DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 374 289 SP 032 623

AUTHOR Huber, Tonya; Pewewardy, Cornel

TITLE Maximizing Learning for All Students: A Review ofLiterature on Learning Modallties, Cognitive Stylesand Approaches to Meeting the Netads of Diverse

Learners.

PUB DATE 90

NOTE 95p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) -- Refe.-ence Materials -

Bibliographies (131)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Brain Hemisphere Functions; *Cognitive S..yle;

*Cultural Differences; *Cultural Pluralism; *EthnicGroups; *Learning Modaiities; Literature Reviews;Locus of Control; Multicultural Education; NonverbalConmunication; Sensory Experience; SocioeconomicStatus; *Student Characteristics; Teaching Methods

ABSTRACTThis review of journal literature proposes that

ethnic/race-specific research on cognitive/learning styles providesmodels for cross-cultural and multicultural c:lassrooms that willmaximize learning Airough building self-esteem and devoloping areason for learning. The intent of the review was to discoverpatterns ad themes developing across cultures and across studies.Highlights of journal articles are pro-vit3ed in table format; an indexto citations follows the table. The aspects and findings areca4.1gorized to delielop a taxonomy of aspects and learnerorientations. The taxonomy provides topical groupings that facilitatefurther identification of cross-cultural aspects and implications formaximizing learning for all students. The focus is on how thebackground iactors that students bring school can be matched byschool policies suitable for a variety of students. (JD)

*************************************VV****.***************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the hest that can be mad

from the original document.*****/-************************************************,.*********gA**.**

-

MAXIMIZING LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS:

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON LEARNING MODALITIES, CC44N1TIVE STYLES

AND APPROACHES TO MEETING THE NEECS OY

DIVERSE LEARNERS

Tonya Huber, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

The Wichita State University

Box 28

Wichita, Kansas 67208-1595

(316) 689-3322

and

Cornel Pewewardy, D.Fd.

Center for Research on Minority Education

The University of Oklahoma

601 Elm Avenue, Room 146

Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0315

(405) 325-4529

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONnff-,^ rA E1..,:a! vs*, Posea,crs

CDUCAT(ONAL RESOURCES INFOFIMAnCYCENTER IER[C,

TIN.s e, Nis r)een reprod,,:01fe.:eved lISP, pe+sc, ,-,rgar.zat

c) ,y).tneer melt. tu

mAnt rnt ro,:r Scan'?

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

rO :HE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER !ERIC)

1

Maximizing Learning for All Students:A Review of Literature on L3arning Modalities, Cognitive Styles

and the Approaches to Meeting the Needs ofDiverse Learners

In recent years, the research of cognitive neuro-scientistsinto brain processing, brain growth, and brain dominance has lededucators to take another look at traditional instructionalmethods. In addition, learning-styles researchers have added tounderstandings of how heredity, experiences, environment, andcultural differences affect learning. According to Lesser (1976,p. 37), "people who share a common cultural background will alsoshare, to a certain extent, common patterns of intellectualabilities, thinking styles and interests."

Previously, little speci.tic information about how tomaximize learning for diverse student populations had beendocumented. For example, Laosa (1977) pointed out that"childhood socialization practices that are characteristic ofcertain cultures tend to foster the development of particularcognitive styles" (p. 28), but gave only a few examplescontrasting Mexican-American and Anglo-American children. Onewould need to research other descriptors and titles (such aslearning styles) to find specific information on teaching diversechildren.

The database for this review comes from journal articles(see Appendix A). It was obtained by way of a computer search ofERIC on Silver Platter for the years 1980-1988. Key descriptorswere "cognitive style," "learning strategies," "learningmodalities," aid specific descriptors categorized under "ethnicgroups" and "culture." Other studies were located by searchingthe references cited in these articles. The articles that werediscovered in this search were all identified in the referencelist, even if they were not included in the tabledcategorization. A list of references by author (see Appendix B)was organizec for easy access to specific researcher's studies.

A taxonomy was developed to provide topical groupings thatfacilitate further identificatior of cross-cultural aspects andimplications for maximizing learning for all students (seeAppendix C).

Learners at Risk

Students who are labeled "different" by virtue of race,language or lingoistic diversity, sex, income status, handicap orlearning difficulty or any student for whom education is anobstacle are learners at risk. The "985 report Barriers toExcellence: Our Children at Risk c .d the role of schools ascentral institutions in the ongoing effort to reverse the effectsof economic deprivation and racil and cultural discrimination.

The rising number of school dropouts is the single mostd-amatic indicator of the degree to which schools are failingchildren. While the overall ndtional dropout rate is 30 r,ercent.

2

the rates for Blacks and Hispanics are higher than 50 percent inmany urban school districts (Haberman, 1989). The degree offailure is even more dramatic and disturbing for specificpopulations. The Oklahoma State Department of Education 1984-85Dropout Rate identified 45.7 percent of the female AmericanIndian students and 54.3 percent of the male Indian students inthat school year as drop3uts (Oklahoma Department of Vocationaland Technical Education, Summary Statistics: 1984-85 FinalDropout Report). By failing to educate sur:h large numbers ofstudents, schools actively help to perpetuate disadvantage andcontribute to multi-generational cycles of poverty.

For Native Anericans, the future is equally as bleak atrural reservation schools. Currently, at the Pine Ridge OglalaCommunity School, 50 percent of students between the ninth andtenth grades dropout. Only 25 percent cf the freshman class willgraduate. The overall student dropout rate and the overall adultunemployment rate are both about 85 percent at Pine Ridge (Sack,Beiser, Clarke & Redshirt, 1987). Bird (1984), Chairperson ofthe New Mexico Tribal Education Committee, reported: "At theUniversity cf New Mexico, the dropout rate for American Indianundergraduate students enrolled in the University College is analarming 7: percent." Most of the Indian students attending theUniversity of New Mexico, like those attending other colleges anduniversities in the State of New Mexico, graduated from publicschools.

