Teu Le Va: Relationships across research and policy in Pasifika education
Teu le va is a tool primarily for educational researchers, to help them plan and implement research that contributes to the development of effective policy and practice in respect of Pasifika students in our schools.
Teu le va emphasises a number of principles or practices, including the need for: researchers to directly involve Pasifika learners, their families, and communities, and teachers as practitioners, in the development of research proposals or plans; ongoing collaboration between researchers and policy-makers; collaboration among researchers from different organisations and groups in order to build a sound knowledge base; ensuring that any research undertaken is relevant for a range of audiences (eg, parents, communities, teachers, policy-makers); all research, development and policy-making in Pasifika education to have a firm focus on student success: realising potential and identifying opportunities.
Author(s): Airini, Melani Anae and Karlo Mila-Schaaf with Eve Coxon, Diane Mara & Kabini Sanga
Date Published: July 2010
Section 9: Appendices
Table 1: Teu La Va Overview
- Optimal relationships -through the Teu le va approach - are necessary for a collective approach to research and policy-making between researchers and policy-makers and must be valued and acted on.
- Collective knowledge generation will lead to optimal Pasifika education and development outcomes through the translation of research into policy.
- Research and policy efforts must be clearly focused on achieving optimal Pasifika education and development outcomes.
- Pasifika success focus for research.
- Teu le va: looking after collaborative relationships:
- engage with stakeholders in Pasifika education research;
- collaborate in setting the research framework;
- create a coordinated and collaborative approach to Pasifika education research and policy-making;
- grow knowledge through a cumulative approach to research;
- understand the kinds of knowledge used in Pasifika education research and policy-making;
- engage with other knowledge brokers;
- Stocktake and gaps analysis of Pasifika education research.
- A research plan nationwide that is relevant to the current Pasifika Education Plan.
- Action group for relationships across research and policy nationwide.
- Relationship development towards a centre for excellence in Pasifika research and policy.
- Plan for talent and leadership growth in Pasifika education research and policy nationwide.
- Research to identify cases of good practice for Pasifika education research informing policy.
- Professional development for Pasifika education researchers and policy-makers in the Teu le va approach (eg, the Pasifika success focus, translation of research to policy).
- High quality, relevant research and policy;
- Education researchers and policy-makers working together;
- Increased pool of strong research that is relevant to outcomes identified in the current Pasifika Education Plan, such as improved systems and practice;
- Engagement of Pasifika peoples/communities of knowledge in education research and policy;
- Policy-makers successfully integrating Pasifika knowledge and research into policy;
- olicy-makers having confidence in the potential of policies for transformation of Pasifika education outcomes;
- Researchers successfully linking research to policy;
- More Pasifika education researchers and policy-makers;
- Shared research and policy agenda aligned with the current Pasifika Education Plan.
A working definition of Pasifika Peoples
"Pacific peoples are both local and global; genealogically, spiritually and culturally connected to the lands, the skies and seas of the Pacific region."
Tofamamao Working Party (2007)
'Pasifika' is a term of convenience used throughout this document. It is a term that is in formal usage by the Ministry of Education when referring to Pacific peoples in New Zealand. The term refers to those peoples who have migrated from Pacific nations and territories. It also refers to the New Zealand-based (and born) population, who identify as Pasifika, via ancestry or descent.
The 2006 Census indicated that 265,974 people identified with the Pasifika peoples ethnic group, constituting 6.9 percent of the total population (Statistics New Zealand, 2007:5). The 'Pasifika peoples' ethnic group had the second largest increase between 2001 and 2006, increasing by 14.7 percent (Statistics New Zealand, 2007:2).
The largest Pacific ethnic groups are (in order of size): Samoan, Cook Islands Māori, Tongan, Niuean, Fijian, Tokelauan and Tuvaluan (Statistics New Zealand, 2007). The nature of Pasifika groups residing in New Zealand tends to reflect historical and colonial relationships New Zealand has had in the Pacific region.
The term Pasifika also tends to be inclusive of Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Hawai'i, Palau, Solomon Islands, Bougainville, Palau, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific populations who have less of a presence in Aotearoa–New Zealand. It is clear that Pasifika is a term that holds much cultural, linguistic and geographical diversity underneath its umbrella. The Ministry of Education has found 'Pasifika' to be a consistent and useful (concise) way to encompass the Pacific populations in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2007). Other terms in general use include Pasifika peoples, Pasifikaans, Moana people, and Pacific Islanders.
