gifted, creative, and talented native americans: a … files/nagc/na_gentryfugate12.pdfgifted,...
TRANSCRIPT
Gifted, Creative, and Talented Native
Americans: A Call for Relevant
Research for Marginalized Cultures
Marcia Gentry, Ph.D.,
C. Matthew Fugate, M. A.
Purdue University
2012 NAGC Convention, - Denver, CO November 15-17, 2012
Research Agenda Needed
“As a group, Native American students are not
afforded educational opportunities equal to other
American students”
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003, p.xi
One of the least researched, most overlooked, and
most underserved populations in the field
Gentry & Fugate, 2012; Yoon & Gentry, 2009
Collaborative Approach
We developed relationships and worked with Native
Americans communities from three nations:
Diné, AZ
Lakota, SD
Ojibwe, MN
Purposes
1. Test literature-based assumptions about gifted,
Native American students
2. Set a research agenda for the field of gifted
education that addresses needs and gaps concerning
the discovery and development of giftedness,
creativity, and talent among Native American
populations
Background
In the GCT literature…
Limited number of empirical studies, scholarly articles,
chapters, and government reports in the past 30 years.
Literature is largely dated
Native Americans are frequently homogenized as one group of
people rather than as culturally diverse populations, leading to
stereotyping and overgeneralization
Little knowledge exists of needs and talent pathways
Literature from outside the field often takes a deficit viewpoint
(e.g., poverty, learning deficiencies, violence, substance abuse)
Method
Literature Review
We searched ERIC and PsycINFO for publications (search terms:
gifted/talented, Native American/American Indian), which revealed a
limited number of empirical studies, scholarly articles, chapters, and
government reports in the past 30 years (e.g., Bradley, 1989;
Christensen, 1991; George, 1987; Grigg, Moran, & Kuang, 2010;
Hartley, 1991; Herring, 1996; Kirschenbaum, 1989; Maker, 1989;
Mead, Grigg, Moran, & Kuang, 2010; Montgomery, 2001; Omdal,
Rude, Betts, & Toy, 2010; Peterson, 1999; Tonemah, 1991).
Method
Analysis of the literature yielded general assumptions. From
which we identified four themes.
Theme 1 – Talent Development
Theme 2 – Culture and Traditions
Theme 3 – Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
Theme 4 – Communication
Methods
Participants
N=100 teachers, aides, and administrators (50% Native American, 46%
White, 4% Hispanic) n=20 Diné, n=16 Lakota, n=64 Ojibwe
2 Focus groups (Diné, Lakota) and 1 professional development group
(Ojibwe) responded to the literature-based assumptions using Tony
Stead’s (2006) Reading Analysis of Non-Fiction Framework (RAN):
A modification of the traditional KWL chart
KWL charts are limiting
They do not sufficiently support the research process
The do not take into account misinformation
Methods
RAN process(43)
What we think we know
Assumptions that are believed to be true
Yes, we were right!
Confirmation of assumptions
Misconceptions
Assumptions that should be disregarded
New Information
Additional information not stated in our assumptions that should be considered
Wonderings
Important research questions raised based upon the new information
Theme 1: Talent Development
Talented youth exist among Native Populations(49)
Recognition, development, services, and programs are needed
to nurture these youth(49)
More youth can achieve at higher levels than current
expectations indicate(49)
Consideration should be give to develop spiritualistic,
naturalistic, leadership, visual/spatial, artistic, musical
CPS, and communication strengths(18,47)
Programs and curriculum should be tied to culture(31)
Group work and solving relevant problems should be a focus(18)
Early and on-going identification and enrichment should be
done in a variety of areas(17)
Theme 1: Talent Development Misconceptions
All three tribal groups agreed with the assumptions found in
the literature regarding talent development.
We have yet to fully engage in this work
Professional Development is needed to for school
administrators, teachers, and helping professionals
No misconceptions were identified.
