2 Multilingualism, (Indigenous) First Languages and Literacy
Eric Bracea, Naomi Filmoreb, and Tom Calmac
aThe Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation (ALNF), Australia
bSchool of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Australia
c(Kungarakan and Iwaidja), University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract
This chapter explores why learning in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages is vital for children, families, and communities. Research from Australia and internationally shows that when students begin their education in their First Languages, they achieve better outcomes—not only in literacy, but in wellbeing, identity, and social connection. Yet, English-only policies have often damaged communities and denied children the right to learn in their own language and knowledge systems. We describe new approaches that centre Indigenous knowledge, such as South Australia’s Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning program and community-owned digital tools like the Living First Language Platform. These examples show that when Elders, young people, and educators work together, language learning becomes a pathway to pride, resilience, and success. We argue that true educational equity requires treating First Languages as foundational, whilst illustrating how this approach can provide robust scaffolding into English literacy.
Keywords
First Languages, literacy pedagogies, Indigenous knowledge systems, decolonisation, wellbeing, human rights, epistemic violence, Living First Language Platform, Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning Program
Australia is home to over 350 Aboriginal languages and Torres Strait Islander languages that have been spoken for millennia, known as First Languages (Horton, 1996). Colonisation has had a devastating impact on Australia’s First Languages, with only 145 languages recorded in 2005; 120 in 2014; and 123 in 2020 (AIATSIS, 2006, 2020; Marmion et al., 2014). Of these, only 12 are still considered “strong” and continue to be passed on from one generation to the next (AIATSIS, 2020). Many more First Languages are in active states of reclamation and revitalisation, including among children. Australia is also home to many New Indigenous languages that have developed since colonisation through contact between First Languages, English, and other languages. Each and every language is more than just words; each represents shared ways of understanding, knowing and being in the world.
In many remote communities, up to 100% of children are encountering English for the first time when they begin schooling or early years education (Wilson, 2014). For these children, access to linguistically inclusive education is a basic human right that Australia has a duty to uphold (United Nations, 2007). Domestic and international research shows that doing so leads to a wide range of positive academic, socio-emotional and health outcomes (WHO, 2025). Where Standard Australian English is imposed as the sole language of instruction, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are systematically denied the right to learn in their own languages and to enjoy the associated benefits. Decades of “English only” policies have traumatised communities (Hogarth, 2018), thereby impeding the educational system’s ability to facilitate, respect and properly invest in inclusive bi- or multilingual education.
Throughout this chapter, in referring to “own” languages and First Languages, we refer not only to the language a child learns first and speaks most fluently, but also to languages that children and communities are strongly linked to through their cultural identity and cultural heritage, regardless of whether they are currently spoken from a young age. Even when learned as a heritage or additional language, there is substantial evidence documenting the benefits of learning and learning in First Languages in community and educational contexts. For example, research from the Australian National University shows that speaking First Languages in any capacity correlates with higher well-being, lower psychological stress and increased social connectedness (Dinku et al., 2025; Mayi Kuwayu, 2024).
This chapter seeks to challenge the epistemic foundations of literacy research and practice that have marginalised Indigenous ways of knowing about language and learning. We examine how mainstream literacy research has perpetuated Anglocentric assumptions that position Indigenous languages and learners as deficient, and then explore how innovative programs centre Indigenous knowledge systems and First Languages. Finally, we consider what genuine decolonisation of literacy education requires: recognising Indigenous communities as primary authorities over their own knowledge and language systems.
Literacy in, Through and for First Languages
Domestic and international research has consistently shown the benefits of early learning and literacy in, through and for First Languages (see, for example, Benson, 2002; Dutcher & Tucker, 1997 for reviews). This encompasses literacy development in First Languages themselves, using First Languages as the medium for broader learning, and developing literacy for language maintenance and revitalisation. Studies in locations as diverse as the USA (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002), Peru (Hynsjö & Damon, 2016), Kenya (Piper et al., 2016) and the Philippines (Walter & Dekker, 2011) show that early literacy develops most effectively when children can explore foundational concepts in the language they know best and are most connected to. Even when learned as a heritage or additional language, there are documented benefits for student engagement (for example, Smits et al., 2008) as well as for health (for example, Rowley et al., 2008; Zubrick et al., 2005) and well-being (Angelo et al., 2019; Dinku et al., 2025; Mayi Kuwayu, 2024).