At best, the term Pasifika encapsulates both unity and diversity. At worst, it homogenises and glosses over cultural, linguistic and experiential diversity in a manner that captures all, but relates to none. There are considerable disadvantages of "treating the Pasifika population as if it were a single, homogenous entity" (Macpherson, 1996).
There is increasingly a drive for ethnic-specific approaches, information and determination. Even within ethnic-specific groups, there is a danger of glossing over intra-ethnic variations. It is useful to go back to the Pasifika Education Research Guidelines (Anae et al, 2001:7) which state: "There is no generic 'Pacific community' but rather Pacific peoples who align themselves variously, and at different times, along ethnic, geographic, church, family, school, age/gender-based, youth/elders, island-born/NZ-born, occupational lines or a mix of these".
Coxon et al (2002) identified that although the educational achievements of Pasifika males, as a group, are of significant concern at every level of the education system there is no research that specifically explores their learning experiences. Therefore, recognition of diversity as it relates to Pasifika education research also requires not glossing over gender differences.
There are other important demographic drivers that characterise the Pasifika population. The majority of Pasifika peoples are now born in New Zealand. below shows the percentage of New Zealand-born Pasifika peoples from the 2006 Census findings.
|Pasifika Ethnic Group||Percentage New Zealand-born|
|Cook Islands Māori||73.4%|
A key demographic trend characterising Pasifika peoples is the level of intermarriage with non-Pasifika ethnic groups, leading to multiple ethnic identities (Cook et al, 1996). To illustrate the prevalence of this trend, between 2002 and 2006, a total of 43,760 babies were born in New Zealand who were identified as belonging to a Pacific Island group: 44.4 percent were identified as belonging solely to one Pacific group; 8.2 percent were identified as simultaneously belonging to 2+ Pacific groups; 12.2 percent were also identified as being Māori; 11.8 percent as European and 1.8 percent as Asian/Indian/Other; with the remaining 21.6 percent belonging to three or more ethnic groups, of which at least one was Pacific (Craig et al, 2007).
According to Callister and Didham (2007), of all the main ethnic groups in New Zealand, the Pasifika population is the most youthful, with almost half under the age of twenty. And, among the New Zealand-born Pasifika population, 70 percent are under the age of twenty (Ibid).
Finally, we know that the Pasifika population is overwhelmingly urban. Recent statistics show that 97 percent of Pasifika peoples live in an urban area and 84 percent live within New Zealand's five largest urban areas (in contrast with just 48 percent of New Zealand's total population) (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004). The latest 2006 Census shows that in Auckland, Pacific peoples make up 14.4 percent of the population (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).
What Pasifika 'means' has shifted over time. How people are grouped, who is able to sit under this 'umbrella' term, and how it is constructed and defined is often a politically and emotionally charged process.
"We should be able to determine who is in and who is out."
Symposium participant, 2007
"I don't agree. Who has the right to do this?"
Symposium participant, 2007
Samu writes critically about 'Pasifika' and the "…taken-for-granted assumption of a unifying set of shared values and expectations" (Samu, 2007:9-10). She argues that 'Pasifika' is a "social construction": "What are our underlying assumptions when we use the term 'Pasifika'? Is it possible that the underlying assumptions have become rather fixed and even inflexible?" (Samu, 2007:12).
Samu concludes with the sentiments expressed by Crocombe 30 years earlier about a pan-Pacific term. Such an identity would be "Organic - a 'living, growing field of meaning' - open to change, modification and amendment … the concept was fluid - as having 'soul - with room to manoeuvre' "(Crocombe, 1976, cited in Samu, 2007:11).
Recent research of Pasifika young people identified a preference for an inclusive 'come as you are' approach to culture (Mila-Schaaf, 2007). This encompasses a non-judgemental and creative approach to changing cultural orientations and affirmation of the identities young Pasifika people express or identify with, as acceptable and valid (Ibid).
Any definition of what we mean by 'Pasifika' will always be a work in progress. The point is, as Anae (2007) writes: "We need to create and participate in conversations that forward multi-dimensional reference points that explain the rich ethnic identities of Pasifika children, youth and their families".
