Gifted Native American Students—Overlooked and

Underserved A Long-Overdue Call for Research and

ActionMarcia Gentry, Ph.D.,

C. Matthew Fugate, and Jiaxi Wu, Purdue University

Purposes1. Test literature-based assumptions about

gifted Native American students2. 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. This literature yielded 4 themes and underlying assumptions.

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

Other literature takes a deficit viewpoint (e.g., poverty, learning deficiencies, violence, substance abuse)

MethodsWe 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).

ParticipantsN=100 teachers, aides, and administrators (50% Native American, 46% White, 4% Hispanic)n=20 Diné, n=16 Lakota, n=64 Ojibwe

Methods2 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

MethodsRAN processWhat we think we know• Assumptions that are believed to be trueYes, we were right!• Confirmation of assumptionsMisconceptions• Assumptions that should be disregardedNew Information• Additional information not stated in our assumptions

that should be consideredWonderings• Important research questions raised based upon the

new information

Theme 1: Talent DevelopmentTalented youth exist among Native PopulationsRecognition, development, services, and programs

are needed to nurture these youthMore youth can achieve at higher levels than

current expectations indicateConsideration should be give to develop

spiritualistic, naturalistic, leadership, visual/spatial, artistic, musical CPS, and communication strengths

Programs and curriculum should be tied to cultureGroup work and solving relevant problems should

be a focusEarly and on-going identification and enrichment

should be done in a variety of areas

Theme 1: Talent Development Misconceptions

All three tribal groups agreed with the assumptions found in the literature regarding talent development.

No misconceptions 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 TraditionsCollective societyMatriarchal societyRespect for authority and eldersTraditions/cultural knowledge important for future

generationsOral traditions, ceremonies, and storytelling are

importantPresent, cyclical view of timeReligion and spirituality are ways of lifeLive in harmony with natureNon-materialisticPatience and self-control are valuedTribal leaders, spiritual leaders, & medicine people

are valued

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions: Misconceptions

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Collective societyNon-materialisticTribal leaders, spiritual leaders, & medicine people are valued

Collective societyMatriarchal societyLive in harmony with natureTribal leaders, spiritual leaders, & medicine people are valued

Religion and spirituality are ways of lifeLive in harmony with natureNon-materialisticPatience and self-control are valued

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions New UnderstandingsDiné 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 PreferencesPublic display of

knowledge is not encouraged

Cooperative and sharingAnonymityNon-competitive, non-

aggressiveWatch, learn, then doPracticeHands-on participationSpatial strengths

Simultaneous processing

Naturalistic, holistic views

Story telling, auditory learning

Psychomotor, physical learning

Concern for accuracy over speed

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 UnderstandingsDiné 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 4: CommunicationSoft, slow speech, quite, few interjections, delayed

responsesNon-verbal communication emphasized Indirect, non-verbal cues to speaker or listenerMay be fluent in two or more languages Introspective rather than questioningFeelings unlikely to be openly expressed

Theme 4: Communication Misconceptions

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

May be fluent in two or more languages

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

A Call for Future ResearchSIG initiative to bring recognition to these

underserved populations within our fieldNative children face many barriers and are

frequently overlooked by researchers. Barriers include: marginalization; living in

remote, rural areas; poverty; and issues with obtaining a quality education (infrastructure, technology, funding, teacher quality, dropout rates, access to post-secondary opportunities)

Culture & TraditionHow 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 ConnectionsWhat 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?

GenderWhat 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 ConsiderationsHow 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?

TechnologyWhat 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 FutureHow 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 tribal communities, not generalizable to

all tribal communities on these reservations nor to those members who live off the reservations.

Red Lake data collection differed from that at Ganado and Standing Rock

“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.”

--Red Lake (non) Participant

References1. 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.

References15. 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. 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.

19. 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.

20. George, K. R. (1987). A guide to understanding gifted American Indian students. Las Cruces, NM: Eric Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

21. 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.

22. Hartley, E. A. (1991). Through Navajo eyes: Examining differences in giftedness. Journal of American Indian Education, 31, 53-64.

23. Herring, R. D. (1996). The unrecognized gifted: A more humanistic perspective for Indigenous students. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 35, 4-11.

24. 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.

25. 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.

References26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. National Caucus of Native American State Legislators. (2008). Striving to achieve: Helping Native American students succeed. Denver, CO: Author.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Robbins, R. (1991). American Indian Gifted and talented students: Their problems and proposed solutions. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 15-24.

35. 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.

36. Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(1), 30-38.

37. Sarouphim, K. M. (2004). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 61-69.

References38. 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.

39. 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.

40. Shutiva, C. L. (1991). Creativity differences between reservation and urban American Indians. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 33-52.

41. 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.

42. Stead, T. (2006). Reality checks: Teaching reading comprehension with nonfiction K-5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

43. Thornton, B. & Sanchez, J. E. (2010). Promoting resiliency among Native American students to prevent dropouts. Education, 131, 455-464.

44. Tonemah, S. A. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students’ abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 181-194.

45. Tonemah, S. A. (1991). Philosophical perspectives of gifted and talented American Indian education. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 3-9.

46. Tonemah, S. A., & Brittan, M. A. (1985). American Indian gifted and talented assessment model. Norman, OK: American Indian Research and Development.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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/

50. 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.

51. Zintz, M. V. (1962). Problems of classroom adjustment of Indian children in public elementary schools in the southwest. Science Education, 46, 261-269.

http://gerinari.weebly.com/