In heritage First Language contexts, there is a strong case for First Language learning to support literacy development. Research has shown that the relatively transparent (or consistent) orthographies of many Indigenous languages can support the development of phonological awareness and phonics in both the target language and additional languages (such as Standard Australian English). Transparent orthographies are those that have a predictable one-to-one matching between sounds (phonemes) in the language and the letters (graphemes/phonograms) representing those sounds. Consequently, when children develop phonological awareness (awareness of sounds within words) and basic phonics, they acquire a strong set of skills to decode and spell a wide variety of words in the language. In contrast, English learners require more structured instruction to discriminate between possible phonetic spellings and conventional spellings. Cummins’ theory of “linguistic interdependence” (1979, 1991) means that knowledge and skills (phonological awareness and phonics) developed in a First Language can be effectively scaffolded into an additional language. For example, Australian research has found a positive relationship between learning a heritage First Language and literacy in Standard Australian English (Jones et al., 2011). Similarly, contemporary research on Māori literacy has also illustrated that developing phonological processing and early literacy skills in an orthographically consistent language (such as Māori) can aid literacy development in languages with a more opaque orthography, such as Standard Australian English (Krageloh & Tia, 2010).
However, framing First Language education solely in terms of cognitive and affective benefits underappreciates the fundamental human rights dimension (Calma & Fllmore, 2020). Indigenous peoples have the right to “revitalise, use, develop and transmit their Languages to future generations” (Article 13, UNDRIP). Language and identity are intrinsically linked (Marmion et al, 2014), so it is no surprise that Aboriginal communities implementing bilingual education programs report greater self-worth and acceptance (Kral, 2009). When viewed within a human rights framework ‒ and in the context of historical actions ‒ the inclusion of First Nations’ Languages and Literacies is an act of recognition, reconciliation, reciprocity and respect, which calls for nuanced, context-specific policies that allow for local knowledges, practices and languages to serve as scaffolding between and across traditional and Western epistemologies.
Decolonising Literacy Research and Practice Through First Languages
Mainstream literacy research and practice have perpetuated epistemic injustice by privileging knowledge derived from English and other European languages while marginalising Indigenous ways of knowing about language and learning. As Share (2008) warns, contemporary reading science remains “preoccupied with distinctly narrow Anglocentric research issues that have only limited significance for a universal science of reading” (p. 584). This research is then universally applied to Indigenous and minoritised languages, ignoring their distinct linguistic features and cultural contexts (Trudell & Schroeder, 2007). When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are taught literacy primarily through Standard Australian English, they are not only denied access to their own knowledge systems but are positioned as deficient learners whose languages and ways of knowing are deemed inadequate for academic learning (Hogarth, 2019). This represents a fundamental form of epistemic violence that treats Indigenous knowledge as inferior to Western academic knowledge (Mignolo, 2012). Where opportunities for cross-language transfer are presented, it is assumed that the Indigenous Language literacy pedagogy must adhere to English norms (Tweed & Te Maro, 2025).
However, innovative programs are demonstrating how centring Indigenous knowledge systems can transform educational approaches and challenge these colonial assumptions. Rather than viewing First Languages and literacies as deficient or marginal, these innovative programs demonstrate how First Language learning can transform literacy education. In this section, we will describe a few initiatives that position Indigenous ways of knowing and languaging as sophisticated epistemological frameworks and are enriching literacy education for First Language learners.
The Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning Program
In addition to the South Australian Department for Education’s commitment to bilingual education in its 10-year Aboriginal Education Strategy (2019–2029) published in 2018, South Australian education authorities recently introduced the Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning program, which forms part of the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE). The program was piloted from 2022 to 2024, then made official in May 2025, and provides pathways for Aboriginal students to have their cultural knowledge and learning formally recognised within their SACE (high school completion) qualification (SA Department of Education, n.d.). Students can earn credits through either community-led, student-led or co-delivered learning projects and investigations. Official SACE Board support local cultural authorities who support the young learners through their investigations.