"Both strands are necessary to make things work for our children."
Symposium participant, 2007
When identifying what 'Pasifika' means, a defining characteristic of Pasifika in an Aotearoa–New Zealand context is an ongoing engagement and interaction with other cultures; in particular, the culture that is predominant within the education system. Duality in this context refers to having two wells to draw from: that is, being able to access Pasifika knowledge and culture, as well as being able to know and draw upon what is often described as 'mainstream' education system knowledge and culture. Being able to negotiate between two cultural and epistemic spaces is a valuable skill.
In a knowledge society, both teachers and learners need the skills to manage multiple world views, so that the next Pasifika generations can participate equitably in a complex, multicultural world.
Appreciating the complexities: the Ethnic Interface Model22
Coxon et al (2002) state that Pacific peoples in New Zealand comprise a multi-ethnic group. It has been clearly established that this group is by no means homogenous and does not share the same indigenous language or culture. There are inherent diversities at a number of critical levels:
- cultural diversities - for example, the differences in language, and culture between Samoan, Tongan, Niuean peoples, and so on.
- intra-cultural diversities - for example, those differences which are associated with having very youthful populations; not to mention that generally over half of each of the populations are New Zealand-born and/or raised. Some groups also incorporate and/or have traditional diversities and differences based upon village or islands heritages - for example, Pukapuka, Atiu in the Cook Islands. Identification as a member of an island takes precedence over affiliations to a national birthplace;
- the emergence of a visible middle class amongst some Pacific communities (see Anae, 2004). This means the general socio-economic patterns that have united Pacific peoples in the past are shifting to a degree.
There are also 'hidden' sub-groups within ethnic groups, for example, gangs, or other groups whose memberships are along non-ethnic lines.
These diversities (and there are others) affect and reflect the nature of the interactions between groups of Pasifika learners and educational institutions, and the potential for these interactions to be riddled with complexities (Coxon et al, 2002:10-12).
The Ethnic Interface model (Samu, 1998) has been conceived as a tool or a framework to enable educators to unravel and take these complexities into account. Those features or characteristics that Pasifika learners bring to the interface between themselves and the educational institution, which shape their world view or perspectives, can be grouped together as: gender; socio-economic status; developmental stage (eg, adolescence); religious affiliation; and so on. Those features or characteristics which are largely within the domain and control of the institutions include: governance; curriculum; pedagogy; assessment and evaluation; and so on.
Figure 3: The Ethnic Interface Model
The Cube Model: Towards a culturally-anchored ecological framework of research in multi-ethnic/cultural communities
Sasao and Sue's Cube Model (1993:705) shown in Figure 4 posits that multi-ethnic community research can be conceptualised as a three-dimensional structure that represents interaction among research questions, methods and cultural complexity (referring to the extent to which an ethnic-cultural group is defined in a larger ecological/holistic context or community both at the individual and collective levels).
Figure 4: The Cube Model (Sasao and Sue, 1993:705-727)23
This model is timely and necessary as up to this point there has been relatively little attention paid to ecological contexts where demographics are constantly and rapidly changing. There has also been relative neglect of complex socio-political climates in which various stakeholders represent ethnic-cultural communities. Moreover, the fluid nature of a multi-ethnic community needs to be recognised. In a multi-ethnic society, research issues pertinent to multi-ethnic communities need to be addressed in a way that balances solutions to the paradoxes of various multi-ethnic and mainstream perspectives within and across groups in a fluid ecological context or community (ibid:715).
Multi-ethnic community research can be conceptualised as something which represents a dynamic relationship between:
- the type of research questions being asked;
- the selection of methods; and
- the cultural complexity (referring to the extent to which the multi-ethnic group is defined in a larger ecological context or community both at individual and collective levels).
In designing and conducting research in multi-ethnic communities, these three elements interact and should determine the design of a study as well as outcomes. Therefore, they must be examined simultaneously and weighed against one another to obtain scientifically valid research, albeit constrained by increasing diversity and issues as discussed earlier.
Research questions and methods are covered in the Pasifika Education Research Guidelines (Anae et al, 2001). In addition, there are the models described earlier in the present Teu le va document. Some of these are ethnic-specific, others are Pacific generic. However what these lack is focused attention to the cultural complexity in the diverse contexts that have been referred to.
