scholars.
Chater, N., McCauley, S.M., & Christiansen, M.H. (2016). Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 244–254. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jml.2015.11.004
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2006). Companion tables to the Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. https://www.language.ca/
Coles-Ritchie, M., & Charles, W. (2013). Conversations. In P.E. Marlow & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Communities of practice: An Alaskan native model for language teaching and learning. University of Arizona Press.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe Publishing. www.coe.int/lang-cefr
Daniels, B., & Custer, A. (2022). nēhiyawētān kīkināhk/Speaking Cree in the home: A beginner’s guide for families. University of Regina Press.
Daniels, B., Morin, R., Cook, B., & Thunder, D. (2022). nēhiyawak Language Experience camp guide 2022: How to start a Language Experience camp: tânisi ka-êsi mâcipitamihk pîkiskwêwin waniskâpicikêwin. nēhiyawak Language Experience. https://nehiyawak.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DANIELS_nehiyawak-Language-Experience-Camp-Guide-2022-Edited-Final-June.pdf
Daniels-Fiss, B. (2008). Learning to be a nēhiyaw (Cree) through language. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 2(3), 233–245. Crossref
Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247–296. Crossref
Ermine, W. (1995). Aboriginal epistemology. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 101–112). University of British Columbia Press.
Fishman, J.A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.
Francis, N., & Reyhner, J. (2002). Language and literacy teaching for Indigenous education: A bilingual approach. Multilingual Matters.
Grant, L., & Turner, J. (2013). The Kawaiisu language at home program. In L. Hinton (Ed.), Bringing our languages home: Language revitalization for families (pp. 189–208). Heyday Books.
Greymorning, N. (2019). Being Indigenous: Perspectives on activism, culture, language and identity. Routledge. Crossref
Haynes, E., Stansfield, C., Gnyra, C.D., Schleif, M., & Anderson, S. (2010). Review of the literature on the assessment of Indigenous languages [Report prepared for the Bureau of Indian Education]. Second Language Testing.
Hermes, M., & Haskins, M. (2018). Unbecoming standards through Ojibwe immersion: The wolf meets ma’iingan. In G. Wigglesworth et al. (Eds.), Language practices of Indigenous children and youth (pp. 99–116). Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref
Housman, A., Dameg, K., Kobashigawa, M., & Brown, J.D. (2011). Report on the Hawaiian oral language assessment (H-OLA) development project. University of Hawai’i Second Language Studies, 29(2), 1–59. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/847c4126-2f9b-42ed-82ab-d472aa09d974/download
Johnson, S.M.K. (2014). yaʕ̓tmín cqwəlqwilt nixw, uł nixw, ul nixw, I need to speak more, and more, and more: Okanagan-Colville (Interior Salish) Indigenous second-language learners share our filmed narratives. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8, 136–167. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/4622
Johnson, S.M.K. (2017). Breathing life into new speakers: Nsyilxcn and Tlingit sequenced curriculum, direct acquisition, and assessments. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(2), 109–132. Crossref
Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall using pictorial and written test items. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 122–143. Crossref
Kahakalau, K. (2017). Developing an Indigenous proficiency scale. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1377508. Crossref
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.
Martin-Booran Mirraboopa, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203–214. Crossref
McIvor, O. (2020). Indigenous language revitalization and applied linguistics: Parallel histories, shared futures? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 78–96. Crossref
McIvor, O., & Jacobs, P. (2016, February). NEȾOLṈEW̱ Language Learning Assessment Tool. https://netolnew.ca/all-research-reporting/assessment-tool/
McIvor, O., & Jacobs, P. (2018). Adult Indigenous contributions to reviving languages in British Columbia through mentor-apprentice style learning: Assessment tool report. University of Victoria. https://netolnew.ca/all-research-reporting/assessment-tool-report/
Miller, J.W. (2004). Assessing First Nations language proficiency [EdD dissertation, University of British Columbia]. Crossref
Northwest Indian Language Institute (NILI). (2012). Northwest Indian Language Institute (NILI): Native language proficiency benchmarks. University of Oregon. http://pages.Uoregon.Edu/nwili/language-proficiency-benchmarks
O’Dwyer, F. (2011). Using a European Language Portfolio for self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection. OnCue Journal, 5(2–3), 49–61. https://jaltcue.org/files/OnCUE/OCJ5-2-3articles/OCJ5-2-3-pp49-61-O_Dwyer.pdf
Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (2000). Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/Ci63-14-2000-eng.pdf
Peter, L., Christie, E., Cochran, M., Dunn, D., Elk, L., Fields, E., Fields, J., Hirata-Edds, T., Huckaby, A., Raymond, M., Hastings, S., Sly, G., Wickliffe, G., & Yamamoto, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of total immersion on Cherokee language revitalization: A culturally responsive, participatory approach. In J. Reyhner, O.V. Trujillo, R.L. Carrasco, & L. Lockard (Eds.), Nurturing native languages (pp. 7–23). Northern Arizona University.
Peter, L., & Hirata-Edds, T.E. (2006). Using assessment to inform instruction in Cherokee language revitalisation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(5), 643–658. Crossref
Preston, J.P., & Claypool, T.R. (2021, July). Analyzing assessment practices for Indigenous students. Frontiers in Education, 6, 679972. Crossref
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., Abe, M., & In’nami, Y. (2020). Dunning–Kruger effect in second language speech learning: How does self perception align with other perception over time? Learning and Individual Differences, 79, 101849. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101849
Smith, L.T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books.
Spolsky, B. (2002). Prospects for the survival of the Navajo language: A reconsideration. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(2), 139–162. Crossref
Underriner, J., Fernandes, J., & Atkins, M. (2012, May 17–19). Native American language benchmarks and functions to guide curriculum development [Conference paper]. 19th Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium (SILS), Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
Author Information
Belinda kakiyosēw Daniels is nēhiyaw from pahkitahwākan sākahikan – Sturgeon Lake First Nation Treaty Six Territory in Saskatchewan, Canada. The name kakiyosēw translates to “she is creative and industrious.” kakiyosēw is a mother, grandmother, wife, sister, auntie, and language warrior with connections to the Daniels and Ermine families, and ancestral ties to pē miyo maskwa (Good Bear Arriving). Belinda is also an assistant professor in the Department of Indigenous Education at the University of Victoria, with a focus on Indigenous language revitalization, and the founder of the nēhiyawak Language Experience, a not-for-profit language revitalization organization that has been running for 20 years. kakiyosēw is a lifelong learner of nēhiyawēwin.
Adam Stone, PhD, is a Research Associate at the Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre (LINK) at Carleton University. Stone is an English Canadian and Jewish person from unceded Algonquin territory, where Ottawa currently stands. Stone has worked with Belinda kakiyosēw Daniels and Onowa McIvor as a postdoctoral fellow, as well as a senior researcher for the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. Adam strives to support Indigenous language education through his work in research and map-making.
Onowa McIvor is maskékow-ininiw (Swampy Cree) and a member of Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba, Canada. McIvor is a professor in Indigenous education and holds a President’s Research Chair at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. She directed the national NEȾOLṈEW̱ Research Partnership, a 7-year project working to understand and enhance Indigenous adults’ contributions to reviving Indigenous languages in Canada.