To achieve in public high school, students who are non-White, non-middle class, or non-mainstream must learn theappropriate middle-class behaviors and adopt the appropriatemiddle-class values. Those who do not must find a way toreccncile the values and/or behaviors of their subcultures withthose of the mainstream culture (Luetgart, 1977). Those whocannot often dropout.

Teaching in a Multicultural Society

"In a sense, eve'.:11 classroom in the country is crowdedbecause each clild brings not only himself but also his friends,his family, his community, and the culture into which he has beenborn and is being raised" (Gold, Grant & Rivlin, 1977, p. 6). Itis the reaction to these individual differences, not thedifferences themselves, that create social conflict; just as itis true that it is the reaction to different learning styles, notthe differences themelves, that create classroom conflict in theform of discipline problems, low achievement, failure anddropping out. The schools in this country can no longer affordto cast themselves as the guardians of the status quo, of someidealistic view of mainstream America that ignores the diverseinput of so many streams, tributaries, and wells -- America is amulticultural society.

Research suggests that people who share a common culturalbackground will also share common patterns of intellectualabilities, thinking styles and interests; ethnic groups,

3

independent of socioeconomic status, displa, characteristicpatterns of thinking styles that are different from others(Gardner, 1983; More, 1987; Dunn & Griggs, 1988). While thesecognitive or learning styles are not consistent enough to codify,they suggest distinct differences to be acknowledged in alearning environment.

Teachers and administrators should recognize that studentsbring a variety of learning, cognitive, and motivational stylesto the classroom, and that while certain characteristics areassociated with specific ethnic and social-class groups, thesecharacteristics are distributed throughout the total studentpopulation. This means that teachers should use a variety ofteaching styles and content that will address the needs ofdiverse students. Concepts should be taught, when possible,through different strategies so that students who are relationalin their learning styles, as well as those who are analytic willhave an equal opportunity to learn.

The Significance of this Rwriew

The purpose of this research was to review the literature onethnic/minority learning modalities and cognitive styles in anattempt to draw conclusions from tne individual findings todevelop a cross-cultural frame of reference to support moreeffective learning situations for all students, regardless ofrace, ethnicity, gender, language, SES, and family structure.Grant and Sleeter (1986) have presented the same argument intheir review of multicultural education in this country.

Initially, some points need to be raised about the body ofaccumulating research. Of the nearly one hundred studiesinvolving American Indians/Nat4ve Americans reported in thisreview, nearly one-third were based on studies of the Navajopeople, "Dine". While it is obvious that the size of the NavajoNation warrants this emphasis, the research findings themselvesbecome skewed toward generalizations that are not trulyapplicable to all American Indian people. The differencesdisclosed in these research findings will perhaps do much tofinally dispel the myth that the native people of North Americaare all the same, a stereotype similarly being confronted bythose involved with peoples of Central and South America:

Mexican Americans, mainland Puerto Ricans, Americans ofCuban descent, Americans of South American origin, as wellas the recent immigrants from troubled Central Americannations are distinct populations. They differ in demographyand history, face different issues in schools, and should,therefore, be understood as such (Suarez-Crozco, 1987, p.287).

The authors echo Suarez-Orozco's (1987) conclusion: "Weneed more comprehensive comparative studies exploring thedifferent kinds of school problems facing different kinds of

4

minority populations" (p. 298). A comparison of the researchreveals the differences betieen peoples grouped under the sameminority heading. The stereotype that has been promulgatedagainst Native Americans for so long has now been visited uponCentral Americans and South Americans as well. Diversity withinethnic groups has rece.ved insufficient attention.

The review is nearly barren of research on more recentimmigrant peoples (see "Vietnamese-Americans," Anderson, 1988;"Central Americans," Ogbu, 1987) even though Suarez-Orozco (1987)carefully presented the reasons for exploring the issues facingAmerica's Hispanic immigrants from Central America.

Lack of knowledge about and understanding of differentethnic groups' learning modalities, cognitive styles, andcultural hertiage is being addressed by such programs as DavidLeonard's Cal Poly Multicultural Teacher Educatiun Project andthe research of Gloria Ladson-Billings (1989). The informationneeds to be presented to educators to avert the perpetration ofEuro-centric views and interpretations.

One conclusion, clearly recommended by the findings, is thatmany minority students think holistically, thereby benefittingfrom whole language approaches to literacy. Strengthening thisis the finding that many students of non-western heritage havedeveloped imagery coding over semantics coding. One issue thisshould clearly impact on is the decision to employ wholelanguage, literature-based reading, or basal readers in thecurriculum.

The simultaneous/sequential research findings reveal aserious mismatch between learning styles of Native Americanstudents, African-American students, low-income white studentsand the usual teaching style of beginning reading. Many readingprograms emphasize phonetics and the sounding-out approach; thestrength of many of these students seems to be in simultaneousprocessing, suggesting whole language and sight-word vocabularybuilding.

The traditional utilitarian approach of American schools(Cuban, 1984; Illich, 1972; Freire, 1970, 1973; Jackson, 1968)has been repeatedly questioned by critical theorists and reformmovements beyond those dealing specifically with culture and thelearning process. The traditional holistic approach to learningthat pervades Native American culture conflicts with theutilitarian education commonly experienced in Euro-Americanschools.

Native cultures stress avoidance of competition, a highlevel of cooperation, and strong peer influence. Native Americanand Cpanish cultures both include a tradition of loyalty to thepeer group and an emphasis on interpersonal cooperation ratherthan competition. Students who hold these cultural values tendto view displays of knowledge in the classroom as one persongaining at the expense of others. Since approval from the peergroup is more important to them than approval from theinstructor, such students will refrain from voluntary classroomdiscussion. Class participation is incompatible with their

1;

cultural values.Culturally specific compatibilities contribute to

educational effectiveness; cultural incompatibility is onecredible explanation for school failure, Elements foundeffective for Native Hawaiian children are not culturallycompatible or effective for Navajo children. The same is truefor any cross-cultural experience.