The need to focus on cultural complexity is to allow the identification and assessment of community phenomena or social regularities in culturally anchored settings. These can be defined at two levels: at the individual level as the degree to which an individual is defined not only in terms of ethnicity, but also by his/her affective, behavioural and cognitive representation of that social category (social identity); and at the collective level of a context or setting (eg, community, neighbourhood, school) where individuals are located or embedded (ibid:718).
Depending on complexity at these two levels, Sasao and Sue state that three further layers of complexity can be examined.
- A-cultural complexity: where researchers collect data based on physical markers, or physical characteristics, as ethnic glosses, without regard to the ecological/holistic context of the research setting, and analyse data using ethnicity/culture as a categorical variable. Also, the individual member's social identity is blatantly ignored in collecting and interpreting such data. Sometimes this type of ethnic-cultural data collection is inevitable.
- Ethno-cultural complexity: in which the community/group being studied must be defined by members of the community/group - and not only by the ethnic group of interest but by members of other ethnic-cultural groups within the same ecological context as well.
- Sub-cultural group complexity: where there may be illegal and/or hidden sub-populations within certain ethnic-cultural groups involved in the research, for example, gangs, drug abusers, in/out-groups, religious sects. That is, sub-groups whose members are no longer defined according to imposed social categories such as race/ethnicity per se, but are sources for the definition of their own sub-culture. An individual's social identity in that sub-culture - or 'street' culture - stems from a combination of various cultural elements or categories (ibid: 719-20).
Thus the different layers of complexity imply that in order to identify and address culturally anchored social regularities, a community needs to be defined more clearly, incorporating the concept of cultural complexity in the research design, such as self-perceived identification with an ethnic category or acculturation status, or how their community or neighbourhood is viewed or defined in the context of other relevant social categories.
It is also important to note that decisions on which research question is answered by what methods, in what contexts, are determined by multiple perspectives represented in a particular research project. In each of these different cultural-complexity contexts, some methods are more feasible and preferable than others. For example, although a carefully conducted survey of a sample of a given group/population (a quantitative approach) may yield greater generalisability to other settings, survey techniques are likely to be inappropriate to use with aforementioned 'hidden' sub-populations (eg, gang members, drug users) in the sub-cultural street ecological context. Also, for New Zealand-born and/or multi-ethnic sub-populations survey techniques would be inappropriate to use in view of the need to expose and understand the nuances of self-perceived ethnic identity. For example, where an individual is multi-blooded, why do they self-select one ethnic group identification over another (see Anae, 2007). For these sub-populations, more appropriate qualitative methods, such as a combination or some or all of key person interviews, participant observation, focus groups, individual life-story interviews, would provide 'thick description' and more in-depth responses to research questions.
By examining the dynamic relationships and interaction between research questions, method, and cultural complexity, potential solutions to some of the overarching issues discussed previously may be obtained. For instance, it may be the case that many of the claims or social stereotypes or sources of misunderstanding evident in cultural deficit theory may be based on either inadequate methodology or inappropriate cultural contexts where research was conducted, or a combination of both.
Finally, Sasao and Sue (1993:723) state that:
"This [Cube] model can serve as a convenient way to identify limitations in a study. Researchers who apply research findings derived from the a-cultural to the sub-cultural level are ignoring individual differences, while those who conduct research at the sub-cultural level and draw implications to the a-cultural level may be over generalising. In essence, the Cube Model serves a heuristic and conceptual purpose in helping to define what kinds of research have been conducted, the appropriateness of conclusions and gaps in our knowledge."
Two case studies that 'show-case' the principles and practices described in Teu le va are provided below. The cases illustrate ways in which research and policy might work better together for improved Pasifika education outcomes. An important feature is the way in which the multiple principles and practices associated with the intention to teu le va will be in operation
at any one point in time. This is a useful reminder that although the intention may be unified (to improve Pasifika education outcomes), the particular context will need a degree of flexibility, dynamism, and responsiveness in order to operate in ways that best fit the needs, and va, of the particular
Case 1 relates to Samoan bilingual education in response to identified policy needs in Pacific literacy and languages and is illustrative of how collaborative knowledge generation in optimal relationships can generate new knowledge and understandings.
