Using principle of Two-Eyed Seeing, the proposed TESSE Framework brings together a contemporary guided-inquiry approach with an example of Aboriginal ways of knowing (Table 2).

Following the principle of TES, both approaches have value and offer guidance for teaching and learning science. Where the 5Es representation-rich approach provides broad guidance for a contemporary inquiry-based approaches, 8 ways provides specific examples of Aboriginal teaching and learning methods that may be introduced throughout the inquiry cycle. In bringing together these approaches, there is a need for educators to (re)consider three key aspects of science education: pedagogy, curricula, and the nature of science itself.

As previously mentioned, there has been long-standing critique of transmissive, teacher-centred approaches that are reliant on textbooks (Harlen & Bell, 2010; Lyons, 2006; Osborne & Dillon, 2010). Over a century ago, Dewey (1910/1990) advocated for student-centred scientific inquiry. Researchers still argue for science education to become more interactive, inquiry- and place-based (Blades & McIvor, 2017; Duschl & Grandy, 2013). Teaching methods should include open-ended questions, class discussions, and activities (Eberback & Hmelo-Silver, 2015). Students should have direct experience with skills and methods of inquiry such as observation, collecting data, creating multimodal representations of their ideas, and collaboration (e.g., Duschl & Grandy, 2013; Tytler et al., 2018). Many of these contemporary inquiry approaches have a strong congruence with traditional Indigenous teaching approaches.

As part of a culturally responsive science curriculum developed in the USA, Stephens (2003) compared traditional teaching with inquiry teaching (Table 3).

Where traditional teaching approaches involved diverse expert knowledge placed alongside relevant and practical contexts, inquiry teaching places teachers as facilitators of learning and emphasises student-centred methods. Together, these offer several compatible strategies, highlighting the opportunity to integrate diverse expertise and perspectives, learn across the disciplines, and connect learning to relevant contexts.

Both approaches are consistent with the guidelines provided by the RCAP (1996), where the teacher is a facilitator who guides the educational process and learners are active creators of knowledge rather than passive recipients. According to the guidelines, teaching methods include experiential learning, storytelling, observations, visualisations, movement, students use of trial-and-error, and student-directed research projects. Importantly, educators establish learning communities through learning circles, cooperative problem-solving, and knowledge sharing with no competitive ranking of performance. Similar approaches have also been recommended for use with the 7Es model (FNESC, 2016), where activities often take place on the land with Elders (e.g., videos, guest speakers, field trips). In both cases, learning and assessment ideally take place at the same time with an emphasis on formative approaches over summative.

In contrast to pedagogies, curricula is more challenging to adapt. Policy for school science tends to prescribe curricula irrespective of culture or place. Curricula are typically organised into disciplinary strands (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics), covering a broad range of unrelated topics (Schweingruber et al., 2012). Science textbooks also tend to present a collection of information as an “encyclopedic curriculum” in response to committee-influenced development teams (Schwartz et al., 2009, p. 799). Thus, science is presented as a series of disconnected facts and skills (Duschl & Grandy, 2013). Consequently, school science has been described as a “rhetoric of conclusions” (Schwab, 1962, p. 24), with content that is considered largely irrelevant to everyday life (Aikenhead, 2006; Zidny et al., 2020). Even hands-on experiments and other activities do not guarantee meaningfulness (Crawford, 2014) or enable students to investigate topics in which they are interested (Lyons, 2006).

In contrast, First Nations approaches offer possibilities for contextually relevant curriculum integration (i.e. interdisciplinarity) where curriculum works alongside pedagogy and context as part of teaching and learning. As Elder Albert Marshall, explained:

Two-Eyed Seeing is hard to convey to academics as it does not fit into any particular subject area or discipline. Rather, it is about life: what you do, what kind of responsibilities you have, how you should live while on Earth (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 336).

Indigenous thought does not separate knowledge into disciplines such as science, art, religion, philosophy, or aesthetics (Battiste & Henderson, 2005). For example, the curriculum for the Integrative Science program went beyond the disciplinary siloes, following a transdisciplinary design that related to complex and socially relevant issues (Bartlett et al., 2012; Hatcher et al., 2009). Academic disciplines and traditional knowledge were connected through the visual arts, and the body and mind through movement and dance.