Theme 1: Talent Development New Understandings
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Boys see women as
dominate in the family
structure
Need for positive, male
role models
Group work and problems
should be aligned with
students’ needs
Some Diné students prefer
to work individually
Native Americans’
strengths in verbal and
mathematical areas should be
acknowledged
A lack of knowledge exists
among Lakota students
regarding their post-
secondary and career options
There is a lack of
understanding between
Lakota students and non-
Native educators
Students are aware of and
want to be part of the global
community
Cultural teachings should
begin with the home and with
elders
Theme 2: Culture and Traditions
Collective society(6,22,27,43)
Matriarchal society(18,24)
Respect for authority and elders(10)
Traditions/cultural knowledge important for future generations(10,34)
Oral traditions, ceremonies, and storytelling are important(10)
Present, cyclical view of time(6,21)
Religion and spirituality are ways of life(25,43)
Live in harmony with nature(53)
Non-materialistic(37)
Patience and self-control are valued(6)
Tribal leaders, spiritual leaders, & medicine people are valued(10)
Theme 2: Culture and Traditions
All three tribal groups agreed on the importance of culture
knowledge through oral traditions(10,34)
Students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools are
more likely to have opportunities for cultural integration(28)
Theme 2: Culture and Traditions
Six foundational elements (Demmert, Grissmer, & Towner,
2006)
1. Recognition and use of native language
2. Pedagogy reflecting the current cultural characteristics and
values of the community
3. Strategies that combine traditional culture with contemporary
techniques
4. Recognition of spirituality of the culture of visual arts, legends,
and oral histories in a contemporary context
5. Community participation and collaboration with parents, elders,
and other community resources
6. Understanding and use of social and political mores
Theme 2: Culture and Traditions: Misconceptions
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Collective society
Non-materialistic
Tribal leaders, spiritual
leaders, & medicine people
are valued
Collective society
Matriarchal society
Live in harmony with
nature
Tribal leaders, spiritual
leaders, & medicine people
are valued
Religion and spirituality are
ways of life
Live in harmony with
nature
Non-materialistic
Patience and self-control
are valued
Theme 2: Culture and Traditions New Understandings
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Clan system following
mother’s family. Uncle serves as
the role model. In school, group
work usually follows clan
groups.
Increased materialism
among youth
Tribal leaders are
politicians, not respected like
elders and medicine people
Alcoholism affects
everyone
Teachers are valued
Adults returning to school,
spiritual awakening
More women than men in
workforce
Self-determination is
valued
Collective society is
generational, not as prevalent
with youth
Move away from
matriarchal society
Importance of tradition
culture varies among families
Culture integrated into
school curriculum
Value of religion/spirituality
varies by family
Harmony with nature is a
1970’s stereotype
Non-materialism due to
Poverty
Tribal leaders=politicians
Practice “give-away”
Ceremonies/pow-wows
more important than oral
traditions
Focus on present with little
consideration of future
Value of religion/spirituality
varies by family
Gang affiliations replacing
search for spirituality
Widespread abuse of
nature…but escape to woods
Possessions=status;
Money=power and happiness
Little patience, lack of self-
control
Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
Public display of knowledge is
not encouraged(23,35)
Cooperative and sharing(6)
Anonymity(18)
Non-competitive, non-
aggressive(46)
Watch, learn, then do(23)
Practice(23)
Hands-on participation(23)
Spatial strengths(34,39)
Simultaneous processing(11,34)
Naturalistic, holistic views(29)
Story telling, auditory
learning(10,18)
Psychomotor, physical
learning(18)
Concern for accuracy over
speed(29)
Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
All three tribal groups agreed on the following assumptions:
Cooperation and sharing(6)
Watch, learn, do(24)
Hands-on participation(24)
Spatial strengths(35,38)
Simultaneous processing(11,35)
Storytelling, auditory learning(10,18)
Psychomotor, physical learning(18)
Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
Misconceptions
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Public display of knowledge
is not encouraged
Concern for accuracy over
speed
Anonymity
Naturalistic, holistic views
Non-competitive, non-
aggressive
Practice
Naturalistic, holistic views
Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
New Understandings
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Differences exist between
urban and rural (Rez) youth
Fear rejection by peers for
being smart “not cool”
Level of anonymity depends
on individual
Self-discipline leads to
perfectionism
Students prefer to learn
through modeling
Little connection to Earth,
focus on instant gratification
Quiet, guarded, most prefer
to work individually
Fighting and aggression are
common
Younger generation pushed
to be assertive, leading to
aggression
Instant gratification/self
preservation
Practice is viewed as a sign
of weakness
Naturalistic views replaced
by ideals of pop culture
Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences
The influence of peers can have a profound effect on
achievement due to similar(1,2,3,33,41)
Values
Level of achievement
Academic goals
Theme 4: Communication
Soft, slow speech, quite, few interjections, delayed responses(29)
Non-verbal communication emphasized(52)
Indirect, non-verbal cues to speaker or listener(10)
May be fluent in two or more languages(23)
Introspective rather than questioning(18)
Feelings unlikely to be openly expressed(23)
Theme 4: Communication Misconceptions
The assumption of fluency in two or more languages came
from a study by Hartley (1991) comparing similarities and
differences among gifted Diné and gifted students in dominate
culture.
Traditional—lived on the reservation
Acculturated—lived within a community in which they had
become integrated and assimilated with Anglo culture
One Anglo community
Theme 4: Communication New Understandings
Diné Lakota Ojibwe
Diné is an oral language
Educators view Navajo
language as a liability
Diné students frequently
lack fluency in both languages
Strong visual and spatial
skills incorporated into
traditional Diné
communication
Concern that lack of
expression may contribute to
alcoholism
Many Lakota students
placed in special education
due to a lack of understanding
of their communication
norms
Majority of students speak
only English
Many students speak in
gang-related slang
Takes time for Lakota
students to warm up to their
non-Native peers
Few are fluent in the
Ojibwe language, which some
see as a dying language
Prevalent use of gang
related slang
Theme 4: Communication
In order to conduct valuable and nuanced research when
working with Native youth, it is important to understand and
value the language, communication style, and culture.