Case 2 describes elements of a literacy research initiative undertaken in collaboration with teachers, and informed by policy needs, and is illustrative of how research and policy efforts can be clearly focused on achieving optimal outcomes for Pasifika.
Case 1: Quality Teaching Research and Development project:
Samoan Bilingual Hub
Dr Meaola Amituanai-Toloa
Woolf Fisher Research Centre, The University of Auckland
The Quality Teaching Research and Development project (QTR&D) was funded by the Ministry of Education. The QTRD project (involving different studies/projects) was developed collaboratively between the Ministry, university academics, research facilitators, schools, teachers, students and their communities. It was underpinned by the premise that teacher inquiry, supported by productive learning partnerships, is a critical contributing factor to improving the quality of teaching and learning outcomes for students.
The QTR&D Samoan bilingual hub was set up in 2007 to improve the quality of teaching and learning (pedagogy and student outcomes) in Samoan bilingual school settings. The project aimed to inform policy and future research and development work with Samoan bilingual teachers in schools.
QTR&D project principles
The principles that underpinned the design of the Samoan bilingual hub and other QTR&D projects include:
- recognition that 'culture counts';
- development of productive partnerships and joint construction of knowledge and learning processes by all participants;
- development of high quality evidence-based practices to enhance Pasifika student outcomes;
- use of collective inquiry processes which engage teachers' personal theories;
- development of culturally inclusive and responsive learning communities.
Samoan bilingual hub rationale
The general achievement of Pasifika students, including Samoan students, in English literacy has been identified as a major challenge for education in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Although our student achievement in literacy is known to be high internationally, research has identified that Māori and Pasifika students are over-represented in our 'long tail' of underachievement.
Samoan students make up the majority of Pasifika students in New Zealand schools. Of these, most are in mainstream classrooms with some in bilingual classrooms. With these issues in mind the Samoan bilingual hub project explored Samoan bilingual teacher practice, and sought to identify effective pedagogies that will lift the achievement of Samoan students in a bilingual classroom environment.
Participants and scope
There were 12 teachers working in five different schools in the Samoan bilingual hub. These five schools had worked as a cluster before this particular QTR&D project began. The teachers were a mix of beginning, experienced and senior Samoan teachers. All had graduated with a first degree and all were studying towards postgraduate qualifications.
A total of 65 students from Year 1 to Year 8 were involved in the project. They were in the bilingual programme as a result of families' requests. In the majority of their homes Samoan language was spoken frequently in regular family settings as well as at social and church events.
As part of the QTR&D project the teachers were enrolled in a university course to develop understandings about the research process, and to encourage them to engage in systematic inquiry into their own bilingual teaching practices. As a result of the course, and in conjunction with their cluster work, each teacher chose an aspect of their literacy work where they wanted to improve both their own practice and their students' learning outcomes in literacy. They conducted pre- and post-intervention tests of the students' work, engaged in critical reflection either orally with colleagues or in journals, and applied new practices gained from their course work and/or in collaboration with their colleagues in order to achieved their valued outcomes.
Some shifts in achievement for the Samoan students in a bilingual context were made. Factors that could improve these outcomes further were identified.
The QTR&D professional learning project specifically validated the Samoan teachers' beliefs, and their ideas about how Samoan students should be taught. The teachers recognised that culture is an integral part of student learning and tried to address this in their action research projects. The teachers became more conscious of how home and cultural norms have an impact on what happens in the classroom.
The inclusion of evidence-based reading and research in the course requirements and their use in other shared workshops developed teachers' understanding of how evidence can help their pedagogical practice and improve outcomes for students.
The teachers gained a clearer understanding of the purpose and goals of bilingual teaching, and of the possibilities for improving literacy learning outcomes for Samoan students.
The project provided more information about the Samoan bilingual teaching context, revealing a number of areas that need further research. It showed, for example, how standardised testing in Samoan could help both teachers and students.
Case 2: A model of school change for culturally and linguistically diverse students in New Zealand: A summary and evidence from systematic replication
Stuart McNaughton and Mei Kuin Lai
Woolf Fisher Research Centre, The University of Auckland24
In a series of studies, researchers from the Woolf Fisher Research Centre, in partnership with schools, their communities and policy personnel, have focused research and development programmes on the pressing and long standing educational challenge of improving reading comprehension. The major assumptions behind this work have been that: instructional effectiveness in the schools could be increased so that achievement levels in reading comprehension for Māori and Pasifika students in Years 4 through 8 were substantially accelerated; that the change would require a model of schooling improvement that solved the challenges of effectiveness in context through building the expertise of the teachers; and that educationally significant and sustainable changes needed long-term partnerships between researchers, policy-makers and school professionals.