Moreover, both curriculum and pedagogy were strongly place-based, and followed a holistic education model involving the integration of communities within the classroom (Hatcher et al., 2009). Students’ learning was also connected with activities outside school and in communities, consistent with the need to connect to the larger world of learning and understanding (RCAP, 1996). Finally, students were connected to nature. This involved focusing on the senses and the powers of observations as ways to help them re-establish themselves as part of nature rather than separate from it (Hatcher et al., 2009). By designing pedagogy and curriculum in context, students in the program developed an understanding that knowing is relational and dynamic (Hatcher et al., 2009). This place-based science offers rich and authentic contexts for science learning (Blades & McIvor, 2017; Hatcher et al., 2009; Zidny et al., 2020).

Most science education programs have taken a Eurocentric perspective on the scientific method (Aikenhead & Elliot, 2010), presenting it as the dominant or exclusive method for understanding the world (AAAS, 1989). If all science learning is to be understood as cultural (National Research Council, 2012), then there is need to unpack the philosophies and assumptions underpinning Eurocentric science, and challenge it as a single universal way of knowing and doing science (Kayumova & Dou, 2022). Both teachers and their students need to put their “values and actions and knowledges in front of [themselves], like an object, for examination and discussion” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 334). Again, we draw on Stephens (2003), to compare the purpose, methods, and skills for Indigenous knowledge creation and Western modern science (see Table 4).

Table 4 was adapted from its original representation as a Venn diagram, emphasising the complementarity between the systems, and the common ground in the centre. The Integrative Science program drew on these ideas to illustrate how each knowledge system offers valuable scientific knowledges through differences in ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies (Bartlett, 2011).

Bartlett (2011) explained how the organizing principles (i.e., ontologies) are concerned with the need for knowledge to provide understanding about how the world works. While Indigenous science focuses on beings, interconnectiveness, spirit, and change within balance and wholeness, Western science focuses on parts building to understanding wholes and systems. The habits of mind (i.e., epistemologies) link knowledge and values to ways of coming to know in the natural world. Indigenous science focuses on respect, relationship, reverence, reciprocity, ritual, repetition, and responsibility (Archibald, 2001). Western science focuses on hypothesis (making and testing), data collection, data analysis, and model and theory construction.

Skills and procedures link languages and the methodologies that inform ways of knowing. Both Indigenous and Western science have knowledge systems that are changeable (i.e., not static) (Hatcher et al., 2009). Indigenous sciences focuses on patterns within nature through creative relationships and reciprocities. It is concerned with collective, living knowledge to enable an interconnective and place-based life journey, with the view of long-term sustainability for the people and natural environment as reinforced by Aboriginal languages. In contrast, Western science focuses on the analysis of nature’s patterns through mathematical language and computer models. It is concerned with dynamic, testable, publishable knowledge, independent of personal experience, that can enable prediction and control, towards an understanding of how the cosmos works.

The complementarity and common ground outlined by Stephens (2003) and elaborated by Bartlett (2011) illustrate how we might respectfully reconcile different philosophies. Where the purpose of Western scientific knowledge is to understand the natural world, Indigenous science focuses place-based ways of way of living in the natural world, through respect, responsibility, and reciprocity within nature’s relationships (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Hatcher et al., 2009; Snively & Corsiglia 2001). Indigenous sciences emphasise humans as participants in the natural world as well as the knowledge system. In doing so, “the acquisition of scientific knowledge is essential to human survival—it is a practical engagement with the real world, or put another way, it is about our interactions with and within nature” (Institute for Integrative Science and Health [IISH], n.d.-a). The bringing together of both knowledge systems “allows the Indigenous Sciences sense of the whole ‘to dance with’ the Western Science sense of the parts” (Hatcher et al., 2009, p. 146).

Unpacking knowledge systems and coming to understand multiscience perspectives (Ogawa, 1995) requires both teachers and their students participating in ongoing reflection and being open to continuous development in ways of knowing, valuing, and doing (Hatcher et al. 2009). Given that the idea of holding space for multiple perspectives is a feature of many Indigenous knowledge systems (Berkes, 2017), Indigenous students may be more open to this multi-perspectival approach than non-Indigenous students (Bartlett et al., 2012; Shahjahan et al., 2022).

On the other hand, First Nations students may have a different starting point to understanding Western science, experiencing what is described as a ‘culture shock’ in science education (Cajete, 1999b, p. 153). This is attributed to the idea that there are three types of science: personal science (based on personal beliefs and experiences); Indigenous science (cultural beliefs and experiences); and Western modern science (Ogawa, 1995). First Nations students may need to recognise their own conflicting schema. In science education, this might be considered as an extra dimension of students’ prior ideas, so the teacher needs to be mindful to ensure a culturally responsive approach.

