supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

as a methodology for research) and, evolving from this study, an approach which I
have called action development. The importance of these three constructs is
discussed below.
Tiriti-based curriculum honours agreements which stem from the founding
document Tiriti o Waitangi and paves the way in which relationship are to be
bicultural. In Aotearoa New Zealand that means according equity to both Māori
and English cultures. It is, therefore, important to consider what action is defined
as bicultural and what early childhood teachers considered to be the ideal bicultural
curriculum. These matters thus frame Tiriti-based curriculum and provide a vision
of what is to be achieved.
Teachers, as I have shown, do value Tiriti-based curriculum but that has
not stopped implementation from being problematic. Hence, it is clearly not
merely a matter of raising awareness of Tiriti o Waitangi, although that is pivotal.
While others have similarly noted this (J. Burgess, 2005; Cubey, 1992; Ritchie,
2002b) I have approached the matter differently. This thesis has used appreciative
inquiry both as a theoretical framework and as a methodological tool.
The idea of using appreciative inquiry as a theoretical framework stems
from Chile (2009) and I acknowledge his leadership in this matter. His approach,
and the one used in this thesis, avoids deficit models. The theoretical approach
emphasises the value of working from positive relationships and interactions
(Bishop, 2008) and further developing ploys which already work. That is the
second construct, but although Bishop discussed relationships between teachers
and Māori pupils for schools, this thesis has shown that his theorising works
equally well when the focus is on early childhood teachers and their relationship to
Tiriti-based curriculum.
The third framework is the methodological model of action development.
One of the ways for Tiriti-based curriculum to be effectively implemented is
through the action development model. This framework arose from blending
appreciative inquiry and action research. I was seeking a way to consider data that
was not problem-based (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) or a deficit model, but
instead wanted the approach to come from an affirming perspective (Cooperrider &
Srivastva, 1987).
236