Following this pathway, senior First Language custodians and cultural authorities from the Adnyamathanha community – led by Terrence Coulthard in the Flinders Ranges ‒ held a series of intergenerational language camps on country for young people residing in surrounding areas, such as Port Augusta and Leigh Creek. Through the camps, Elders and youth collaborated on knowledge-sharing, reflective practice, First Language learning, reading and writing development, and language digitisation/documentation practices. Fostering literacy within this context is part of the Elders’ process of the intergenerational transmission of the Adnyamathanha Yura Muda (Language and Stories) so that the next generation can carry on the stories. The program provides space for young learners to navigate deep spaces for learning and discovery. One student reported that:
In the fading light of Minerawuta (an historic Adnyamathanha settlement located in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia), I found not just a place, but a piece of myself. My journey of discovery intertwined with the spirits of my heritage, weaving a tapestry of resilience and belonging. As I bid farewell to this sacred land, I carry with me the echoes of the past and the promise of a future imbedded in the strength of my cultural identity … I will cherish my family and forever share my culture, heritage and language for my future generations so they can have an awareness and understanding on what impacted our people and their stories of survival.
The Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning program has provided Adnyamathanha youth and
Elders with a means to foster “two-way” learning, which has included the intersection of Adnyamathanha history, language, literacy and narratives with, for instance, general ecological examinations and the specific archaeological investigations of the region’s megafauna past. The terms “two-way”, “both ways”, “Red Dirt Curriculum” and bilingual education share a common principle of building from local language and knowledge and scaffolding students across and into engagement with Western knowledge and thereby establishing patterns of reciprocity rather than hierarchies of knowledge (Lester et al., 2013).
The Living First Language Platform and Feed the Monster
Digital technologies also present new opportunities for Indigenous communities to govern and manage resources that facilitate First Languages education and literacies. While technology has long played a role in documenting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, language speakers have historically often been excluded from driving, developing and controlling these processes – a form of digital colonialism that treats Indigenous communities as subjects rather than agents of their own knowledge systems (Meighan, 2021). However, community-controlled digital platforms for First Language learning represent an important shift towards Indigenous technology sovereignty in language revitalisation. Galla’s (2016) research across 47 Indigenous language communities worldwide found that technology has wide and mostly positive applications in language teaching and learning when shaped by community-controlled linguistic, cultural, social and technological factors.
The Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation’s Living First Language Platform and Feed the Monster literacy game exemplify this approach, enabling communities to organise, record and curate their languages for teaching and learning under community control (Filmore et al., 2019). These tools represent a critical departure from extractive models that have historically appropriated Indigenous knowledge for external benefit (Smith, 1999).
The Living First Language Platform is a tool used by 19 First Language communities across Australia (including Adnyamathanha) to collate letter-sounds, words, sentences, stories, other text and related materials (for example, videos, PDFs and long-form audio). It allows communities to securely distribute learning materials within local settings and across geographic areas, enabling Elders to share their knowledge more flexibly. Young people partner with Elders, thereby leveraging their dual positioning as community members with cultural knowledge and digital natives, combining their cultural strengths with technological literacy to reclaim and revitalise their languages (Filmore et al., 2019). Each Language community has full governance and control over its digital space and holds authority over its use across a variety of settings, including schools and other community contexts, such as adult literacy, community language lessons, home learning and cross-cultural exchanges. The platform exemplifies Indigenous data sovereignty in education and the related right to Indigenous data governance, which are key to empowering Indigenous people to accurately reflect their knowledge, languages and stories (Lobel & Stephens, 2024; Maiam Nayri Wingara, 2018).
Similarly, digital initiatives like Feed the Monster, a literacy app developed specifically for Indigenous and minoritised languages with transparent orthographies (Koval-Saifi & Plass, 2018), demonstrate how technology can incorporate the distinct linguistic features of First Languages into teaching literacy, rather than imposing English-centric pedagogical assumptions. Rigney (2019) recognises that such technologies have the potential to decentre teacher/experts and gather Indigenous content through the collaborative participation of parents, local Elders, and community stakeholders. Versions developed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, including Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara, Warumungu, and Erub Mer, are community-generated and feature local voices that young children recognise. These community-generated versions capitalise on the transparent orthographies of Indigenous languages, enabling the rapid phonological skill development that can then transfer to English literacy as described earlier. They have become sources of pride and achievement within communities (Wallace, 2023), enabling learners to develop core literacy skills in their own languages and addressing a significant gap, given the abundance of such resources available in majority languages.
These examples illustrate how Indigenous communities are asserting technological sovereignty over their own knowledge, language and education systems. The co-construction of these tools means they serve community-defined goals for language transmission and literacy development.