McNaughton and Lai provided the following statements about their model of school change:
"The criteria we have set for educationally significant changes include accelerated rates of achievement (changing levels but not changing rates can mean groups of students never 'catch up'), and shifting the distribution of achievement so that the achievement in the schools matches the national distribution ([ie, so that] the probability of being in any one part of the distribution, such as high or low or average bands, is no different for these students than what would be expected nationally). There are several meanings for the term 'sustainable' but in the context of these targeted clusters of schools it means maintaining rates of change in achievement as well as maintaining effective problem-solving of local challenges, to being effective for Māori and Pasifika students."
"Our first research and development project focused on reading comprehension, conducted as a collaborative partnership between researchers, schools and the New Zealand Ministry of Education, and was designed to develop and test the model in a cluster of 'decile 1' schools in South Auckland (McNaughton, MacDonald, Amituanai-Toloa, Lai & Farry, 2006."
"The research and development programme was conducted over three years with up to 70 teachers and, in different years, between 1200 and 1900 students, over 90 percent of whom were Māori or Pasifika. Included were six Samoan bilingual classes from two schools with between 140 and 169 students across different years. A quasi-experimental design was employed to examine relationships between the programme and the outcomes over three years. The robustness of the design was enhanced by features such as a comparison with an untreated cluster of similar schools, and checks on subject attrition. Repeated measures of student achievement at the beginning and the end of each year, and a final measure at the beginning of the fourth year, form the basis of the design which, among other things, examines rates of gain against predicted patterns of growth generated from a baseline."
"We concluded that it is possible to develop more effective teaching that impacts directly on the reading comprehension achievement of Years 4–9 children. The level of gains overall were in the order of one year's gain in addition to nationally expected progress over three years. When these gains are considered in terms of the history of schooling in South Auckland, the educational significance of the gains, and the international literature of schooling improvement, they are seen to be substantial. Even when results for all the students present from the beginning to the end are considered, including those who subsequently left and those who subsequently entered the school, either from earlier levels or as new students from other schools, the levels of achievement at the schools have increased considerably. Given the quasi-experimental design with its additional strengths, these gains can be attributed with some confidence to the effects of the three-phase model adopted by the research and development programme."
Replication across clusters
"The tests of effectiveness for this initial study were achieving accelerated rates of achievement and shifting distributions of achievement to match national expectations. The former sets the test at being about making more than just a normal rate of progress because that means perhaps higher levels but parallel tracks of achievement. The latter sets the test as achievement for students in the schools being no different from the distribution of the achievement for students nationally (ie, the same proportions of low, middle and high achieving students). The first study showed that substantial acceleration was possible and significant changes in the distribution of achievement could occur, although to fully match the nationally expected distribution continued acceleration was needed."
This initial study of the process of change has been replicated twice; each time with similar results. The replication sequence which can be considered as a test of scalability has used the model developed in a first cluster of schools (Mangere) and tested it in a like cluster of schools (Otara) and in an unlike cluster of schools (West Coast). The like set of schools were from an adjacent neighbourhood to the first and whose students were from the same communities of Māori and Pasifika, with the lowest income levels and starting achievement about two years below national expectations. The unlike set of schools were from a small town and rural area of New Zealand and involved mainly NZ European and Māori students in communities with higher income levels and starting achievement levels around national expectations. All in all, the replication sequence involved 48 schools, representing about 7000 students yearly. We statistically modelled the data in each cluster to predict the amount of gain for each year of the intervention."
"Thus the results suggest that the findings from the first study are able to be replicated and scaled up across different settings, different schools, and different cohorts of students with a variety of starting achievement levels."
- As referred to in Anae's (2007) paper.
- As referred to in Anae's (2007) paper.
- A full report of this initiative can be found in: McNaughton, Stuart, and Lai, Mei Kuin (2009) 'A Model of School Change for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in New Zealand: A Summary and Evidence from Systematic Replication', Teaching Education, Vol.20, no.1, pp.55–75, March.