(Peterson, 1999)
A Call for Future Research
Gifted, creative, and talented Native American children are
frequently overlooked by researchers. They face many
barriers including
marginalization(5,15);
living in remote, rural areas(4,8);
poverty; (16,28,50) and
issues with obtaining a quality education (infrastructure,
technology, funding, teacher quality, dropout rates, access to
post-secondary opportunities) (13,22,27)
Address the needs of Native American children and their
educators
Improvements in the recognition and development of
talent
A Call for Future Research
Researchers need to address the needs of Native American
children and their educators
Result in improvements in the recognition and
development of talent
Ideas generated by participants and
from the literature
Culture and Tradition
Family Roles and Connections
Gender
Curricular and Instructional Considerations
Technology
Connections to the Future
Culture & Tradition
How do 21st century skills align with tribal practices?
How do youth fit into the assumptions of tradition and
culture?
How are cultural values changing?
How do (can) teachers integrate cultural mores and
values?
How does knowledge of traditional ways affect students’
sense of self, self-esteem, and achievement?
Family Roles and Connections
What enrichment can be developed/provided for parents
of gifted students?
What role does family play in school success?
How can home-school connections be strengthened?
What methods can be used to connect students to the
“outside” world?
Gender
What methods best address the needs of gifted Diné,
Lakota, or Ojibwe boys (or girls)?
What implication does gender have on educational
services and their delivery?
How does a matriarchal society affect the social and
emotional development of the whole child?
What can be done about gangs?
How can youth be connected to school and education?
Curricular and Instructional Considerations
How can the non-verbal, visual, and spatial strengths of
these youth enhance their learning and success?
How can curriculum be adapted to fit the knowledge,
background, and experiences of the children?
What is the role of PBL in educating these populations?
Can teachers better meet students’ needs through
accountability, goal setting, and reflective practice?
Technology
What is the role of technology for this generation of
learners?
How can technology bring learning to the reservation?
How does technology inform the culture of today’s
generation of Native students?
How can the need for infrastructure in many schools be
addressed?
Connections to the Future
How can innovation and creativity be promoted among
this generation of learners to improve infrastructure and
living conditions on the reservations?
What steps can be taken to address the tension between
educational attainment and the poor job market on the
reservations?
How can educated young people effectively bring their
knowledge and skills home to the Reservation?
Limitations
Findings from these tribal communities are not generalizable to all
tribal communities on these reservations nor to those members
who live off the reservations.
Data collection procedures from the Ojibwe differed from that of
the Diné and Lakota participants.
“I will not fill this out. If you need research about Natives, come and live with
us for a year and visit with the families around here. It’s not even accurate
because there are different degrees of being traditional.”
--Ojibwe (non) Participant
References 1. Anderman, L. H. & Freeman, T. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. In M. L.Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation
and achievement, Vol. 13. Motivating students, improving Schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Bauch, P.A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of
Education, 76(2), 204-221.
5. Bernal, E.M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked
gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.
6. Bradley, C. (1989). Give me the bow, I’ve got the arrow. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible
programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II (pp. 133-137). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
7. Brandt, E. A. (1992). The Navajo area student dropout study: Findings and implications. Journal of American Indian Education, 31, 48-63.
8. Bryant, J.A. (2007). Killing Mayberry: The crisis in rural American education. The Rural Educator, 29, 7-11.
9. Callahan, C. M., & McIntire, J. A. (1994). Identifying outstanding talent in American Indian and Alaska Native students. Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
10. Christensen, R. A. (1991). A personal perspective on Tribal-Alaska Native gifted and talented education. Journal of American Indian
Education, 31(1), 10-14.
11. Davidson, K. L. (1992). A comparison of Native American and White students’ cognitive strengths as measured by the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children. Roeper Review, 14(3), 111-115.
12. Demmert, W. G., Grissmer, D., & Towner, J. (2006). A review and analysis of the research on Native American students. Journal of
American Indian Education, 31, 24-47.
13. DeVoe, J. F., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008084.pdf.
14. Faircloth, S. C., & Tippeconnic, III, J. W. (2010). The dropout/graduation rate crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native students: Failure to
respond places the future of Native peoples at risk. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA;
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.
References 15. Ford, D.Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and
retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.