One of the reasons proposed for Anglo children's academicsuccess is their greater tolerance for monotony; affectivestimulation and vivacity are necessary for the Black child to bemotivated to achieve in academics. Schools do not support thenatural energy level of Black children who need an activeenvironment for successful learning. Black children elicit morepunishment and are labeled hyperactive more frequently because oftheir high motoric activity.

The Black home environment provides an abundance ofstimulation, intensity, and variation through high noise levelsand large numbers of people; analyzed as over-stimulation andconceptual deafness by some social scientists, Boykin (1978)proposed greater psychological and behavioral verve in Blackchildren as a result. Rapport with the teachers in educationalsef.tings seems to be strongly related to academic performance forBlack students.

Research further indicates that many at-risk students havenot been taught with strategies, methods, materials thatfacjlitate their learning style preferences and strengths.Mismatching students' learning styles with instruction results intheir feeling anxious and even physically ill; the cerebrum"downshifts" during anxiety. When learning styles have beenmatched to appropriate ins4-ructional approazhes, teachers havereported sharp decreases in stress.

The differences between children who function withrelational and analytical styles is so great that children whosecognitive organization is relational are unlikely to be rewardedwith grades regardless of their native ability, extent oflearning, or experiences; children who live in more fluid or"shared-function" primary groups are more likely to exhibit therelational cognitive style.

Educational designs which select one body of information tobe presented to all students at a set time and at some forcedrate cannot possibly accommodate all learners. The only validschool reform is that which considers students' varieddifferences and strengths. Research indicates that many at-riskstudents have not been taught with strategies, methods, materialsthat accommodate their learning style preference and strengths.

A further implication of the review of research, and perhapsthe most significant finding, is the support for a restructuringof the environment to better meet the needs of all students.Traditional American education has workea only slightly betterfor Anglo students of European descent than it has worked forminority students. Social class and ethnic group affiliation, bybirth or by choice, are structures as predominant as "race"--a

5

4

6

ubiquitous terms, at best--in producing life-styles anddevelopment. A person's behavorial style is usually a culturalframe-work for how that person views the world; successful peopleintegrate different styles.

The research suggests that even beyond race, ethnic groupand social class the person's everyday life experiences impactsignificantly on cognitive development. The implication is thateven for teachers of supposed homogeneous groups of students,each student must be viewed as the ever changing product of aunique culture. Recognizing that each student "hears a differentdrummer" is the first challenge; encouraging students to "step tothe music" will maximize learning for all students--by fareducation's greatest challenge.

=1

7

References

Abkar, N. (1975, October). Address before the Black ChildDevelopment Institute Annual Meeting, San Francisco,CalifLrnia.

Albas, D. C., McCluskey, K. W., & Albas, C. A. (1976).Perception of emotional content of speech: A comparison oftwo Canadian groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,7(4), 481-490.

Albers, P. C., & James, W. R. (1986). On the dialects ofethnicity: To be or not to be Santee (Sioux). Journal ofEthnic Studies, 14 (1), 1-27.

All,n, B. S., & Merrill, M. D. (1985). System-assignedstrategies and CBI. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 1(1), 3-21.

Allport, G., & Pettigrew, T. (1957). Cultural influences on theperception of movement: The trapezoidal illusion amongZulus. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, (July).

Amodeo, L. B., & Brown, D. (1986). Students from Mexico in U.S.Ochools. Educational Horizons, 64(4), 192-196.

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multiculturalpopulations. In Duhon, R. M. (Chairperson MulticulturalSIG), Promise and progress of the multicultural educationefforts in the past two decades (pp. 11-40). Prepared forpublication by the Association of Teacher Educators.

Anhelm, F. A. (1974). A comparative study of preferences ofAnglo American and Indian children for particular visualqualities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34(10A),6346.

Annis, R. D., & Frost, B. (1973). Human visual ecology andorientation anisotropies in acuity. Science, 182, 729-731,

Appleton, N. (1983). Cultural Pluralism in Education. NewYork: Longman, Inc.

Au, K. H. (.,v80). Participant structure in a reading lessonwith Hawaiian children. The Reading Teacher, 32(6), 677-679.

Au, K. H., & Jordan C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiianchildren: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. InTrueba, H. H., Guthrie, G. P., & Au, K. H. (Eds.) Culture inthe bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography(pp. 139-152). Rowley, Massachusettes: Newberry House.

9

8

Backman, M. E. (1972). Patterns of mental abilities: Ethnic,socioeconomic, and sex differences. American EducationalResearch Journal, 9, 1-12.

Baldwin, J. A. (1980). Psychological aspects of Europeancosmology in American society. Western Journal of BlackStudies, 9(4).

Banks, J. A. (1984). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. (4th ed., 1987).

Banks, J. A. (1970). Teaching the Black experience: Methodsand materials. Belmont, California: Fearon Publishers.

Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (1981). Education in the 80's: MultiethnicEducation. Washington, D. C.: National EducationAssociation.

Banks, J. A. (1988). Ethnicity, class, cognitive, andmotivational styles: Research and teaching implications.Journal of Negro Education, 57(4), 452-466.

Bass, W. P., & Burger, H. C. (1967-68). American Indian andeducational laboratories. In Higher Education. Hearingsbefore the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education of theCommittee on Labor and 'eublic Welfare, Part I.

Battle, E. S., & Rotter, J. B. (1963). Children's feelings ofpersonal control related to social class and ethnicgroup. Journal of Personality, 31, 4b2-490.