Though the (re)consideration of pedagogy, curricula, and nature of science may seem daunting, Yunkaporta (2009, p. 163) emphasizes that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal teachers are equally able to come to Aboriginal knowledge and pedagogies:

Applications of Aboriginal pedagogy at the Cultural Interface define a safe yet challenging ground in which teachers and students can engage with Aboriginal knowledge from perspectives that are multicultural, inclusive, intellectually rigorous, connected to curriculum and connected to community.

The (re)consideration of pedagogy, curricula, and the nature of science indicate areas of compatibility, complementarity, and common ground between two knowledge systems, illustrating how the principle of Etuaptmumk or TES has been applied in learning environments. The following highlights two consideration to support the respectful and meaningful implementation of the TESSE Framework.

The proposed TESSE Framework is presented as a way to guide the teaching and learning of science in schools and universities. Though there is no “uniform pedagogical approach can be applied to all students, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal” (Lloyd et al., 2015, p. 13), the TESSE Framework provides a starting point for those exploring culturally responsive pedagogies. The Framework is based on the assumption that many science educators will already be familiar using the 5Es approach. The following outlines implications for implementation, based on the lessons learned from the Integrative Science program (Hatcher et al., 2009), along with advice associated with the 8 ways pedagogies (Yunkaporta, 2009).

The first implication is about the need to focus on common ground while understanding and respecting and preserving ideas but avoiding knowledge domination (Hatcher et al., 2009). This requires the teacher to consciously “(w)eave back and forth between our worldviews” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 334). At the same time, teachers must avoid situations where Indigenous knowledges become tokenistic, trivialized, romanticized, co-opted, or undertaken without co-learning (Marshall et al., 2015); or are assimilated such that they become invisible, or cultural differences are denied (Levac et al., 2018). Levac and colleagues (2018, p. 4) advocated for the complementarity of these approaches:

Despite the differences between them, and the risks posed by integration, several scholars and wisdom keepers argue that we can and should try to learn from bringing together Indigenous and Western ways of knowing. Their complementarity will allow us to gain new ways of thinking about and approaching existing problems.

These ideas are consistent with Nakata’s (2007) notion of a cultural interface, which encourages the explorations between Aboriginal and Western cultures as a source of innovation, critical thinking, and problem-solving in ways that are relevant for learners of all cultures.

The second implication is about the co-learning journey. To implement both knowledge systems, educators and First Nations communities need to walk and work together as each undertake their journeys (Hatcher et al., 2009). Given the context-specific nature of Indigenous knowledges, integrating First Nations perspectives into the classroom requires collaborating with local communities and focusing on meaningful cultural content (Yunkaporta, 2009). This involves positioning educators, students, and community as co-learners, focusing on big picture understandings and project-based learning around issues of common interest (Hatcher et al., 2009). Importantly, co-learning journeys must also involve ongoing relationship-building, guided by the process of conversation rather than focusing only on the outcomes (Roher et al., 2021). These connections have potential to grow into long-term partnerships between schools and the local Indigenous community (Anderson & Rhea, 2018).

A functioning partnership is built on relationships based on trust, mutual respect, and effective communication (Kenny et al., 2018). It involves mutual benefit and negotiation for goal setting, planning, implementation, and evaluation (Kenny et al., 2018; Kenny & Cirkony, 2022). This involves educators identifying local First Nations communities and the appropriate agencies, as well as understanding and practicing the local protocols (FNESC, 2016). Researchers have argued for partnerships in education to improve educational outcomes and to better link theory to practice, especially in teacher education (e.g., Jones et al., 2016).

To ensure First Nations perspectives are introduced respectfully, educators need to collaborate with local Elders or other Knowledge Keepers to determine what appropriate knowledge should be taught and how it should be taught (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010; FNESC 2016; RAET, 2019). Educators may also consider developing an advisory council of willing, knowledgeable stakeholders, with individuals from their own educational institution(s) as well as local First Nations communities (Bartlett et al., 2012; FNESC, 2016). Such collaborations can lead to the co-development of local inquiry-based science resources, lessons, and units, which can also be used for the benefit of the Aboriginal community (FNESC