Looking Forward
The success of and demand for the programs described above reveal both the urgency of Indigenous knowledge-centred First Languages education and the structural constraints of colonial education systems. At present, there are still practical and epistemic limitations in the implementation of these and similar programs that prevent First Languages and literacies from becoming robust, respected and impactful parts of mainstream teaching and learning. We emphasise “robust, respectful and impactful” because we do not deny efforts made to bring First Languages into the classroom, but fuller integration is limited by entrenched structural barriers, including inconsistencies in training provision and employment opportunities for community teachers; credentialing systems that fail to recognise or compensate Indigenous language expertise, the privileging of Western academic qualifications over community knowledge; curricula designed around monolingual, Eurocentric assumptions that leave little space for Indigenous ways of knowing and languaging; assessment and accountability frameworks that measure success through standardised English literacy outcomes; and institutional policies that treat Indigenous languages as ‘add-ons’ rather than foundational epistemological systems. Decolonising education requires recognising that these are not capacity deficits but deliberate outcomes of colonial knowledge hierarchies (Smith, 1999).
Importantly, valuing and developing the capacity of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators is vital, recognising their important and ongoing role in improving academic and affective outcomes and in decolonising the education system (Peacock & Prehn, 2019), though efforts are being made to progress industrial guidelines to recognise the local expertise that community members possess and demonstrate (First Languages Australia, 2024). “Robust, respectful and impactful” First Languages literacy research and practice would centre Indigenous communities as the primary authorities over their own knowledge systems, with mainstream institutions adapting to support rather than control these processes.
Conclusion
This chapter has challenged the epistemic foundations of mainstream literacy research and education, demonstrating how First Languages learning offers transformative alternatives to colonial educational frameworks. The examples from South Australia’s Recognition of Aboriginal Culture and Learning program and the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation’s community-controlled digital platforms illustrate that decolonising literacy education is not only possible but urgently needed.
As a representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Irmgarda Kasinskaite observes, “there is a growing awareness that Indigenous languages do not simply serve as cultural artefacts … Rather, they equip their users with an invaluable skillset and expertise in different fields, from the environment to education, the economy, social and political life, and family relations” (OHCHR, 2019). The current UN International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022‒2032) provides a critical opportunity to move beyond tokenistic inclusion towards genuine epistemological transformation. The Los Piños Declaration calls for “building inclusive and equitable education and learning environments” (UNESCO, 2020) that centre Indigenous ways of knowing, being and languaging.
Ultimately, as Makinti Minutjukur, Director of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Education Committee (PYEC), reminds us, “our culture, our language and our stories; we must hold on to them tightly and not let go because these give us strength […] We must keep our language, our stories, our lands and our family connections. These are things that give us power in our land” (Lester et al., 2013, p. 8). Put another way, “language is life”, as a Warumungu Elder told one of this chapter’s authors over 20 years ago. Decolonising literacy research and practice means recognising that this power ‒ this knowledge sovereignty ‒ belongs with Indigenous communities, not external institutions. Consequently, assessing the role of the inclusion of Indigenous languages into the curriculum is not a matter of pedagogical efficiency. Instead, it is one of respecting the rights of people in a pluralistic society.
Author Note
Naomi Filmore 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1767-5173
Tom Calma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3015-4620
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eric Brace. Email: eric.brace@alnf.org.
Acknowledgments
The Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation activities with the Living First Language Platform and Feed the Monster are conducted in collaboration with Indigenous community across Australia and with generous support from the Australian Commonwealth’s National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA) as well as the Indigenous Language and Arts program through the Office of the Arts in the Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. Further support has been provided by the Indigenous Language Grant program of the Queensland Government and by the Torres Strait Regional Authority under the Cultural Arts and Heritage Programme. Additional support is provided by such philanthropic and corporate partners as the Minderoo Foundation, the Morialta Charitable Trust, and Officeworks (a division of the Wesfarmers group).
The Feed the Monster early literacy game is an open-source project. The Feed the Monster artwork is CC BY 4.0 licensed artwork, and the Feed the Monster source code is an open-source BSD 2-clause license. Originally developed by a consortium led by The Apps Factory, versions of the game in Australian Indigenous languages have been developed by the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation and the Living First Language Platform Company with technical support from Boston-based Curious Learning.