Beaulieu, D. L. (1974). An analysis of differences in theperception of infolAation needs among American Indianstudents in two selected Indian reservation communities.Dissertation Abstracts International, 34(11-A), 6936.

Becktell, M. (1986). The adult Navajo learner: Learning stylesand corresponding teaching strategies. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Berry, J. W. (1976). imman ecologY_and cognitive style. NewYork: Sage-Halsted.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Ecological analyses for cross-culturalpsychology. Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2,157 189.

Berry, J. W. (1981). Research in multicultural societies:Implications of cross-cultural methods Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 415-434.

9

Bird, L. (1984, September). Tribal education concerns.Testimony presented at the public hearing for the State ofNew Mexico on Native American Higher Education, Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Boissevain, J., & Grotenberg, H. (1986). Culture, structure,and ethnic enterprise: The Surinamese of Amsterdam. Ethnicand Racial Studies, 9, 1-23.

Borkowski, J. G., et al. (1985). On multiple determinants ofracial differences in intelligence: A reply to Jensen.Intelligence, 9(1), 41-49.

Bowd, A. D. (1971). Mechanical Aptitude and environment.Unpublished dissertation, University of Calgary.

Boyer, J. B. (1989). Celebratinq the challenge of educationalequity and ethnic diversity in the diversity in thpcurriculum of teacher education. Paper presented at the69th Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators,St. Louis, Missouri, February 18-22.

Boykin, A. W. (3978). Psychological/Behavioral verve inacademic/task performance: Three theoretical considerationsNegro Education, 343-354.

Bradley, C. (1984). Issues in mathematics education for NativeAmericans and directions for research. Journal for Researchin Mathematics Education, 15(2), 96-106.

Bradshaw, J. L., & Nettleton, N. C. (1981). The nature ofhemispheric specialization in man. The Behavioral and BrainSciences, 4, 51-91.

Brady, M. L. (1984). Understanding the minority child in theAmerican educational system. Education, 105(1), 21-33.

Brazelton, T. B., Young, G. G., & Bullowa, M. (1971). Inceptionand resolution of early developmental pathology: A casehistory. Journal of the American Academy of ChildPsychiatry, 10(1), 124-135.

Brenner, M. (1985). The practice of arithmetic in Liberianschools. Anthropology_ard; Education Quarterly, 16(3j, 177-186.

Brito, S. J. (1984). American Indian political participation:From melting pot to cu)tural pluralism. American IndianCulture and Research Journal, 7(4), 51-68.

Brown, G. H , Rosen, N. L., Hill, S. T., & Olives. (1980). Thecondition of education for Hispanic Pmericens. Washington,

10

D. C.: United States Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics.

Brown, M. (1986). Calculus by the dozen: A retention programfor undergraduate minorIty students in matheLatics-basedmajors. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference onBlack Student Retention, Atlanta, Georgia, November 1986.

Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & GreNnfield, P. M. (1966).Studies in cognitive growth. New York: John Wiley.

Bryant, H. W. (1986). An investigation into the effectivenessof two strategy training approaches on the readingachievement of grade one native Indian students.Unpublished dissertation, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.

Buffer, J. J., Jr. (1985). A multidisciplinary approach tohuman development and learning. Theory Into Practice,24(2), 145-148.

Burnes, K. (1970). Patterns of WISC scores for children of twosocioeconomic classes and races. Child Development, 41,493-499.

Callahan, V. A. (1969). Mathematics in the Mayan, Aztec, andInca cultures. Unpublished master's thesis, University ofMaine, Orono.

Carbo, M. (1987). Matching reading styles: Correcting inef-fective instruction. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 55-62.

Carbo, M. (1988). The evidence supporting reading styles: Aresponse to Stahl. Phi Delta Kappan, 323-327.

Carbo, M., Dunn., R., & Dunn, K. (1986). Teaching students toread through their individual llarning styles. Reston, VA:Reston Publishing Co.

Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies canhelp students at risk. Teaching Exceptional Children,20(4), 55-58.

Cardell, G., Cross, W. C., & Lutz, W. J. (1978). Extendingcounselor influence into the classroom. Journal of Ar..ericanIndian Education, 17(2), 7-12.

Cattey, M. (1980). Cultural differences in processinginformation. American Indian Culture and Research Journal,7(4), 51-68. (Incomplete bibliography reported by Cattey.)

i 2

Cazden, C. B., & John, V. P. (1971). Learning in AmericanIndian children. In Wax, M. L., Diamond, S., & Gearing, F.0. (Eds.) Anthropological perspectives on education (pp.252- 271). New York: Basic Books.

Cazden, C. B. (1982). Four comments. In Gilmore, P., &Glatthkorn, A. (Eds.), Children In and Out of School.Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Cheek, H. N. (1984). Increasing the participation of NativeAmericans in mathematics. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 15(2), 107-113.

Chilcott, J. H. (1985). Yaqui world view and the school:Conflict and accomodation. Journal of American IndianEducation, 24(1), 21-31.

Chrisjohn, R. D., & Peters, M. (1986). The right-brainedIndian: Fact or fiction? Journal of American IndianZducation, '5(2), 1-7.

Closs, M. P. (1977). A survey of mathematics development in thenew world (Report 410-77-0222). Ottawa, Canada: Universityof Ottawa.

Cohen, R. A. (1969). Conceptual styles, cultural conflict, andnonverbal tests of intelligence. American Anthropologist,71, 828-856.

Cohen, R. A. (1971). The influence of conceptual rule-sets onmeasures of learning ability. In Race and intelligence.Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). Thecultural context of thinking & learning. New York: BasicBooks.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: Apsychological introduction. New York: John Wiley.

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunitY.Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.

Colliers. (1967). In Cattey, M. Cultural differences inprocessing information. American Indian Culture andResearch Journal, 7(4).

Coombs. (1958). In Cattey, M. Cultural differences inprocessing information. American Indian Culture andResearch Journal, 7(4).