16. Ford, D.Y. (2007). Diamonds in the rough: Recognizing and meeting the needs of gifted children from low SES bakgrounds. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37). Gifted Education Resource Institute. (2011). 2011-2016 strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.geri.soe.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GERI_Strategic_Plan_1.pdf
17. Gentry, M. (2009). Developing talents and improving student achievement among traditionally underrepresented populations: An experimental investigation scaling-up the total school cluster grouping model. Grant proposal funded by the Institute for Education Sciences, 2009-2014.
18. Gentry, M. (May, 2010). Effective practices in gifted education for Native Americans in Arizona: Definitions and directions to develop talents among Native children. Inaugural Leadership Summit: Identifying and Serving Gifted Native American Students. Ganado, AZ.
19. Gentry, M. & Fugate, C. M. (2012). Gifted, Native American Students: Underperforming, Under- identified, and Overlooked. Psychology in Schools, 49, 631-646.
20. Gentry, M. L., Richardson, J., Fugate, C. M., Wu, J., Jen, E. Y., Folyer, S., & Byers, W. (May, 2011). Putting the development of talents among Native American young on the national agenda: Future directions for research, partnership, and practices. Second Annual Leadership Summit: Identifying and Serving Gifted Native American Students. Ganado, AZ.
21. Garrison, L. (1989). Programming for the gifted American Indian student. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II (pp. 116-127). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
22. George, K. R. (1987). A guide to understanding gifted American Indian students. Las Cruces, NM: Eric Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
23. Grigg, W., Moran, R., and Kuang, M. (2010). National Indian education study - part I: Performance of American Indian and Alaska Native students at grades 4 and 8 on NAEP 2009 reading and mathematics assessments (NCES 2010–462). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
24. Hartley, E. A. (1991). Through Navajo eyes: Examining differences in giftedness. Journal of American Indian Education, 31, 53-64.
25. Herring, R. D. (1996). The unrecognized gifted: A more humanistic perspective for Indigenous students. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 35, 4-11.
26. Julien, P. D., & Ostertag, B. A. (1982). Behavioral characteristics of gifted Navajo students as correlated with intellectual ability and creativity. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED214713.pdf.
27. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1989). Identification of the gifted and talented American Indian students. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 91-101). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
References 28. Mead, N., Grigg, W., Moran, R., and Kuang, M. (2010). National Indian Education Study 2009 - Part II: The Educational Experiences of American
Indian and Alaska Native Students in Grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2010–463). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
29. Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in
the United States at all levels of the education system (RM04190). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
30. Montgomery, D. (1989). Identification of giftedness among American Indian people. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in
gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 79-90). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
31. National Caucus of Native American State Legislators. (2008). Striving to achieve: Helping Native American students succeed. Denver, CO:
Author.
32. Omdal, S., Rude, H., Betts, G., & Toy, R. (2011). American Indian students: Balancing Western and Native giftedness. In J. A. Castellano &
A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds. (pp. 73-97). Waco,
TX US: Prufrock Press.
33. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals,
goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Peterson, J. S. (1999). Gifted--through whose cultural lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 22(4), 354-383.
35. Preston, V. (1991). Mathematics and science curricula in elementary and secondary education for American Indian and Alaska Native students. In
Indian Nations At Risk Task Force Commissioned Papers. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
36. Robbins, R. (1991). American Indian Gifted and talented students: Their problems and proposed solutions. Journal of American Indian
Education, 31(1), 15-24.
37. Sanders, D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: An important factor in the academic failures of American Indian students. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 15(2), 81-90.
38. Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 14(1), 30-38.
39. Sarouphim, K. M. (2004). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 61-
69.
References 40. Sarouphim, K. M., & Maker, C. J. (2009, April). Ethnic and gender differences in the use of DISCOVER: A multi-cultural analysis. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
41. Schunk, D. H. & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Routledge.
42. Shutiva, C. L. (1991). Creativity differences between reservation and urban American Indians. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 33-52.
43. Sisk, D. A. (1989). Identifying and nurturing talent among the American Indians. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 128-132). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
44. Stead, T. (2006). Reality checks: Teaching reading comprehension with nonfiction K-5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
45. Thornton, B. & Sanchez, J. E. (2010). Promoting resiliency among Native American students to prevent dropouts. Education, 131, 455-464.
46. Tonemah, S. A. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students’ abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 181-194.
47. Tonemah, S. A. (1991). Philosophical perspectives of gifted and talented American Indian education. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 3-9.
48. Tonemah, S. A., & Brittan, M. A. (1985). American Indian gifted and talented assessment model. Norman, OK: American Indian Research and Development.
49. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis: Federal funding and unmet needs in Indian country.Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
50. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED359743.pdf.
51. Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, Jr., J. J. (2009). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/news-knowledge/research-reports/
52. Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136.
53. Zintz, M. V. (1962). Problems of classroom adjustment of Indian children in public elementary schools in the southwest. Science Education, 46, 261-269.