SDG Alignment
Goal 4: Quality education
Goal 10: Reduced inequalities
Cite This Chapter
Brace, E., Filmore, N., & Calma, T. (2026). Multilingualism, (Indigenous) first languages, and literacy. In L. Naidoo, S. Gannon, C. Woodrow, C. H. Díaz, V. Lopez, & J. F. Salazar (Eds.), Sur-Sur Southern knowledges: Education, sustainability and social transformation. Western Open Books. https://doi.org/10.61588/HGMT4758
Attribution
Except where otherwise noted, this work by Naomi Filmore, Eric Brace and Tom Calma is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Research Integrity Statement
Ethics approval was not required as the chapter does not report primary research involving human participants, and is based on a synthesis and analysis of publicly available information.
At the time of the writing of the chapter, Eric Brace was serving as the Director of First Languages and Digital Innovation for the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation (ALNF), and Prof Tom Calma AO was serving as the Chair of ALNF and the Living First Language Platform (LFLP) Company, a subsidiary wholly owned by ALNF. The work of the ALNF and LFLP are discussed as examples in the chapter. These authors declare that these roles did not influence or bias the academic presentation of the subject matter, including the summary of relevant literature.
References
Angelo, D., O’Shannessy, C., Simpson, J., Kral, I., Smith, H., & Browne, E. (2019). Well-being and Indigenous language ecologies (WILE): A strengths-based approach: Literature review, National Indigenous Languages Report, Pillar 2. Australian National University, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/186414
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, & Australian National University. (2020). National Indigenous languages report (p. 108). Australian Government. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/indigenous-arts-and-languages/national-indigenous-languages-report
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2005). National Indigenous languages survey report 2005. Report submitted to the Australian Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/nils-report-2005.pdf
Benson, C. (2002). Real and potential benefits of bilingual programmes in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(6), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050208667764
Calma, T., & Filmore, N. (2020). Walking on the red dirt and the red carpet: Quality education in Australia’s First Languages. Human Rights Defender, 29(1), 25–29.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge University Press.
Department for Education. (2018). Aboriginal education strategy 2019–2029. Government of South Australia. https://www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/curriculum/aboriginal-education/dept-ed-aboriginal-education-strategy-2019-2029.pdf
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
Dinku, Y., Markham, F., Angelo, D., & Simpson, J. (2025). The connection between social and emotional wellbeing and Indigenous language use varies across language ecologies in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 364, 117547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117547
Dutcher, N., & Tucker, R. T. (1997). The use of first and second languages in education: A review of international experience (Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series). World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/131161468770987263/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Filmore, N., Bemrose, D., & Gutchen, L. (2019). Language, technology, community nexus: A case study of Erub Mer. In J. Troy, M. Torwali, & N. Ostler (Eds.), Causes of language endangerment (pp. 11–20). Foundation for Endangered Languages. https://vonweber.nl/fel/proceedings/201910241432321747.pdf
First Languages Australia. (2024). Employees delivering First Nations language and cultural education programs (Industrial guidelines, Version 1.7). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603c934c25c28820314562e0/t/65efbaeb6b34a32dc016d1f0/1710209774009/WP24~009+Industrial+Guidelines+for+FNEW+v1.7.pdf
Galla, C. K. (2016). Indigenous language revitalization, promotion, and education: Function of digital technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7), 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1166137
Hogarth, M. D. (2018). Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous education policy (Doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.5204/thesis.eprints.118573
Hogarth, M. D. (2019). Y is standard oostralin English da onlii meens of kommunikashun: Kountaring White man privileg in da kurrikulum. English in Australia, 54(1), 5–11. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/aeipt.224527
Horton, D. R. (1996). The AIATSIS map of Indigenous Australia [Map]. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/aiatsis-map-indigenous-australia
Hynsjö, D., & Damon, A. (2016). Bilingual education in Peru: Evidence on how Quechua-medium education affects Indigenous children’s academic achievement. Economics of Education Review, 53, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.05.006
Jones, C., Chandler, M. J., & Lowe, K. (2011). Sounds, spelling and learning to read an Aboriginal language. In J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, & M. Walsh (Eds.), Re-awakening languages: Theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages (pp. 311–323). Sydney University Press.