Coombs., E Coleman. Cited by Cattey, M. (1980). Incomplete

12

Cooper, G. (1980). Different ways of thinking. MinorityEducation, (December).

Cordasco, F. (1983). Bilingual education: Overview andinventory. Educational Forum, 47, 321-324.

Cosway P., & Rodney, C. (1987). 'Multicultural fiction' in a')urban school. Multicultural Teaching, 5(2), 19-23.

Cox, B. G., & Ramirez, M. (1981). Cognitive styles:Implications for multiethnic education. In Banks, J. A.(Ed.) Education in the 801s: Multiethnic education (61-71).Washington, D. C.: National Education Association.

Crowell, D. (1977). Results of the minimum objective system,1975-76. Technical Report No. 77. Honolulu: KamehamehaSchools, Kamehameha Elementary Education Program.

Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change inAmerican classrooms, 18c0-1980. New York: Longman.

Cullanine, D. (1985). A cognitive style study of native Indianchildren. Unpublished thesis, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.

D'Amato, J. (1986). "We cool, tha's why": A study ofpersonhood and place in a class of Hawaiian second graders.Doctoral disseration, University of Hawaii.

D'Amato, J. (1988). The belly of the beast: On culturaldifferences, castelike status, and the politics of school.Anthropology and Education Quarcerly, 18(4), 357-360.

Das, J. P., Kirby, J., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous andsuccessive cognitive processes. New York: Academic Press.

Das, J. P., Kirby, J., & Jarman, R. F. (1982). Simultaneous andsuccessive synthesis: An alternative model fcr cognitiveabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 87-103.

Das, J. P., Manos, J., & Kanungo, R. N. (1975). Performance ofCanadian native, black and white children on some cognitiveand Personality tests. Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, 2(3), 183-195.

Dasen, P. R. (1975). Concrete operational development in threecultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(2), 156-172.

Davidman, L. (1981). Learning style: The myth, the panacea,the wisdom. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(3), 641-645.

13

Davidman, L. (1988). Multicultural education: New definitionsand strategies for teacher education. In Promise andro ress of the multicultural education efforts in the past

two decades. Report prepared by the Association of TeacherEducators' multicultural Special Interest Group.

Davis, C., Haub, C., & Willette, J. (1983). Trouble in ourbackyard: Central America and the United States in theeighties. New York: Pantheon Books.

Davis, T., & Pyatowsky, A. (1976). Bicognitive education: Anew future for the Indian child. Journal of American IndianEducation, 15(3), 14-20.

Dawson, J. (1988). "If my children are proud": NativeEducation and the problEm of self-esteem. Canadian Journalof Native Education, 15, 43-50.

Della Valle, J., Dunn, K., Dunn, R., Geisert, G., Sinatra, R., &Zenhausern, R. (1986). The effects of matching andmism:Itching students' mobility preferences on recognitionand memoLy tasks. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 267-272.

Dennis, W. (1942). The performance of Hopi children on theGoodenough Draw a Man Test. Journal of ComparativePsychology, 34(3).

Dennis, W. (1943). Animism and related tendencies in Hopichildren. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38,21-36.

Dittman. (1970). In Cattey, M., Cultural differences inprocessing information. American Indian Culture andResearch Journal, 7(4).

Dixon, V. J., & Foster, B. G. (1971). Beyond Islack or white.Boston: Little, Brown.

Dregoski, J. B., and Serpell, R. (1974). Performance on asorting task with various modes of representation: A crosscultural experiment. In Cole, M., Culture and Thought (p.115). new York: John Wiley.

Dumont, R. V., Jr. (1972). Learning English and how to besilent: Studies in Sioux and Chei')kee classrooms. InCazden, C., John, V., & Hynes, D. (Eds.), Functions ofLanguage in thc Classroom. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theoryinto Practice, 20(1), 10-19.

15

Dunn, R. (1988). Teaching students through their perceptualstrengths or preferences. Journal of Reading, 31, 304-309.

Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., & Murrain, P. (1981).Learning style researchers define differences differently.Educational Leadership, 38, 372-375.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through theirindividual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston,VA: Rreston Publishing Company.

Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. A. (1988). Learning styles: OuietTevolution in American Secondary Schools. Reston, Virginia:National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Echohawk, M., & Parsons, 0. A. (1972). Leadership versusbehavioral problems and belief in personal control amongAmerican Indian youth. Journal of Social Psychology, 102,47-54.

Erickson, F. D. (1982). Taught cognitive learning in itsimmediate environments: A neglected topic in theanthropology of education. Anthropology and EducationOuarterly, 13(2), 149-180.

Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization ofparticipation structures in two classrooms of Indianstudents. Doing the Ethnography of schooling. New York:Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

Esen, A. (1973). The car syndrome: A resource for counselingin Africa. Journal of Negro Education, 42(2), 205-211.

Estrada, L. J., & La Belle T. J. (1979). Mexican education. InIngas, E., & Corisini, R. 3. Comparative educational systems(302-303). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.

Feldman., & Dittman. (1970). Cited in Cattey, M. (1980).Incomplete citation.

Ford Foundation. (1982). Minorities and mathematics. New York.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students' school success:Coping with the "Burden of Acting White." Urban Review,18(3), 176-206.

Foreman, L. D. (1987). Curricular choice in the age of self-determination. Journal of American Indian Education, 26(2),1-6.

Fresdman, D. G. (1979). Ethnic differences in babies. HumanNature, (Jam ary). (Article expanded from Human

i

15

Sociobiology, Free Press.)

Freire, Ps (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, M. B. Ramos,Trans. New York: Seabury.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. NewYork: Seabury.

Gagne, R. M., & Gephart, W. (1968). Learning research andschool subiects. Itasen, Illinois: Peacock.

Gallimore, R., Boggs, J., & Jordan, C. (1974). Culture,behavior and education: A study of Hawaiian Americans.Beverly Hills: Sage.

Gallimore, R., Boggs, J., & Jordan, C. (1982). Analysis ofreading achievemnet test results for the Kamehameha EarlyEducation Project: 1972-1979. Technical Repert No. 95.Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools.

Garcia, R. L. (1982). Teaching in a pluralistic society. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Gardner, R. (1959). Cognitive control: A study of individualconsistencies in cognitive behavior. Psychological Issues.4, 22-30.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multipleintelligence. In Seven ways of knowing, not one. Educc.tionWeek (1988, January 27).

Garner, C. W., & Cole E. G. (1986). The achievement of studentsin low-SES settings: An investigation between locus ofcontrol and field dependence. Urban Education, 21(2),189-206.

Gay, J., & Cole, M. (1967). The new mathematics and an oldculture: A study of learning among the Kpelle of Lit...ria.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gibson, M. A. (1976). Approaches to multicultural education inthe United States: Some concepts and ausumptions.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 6(4), 7-18.

Gibson, M. A. (1982). Reputation and respectability: Howcompeting cultural systems affect students' performance inschool. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13(1), 3-27.

Gibson, M. A. (1983). Ethnicity and schooling: West Indianimmigrants in the United States Virgin Islands. EthnicGroup, 5, 173-198.

1

16

Gibson, M. A. (1988). The school performance of immigrantminorities: A comparative view. Anthr-oy& EducationOuarterly, 18(4), 262-275.

Gill, S. D. (1982). Native American tradition. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Mostofsky, D. I. (1972). Race andsex in perception of emotion. Journal of Social Issues, 28,63-78.

Gold, M. 5., Grant, C. A., & Rivlin, H. N. (1977). Praise ofdiversity: A retource book for multicultural education.Washington, D.C.: Teachers Corps, Association of TeacherEducators.

Goldman, R., & Sanders, J. (1969). Cultural factors andhearing. Exceptional Children, 35, 489-490.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Race, class, and genderin education research: An argument for integrativeanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 195-211

Granzberg, G. (1976). Delay of gratification and abstractability in three societies. The. Journal of SocialPsychology, 100, 181-187.

Green, Y. (1985). Cognitive style: A review of the literature.Technical Report. Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation.Chicago, Illinois.

Green, R. (1977). American Indian mathematics education: Areport. Washington, D.C.: American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

Green, R. (1978). Math avoidance: A barrier to American Indianscience education and science careers. Bureau of IndianAffairs Education Research Bulletin, 6(3), 1-8. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 170 084).

Greer.!.)aum, F., & Greenbaum, S. (1983). Cultural differences,oonverbal regulation, and classroom interaction:F-;ciolinguistic interference in American Indian education.Peabody Journal of Education, 61(1).

Gridley, M. E. (1974). American Indian women. New York:Hawthorn.

Gue, L. R. (1971). Value orientations in an Indian community.Alberta Journal of Educatl-nal Research, 17(1), 19-31.

17

Guild, P. B., & Garger, S. (1985). Marching to differentdrummers. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & Beattie, M. (1969).Internal-external control in the motivational dynamics ofNegro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 25(3), 29-53.

Guthrie, G. P., & Hall, W. S. (1981). Introduction In Trueba,H., Guthrie, G., & Hu-Pui Au, K. (Eds.), Cuture and thebilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography.Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Guttentag, M. (1972). Negro-White differences in children'smovement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 435-436.

Guttentag, M., & Ross, S. (1972). Movement responses in simpleconcept learning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42,657-665.

Habernan, M. (1989). More minority teachers. Kappan, 70(10),771-776.

hale, J. (1981). Black children: Their roots, culture andlearning styles. Young Children, 36(2), 37-50.

Hale-Benson, J. (1986). Black children: Their roots, cultureand learning styles. (rev. ed.) Baltimorl: The JohnHopkins University Press.

Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Whiddon, T. (1980). The relationshipof perceived parental behaviors to locus of control andself-esteem among American Indian and white children.Journal if Social Psychology, 111(2), 189-195.

Hamilton, S. (1983). Reading styles: An experiment with sixthgrade, poor readers. Report prepared for th2 Nortm, Ohio,Public Schools.

Hart, L. (1983). Programs, patterns, and down-shifting inlearning to read. The Reading Teacher, 37(1), 5-11.

Havighurst, R. (1957). Education among American Indians:Individual and cultural aspects. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, 311.

Havighurst, R. (1976). The relative importance of soc:al classand ethnicity in human development. Human Development, 19,56-64.

Hilliarg, A. (1976). Alternatives to IQ testing: An approachto the identification of gifted minority children. Finalreport to the California State Department of Education.

18

Hodges, H. (1982). Madison prep: Alternatives through learningstyles. In Keefe, J. (Ed.), Learning styles and brainbehavior (pp. 28-32). Reston, VA: National Association ofSecondary School Principals.

Hodges, H. (1985). An analysis of the relationships amongpreferences for a formal/informal design, one element oflearning style, academic achievement, and attitudes ofseventh and eighth grade students in remedial mathematicsclasses in a New York City alternative junior high school.Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, New York.

Hodges, H. (1987). I know they can learn because I've taughtthem. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 3.

Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell.

Illich, I. (1972). De-schooling society. New York: Harper &Row.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis,H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: Areassessment of the effect of family and schooling inAmerica. New York: Basic Books.

Jessor, R., Graves, T. D., Hanson, R. C., & Jessor, S. L.

(1968). Society, perfonality, and deviant behavior. NewYork: Holt, Rhinehart ! Winston.

John, V. (1972). Style:, of learningstyles of teaching:Reflections on the education of Navajo children. In Cazden,D., John, V., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). Functions of languagein the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, S. W., & Suetopka-Duerre, R. N. (1984). Contributoryfactors in Alaska native educational success: A researchstrategy. Educational Researcl. Ouarterly, 8(4), 44-51.