Koval-Saifi, N., & Plass, J. (2018). Feed the Monster: Impact and technical evaluation (p. 113). World Vision & Foundation for Information Technology Education and Development. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/feed-the-monster-ie-report-2018.pdf
Krageloh, C. U., & Neha, T. N. (2010). Taking pride in te reo Māori: How regular spelling promotes literacy acquisition. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 66–76. https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/informit.602665803989241
Kral, I. (2009). The literacy question in remote Indigenous Australia (CAEPR Topical Issue No. 06/2009). Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/148982/1/Kral_Literacy_0609_0.pdf
Lester, K., Minutjukur, M., Osborne, S., & Tjitayi, K. (2013, September 18). Red dirt curriculum: Reimagining remote education [Sidney Myer Rural Lecture 3]. https://culturallyresponsivepedagogy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Red-Dirt-Curriculum-Re-imagining-Remote-Education.pdf
Loble, L., & Stephens, K. (2024). Securing digital equity in Australian education. University of Technology Sydney. https://doi.org/10.57956/RRPC-5708
Maiam Nayri Wingara. (n.d.). Maiam Nayri Wingara. https://www.maiamnayriwingara.org
Marmion, D., Obata, K., & Troy, J. (2014). Community, identity, wellbeing: The report of the second national Indigenous languages survey. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/research_pub/2014-report-of-the-2nd-national-indigenous-languages-survey_1.pdf
Mayi Kuwayu & First Languages Australia. (2024). Exploring links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language use and wellbeing (Research update). Mayi Kuwayu, Yardhura Walani, & First Languages Australia. https://mkstudy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Summary_MKFLA_language-wellbeing_240829.pdf
Meighan, P. J. (2021). Decolonizing the digital landscape: The role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(3), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801211037672
Mignolo, W. D. (2012). Introduction. On gnosis and the imaginary of the modern/colonial world system. In Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking (pp. 3–45). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400845064
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025). Many Indigenous languages are in danger of extinction. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2019/10/many-indigenous-languages-are-danger-extinction
Peacock, H., & Prehn, J. (2019). The importance of Aboriginal education workers for decolonising and promoting culture in primary schools. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(1),196–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2019.13
Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., & Ong’ele, S. (2016). Implementing mother tongue instruction in the real world. Comparative Education Review, 60(4), 776–807. https://doi.org/10.1086/688493
Rigney, L.-I. (2019). Defining culturally responsive digital education for classrooms. In E. A. McKinley & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Indigenous education (pp. 1031–1047). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3899-0_44
Rowley, K. G., O’Dea, K., Anderson, I., McDermott, R., Saraswati, K., Tilmouth, R., Roberts, I., Fitz, J., Wang, Z., Jenkins, A., Best, J. D., & Brown, A. (2008). Lower than expected morbidity and mortality for an Australian Aboriginal population. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(5), 283–287. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01621.x
Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
Smits, J., Huisman, J., & Kruijff, K. (2008). Home language and education in the developing world (Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009, 2009/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/21). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000178702
South Australian Certificate of Education. (n.d.). Recognition of Aboriginal cultural knowledge and learning. Government of South Australia. https://www.sace.sa.edu.au/coordinating/recognised-learning/rackl
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED436087.pdf
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77g364zj
Trudell, B., & Schroeder, L. (2007). Reading methodologies for African languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.2167/lcc333.0
Tweed, B., & Maro, P. T. (2025, March 13). Language is a “central element in being Māori” – using structured literacy to teach te reo misses the point. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/language-is-a-central-element-in-being-maori-using-structured-literacy-to-teach-te-reo-misses-the-point-250390
UNESCO. (2020). Los Pinos Declaration [Chapoltepek]: Making a decade of action for Indigenous languages. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374030
Wallace, E. (2023, June 3). Language app Feed the Monster the latest tool in battle to save endangered Warumungu language. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-03/language-app-feed-the-monster-helps-preserve-waramungu/102423484
Walter, S. L., & Dekker, D. E. (2011). Mother tongue instruction in Lubuagan. International Review of Education, 57, 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9246-4
Wilson, B. (2014). A share in the future: Review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. The Education Business. https://education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/229016/A-Share-in-the-Future-The-Review-of-Indigenous-Education-in-the-Northern-Territory.pdf
World Health Organization. (2025). World report on social determinants of health equity. https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/equity-and-health/world-report-on-social-determinants-of-health-equity
Zubrick, S. R., Silburn, S. R., Lawrence, D. M., Mitrou, F. G., Dalby, R. B., Blair, E. M., Griffin, J., Milroy, H., De Maio, J. A., Cox, A., & Li, J. (2005). The Western Australian Aboriginal child health survey: The social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young people (Vol. 2). Curtin University of Technology & Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/files/10057115/WAACHSVolume2.pdf