Jones, E. E., & Zoppel, C. L. (1979). Personality differencesamong Blacks in Jamaica and the United States. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 435-456.

Jordan, C. (1977). Maternal teaching, peer teaching and schooladaptation in an urban Hawaiian population. TechnicalReport No. 67. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools.

Jordan, C. (1984). Cultural compatibility and the education ofethnic minority children. Educational Research Quarterly,8(4), 59-71.

19

Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographicinformation to educational program. Anthropology andEducation Quarterly, 16(2), 105-123.

Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1984, November). Level of analysisand the spc.lification of sources of academicunderachievement for minority cultural groups: Evidencefrom the Hawaiian case. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools.Revised version of paper presented at the Annual meeting ofthe American Anthropological Association.

Jordan, T. (1978). Learning notes, Fall Ouarter. Cleveland:Cleveland State University.

Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality anddynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 71, 17-24.

Kagan, S. (1977). Social motives and behaviors of MexicanAmerican and Anglo American children. In Martinez, J. L.(Ed.) Chicano psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Kagan S., & Buriel, R. (1977). Field dependence-independenceand Mexican-American culture and education. I. Martinez, J.(Ed.) Chicano psychology (pp. 279-328). New York: AcademicPress.

Kagan, S., & Knight, G. P. (1981). Social motives among AngloAmerican and Mexican American children: Experimental andprojective measures. Journal of Research in Personality,15, 93-106.

Nagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1971). Cooperation and competitionof Mexican, Mexican-American axle Nnglo-American children oftwo ages under four instruction z:ets. DevelopmentalPsychology, 5, 32-39.

Kamii, C. K., & Radin, N. J. (1967). Class differences insocialization practices of Negro mothers. Journal ofMarriage and the FamilN., 29, 302-310; reprinted in Staples,R. (Ed.) The Black family: Essays and studies (235-247).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Karlebach, D. G. (1986). A co nitive framework for derivin andinterpreting learning style differences among a group ofintermediate grade native and non-native pupils.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman AssessmentBattery for Children, Interpretive Manual. Circle Press,Minnesota: American Guidance Service.

')

20

Kaulbach, B. (1984). Styles of learning among native children:A review of the research. Canadian Journal of NativeEducation, 11(3), 27-37.

Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In Studentlearning styles: Diaanos1ng and prescribing programs(Keefe, J. Ed.) (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals.

Keefe, J. W. (Ed.). (1982). Student learning styles and brainbehavior: Programs, instrumentation, research. Reston, VA:National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Keefe, J. W. (1985). Assessment of Learning style variables:The NASSP task force model. Theory Into Practice, 24(2),138-144.

Keefe, J. W., & Languis, M. L. (1983, August). Operationaldefinitions. Paper presented to the NASSP Learning StylesTask Force, Reston, VA.

Killbride, P., & Robbins, M. (1968). Linear perspective,pictorial depth perception and education among the Baganda.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21(2), 161.

Kirby, J. R. (1984). Cognitive strategies and educationalperformance. New York: Academic Press.

Kirkness, V. J. (1981). The education of Canadian Indianchildren. Child Welfare, 60(7), 447-455.

Klein, T. (1981). Results of the reading program. EducationalPerspectives, 20(1), 8-10.

Kleinfeld, J. S. (1972). Effective teachers of Indian andEskimo high school students. Fairbanks, Alaska: Center forNorthern Educational Reseatch.

Kleinfeld, J. S. (1973). Intellectual strengths in culturallydifferent groups: An Eskimo illustration. Review ofEducational Research, 43(3), 341-359.

Kleinfeld, J. S. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo andIndian students. School Review, 83, 301-344.

Kleinfeld, J. S. (1979). Eskimo School on the Andreafsky: Astudy of effective bicultural education. New York:Praeger.

Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1982). Siblings, birth order, andcooperative-competitive social behavior: A comparison ofAnglo-American and Mexican-American children. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 13(2), 239-249.

C:4-)4, kr

21

Kochman, T. (1982). Cross-cultural studies in cognition andmathematics. New York: Academic Press.

Kohr, R. L. Coldiron, J. R., Skiffington, E. W., Masters, J.R., & Blust, R. S. (1988). The influence of race, class,and gender on self-esteem for fifth, eighth, and eleventhgrade students in Pennsylvania schools. Journal of NegroEducation, 57(4), 467-481.

Kroon, D. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effectson academic achievement and the resultant administrativeimplications of instruction congruent and incongruent withsecondary, industrial arts students' learning styleperseptual preferences. Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns'University, New York.

Krywaoiuk, L. L. (1974). Patterns of cognitive abilities ofhigh and low achieving school children. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton,Alberta.

Kuipers. Cited in Cattey, M. (1980). Incomplete citation.

Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (1986).Contributions of cross-cultural research to educationalpractice. American Psychologist, 41(1), 1049-1058.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1989). Like lightening in a bottle:Attempting to capture the pedagogical excellence ofsuccessful teachers of Black students. Paper presented atthe Tenth Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum,February 24-25, 1989, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphica, Pennsylvania.

Lancy, D. F. (1983). Cross-cultural studies in cognition andmathematics. New York: Academic Press.

Laosa, L. (1977). Multicultural education: How psychology cancontribute. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 26-30.

LaShell, L. (1986). An analysis of the effects of readingmethods on reading achievement and locus of control Tthenindividual reading style is matched for learning disabledstudents. Doctoral dissertation, Fielding University.

LeBrasseur, M. M., & Freark, E. S. (1982). Touch a child--theyare my people: Ways to teach American Indian children.Journal of American Indian Education, 21(3), 6-12.

Leap, W. L. (1982). Semilingualism as a form of linguisticproficiency. In St. Clair, R., & Leap, W. (Eds.), Languagereneval among American Indian tribes: Issues oroblc:ms and

22

prospects (149-159). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghousefor Bilingual Education.

Leap, W. L., McNett, C., Jr., Cantor, J., Baker, R., Laylin, L.,& Renker, A. (1982). Dimensions of math avoidance amongAmerican Indian elementary school students, kFinal Report).Washington, D. C,: The American University.

Lee, M. W. (1986). The match: Learning styles of blackchildren and microcomputer programming. Journal of NegroEdulation, 55(1), 78-89.

Lee-Jones, C. (1986). Images, attitudes and racism: A generalstudies module. Multi-Ethnic Education Review, 5(2),42-44.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1966,. Internal versus external control ofreinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 206-220.

Lefkowitz, B. (1985). Renegotiating society's contiact withpublic schools: The national commission on secondaryeducation for Hispanics and the National Board of Inquiryinto schools. Carnegie Quarterly, 29(4), 2-11.

Lesser, G. S., Fifer, G., & Clark, D. H. (1965). Mentalabilities of children from different social-class andcultural groups. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 30(4).

Lesser, G. S., Fifer, G., & Clark, D. H. (1967). Citec inStodolosky, S. S., & Lesser, G. Learning patterns in thedisadvantaged, Harvard Eductaional Review, 37, 546-593.

Lester, J. (1969). Look out Whitey! Black Powers gon' get yourMama! New York: Grove.

Letteri, C. A. (1982, September). Information processing model.Paper presented to the NASSP Learning Styles Task Force,Reston, VA.

Lewis, R. G., & Gingerich, W. (1980). Leadershipcharacteristics: Views of Indian and non-Indian students.Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work,(October), 494-497.

Light, I. (19c,4). Immigrant and ethnic enterprise in NorthAmerica. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4(20), 195-216.

Light, H. K., & Martin R. E. (1985). Guidance of AmericaliIndian children: Their heritage and some contemporaryviews. Journal of American Indian Education, 24, 42-46.

23

Llewellyn, K. N., & Hoebel, E. A. (1967). The Cheyenne way.Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Loflin, M. D. (1984). Discovering cognitive abilities of nativechildren. Educational Research Ouarterly, 8(4), 52-58.

Luetgert, M. J. (1977). The ethnic student: Academic andsocial problems. Adolescence, 12(47), 321-327.

Lynch, P. (1981). An analysis of the relationships amongacademic achievement, attendance, and the learning styletime preferences of eleventh- and twelfth-grade studentsidentified as initial or chronic truants in a suburban NewYork school district. Doctoral dissertation, St. John'sUniversity, New York.

Mz Arthur, R. S. (1968). Ecology, culture and cognitivedevelopment: Canadidn native youth. In Driedger, L. (Ed.),The Canadian ethnic mosaic. Toronto: McClelland andStewart.

Mahan, j. M. (1934). Major concerns of Anglo student teachersserving in Native American communities. Journal of AmericanIndian Education, 23.

Mahan, J. M., & Henderson, J. N. C. (1984). A Navajoeducational view: Teachers and administrators need morecultural knowledge. Journal of Educational Equity andLeadership, 4(1), 27-38.

Marans, A., & Lourie, R. (1967). Hypotheses regarding theeffects of childrearing patterns on the disadvantaged child.In Hellmuth, J. (Ed.) Disadvantaged Child. Seattle:Special Child Publications.

Marashio, P. (1982). "Enlighten my mind* . . ." Examining thelearning process through Native Americans' Ways. Journal ofAmerican Indian Education, 21(2), 2-9.

Martin, J. C. (1977). Cognitive style and its relationship topaired-associate and concept identification task performanceof primary-agud school childran. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 37(9-A), 5705.

Masden, M. C. (1982). Animism and related tendencies in Hopichildren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(1), 117-124.

Matthews, B. (1973). Black cognitive process. Unpublishedpaper. Howard University.

Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns ofschool success and failure among Mexican-descent and

24

Japanese-American students in a California High School: Anethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education,95(1), 233-255.

Mbiti, J. (1970). African religions and philosophies. GardenCity, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

MacArthur. (1973). Some ability patterns: Central Eskimos andNsenga Africans. Irternational Journal of Psychology, 8(4),239-247.

McCartin, R., & Schill, W. J. (1977). An experiment with threemodes of instruction for Indian elementary school children.Journal of American Indian Education, 17(1).

McClintock, E., Bayard, M. P., & McClintock, C. G. (1979).socialization of prosocial orientations in the MexicanAmerican family. Paper presented at the National Symposiumon the Mexican Ameri.-an Child, University of California,Santa Barbara.

McDermott, L. C. (1980). Helping minority students succeed inscience. JCST, (January).

McDermott, R. P. (1985). Research currents: Cultural-ecological influences on minority school learning. LanguageArts, 62(8), 860-869.

McDermott, R. P. (1988) The explanation of minority schoolfailure, again. Anthropology & Education Ouarterl ,

351-364.

McNeil, K. (1968). Semantic space as an indicator ofsocialization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 325-327.

McNeil, K., & Phillips, B. (1969). Scholastic nature ofresponses to the environment in selected subcultures.Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(2), 79-85.

McNeil, L. (1987). Talking about differences: Teaching tosameness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(2), 105-122.

Messer, S. B. (1976). Reflection--impulsivity: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1026-1052.

Messick, S. (1969). The criterf.on problem in the evaluation ofinstruction. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.(Also in Wittrock, M., & Wiley, D. (Eds.). (1970). Theevaluation of instruction: Issues and problems. New York:Holt, Rinzahart & Winston.)

25

Messick, S. (1970). The criterion prol-lem in the evaluation ofinstruction: Assessing possible, not just intendedoutcomes. In Wittrock, M. C., & Wiley, G. D. E. (Eds.), Theevaluation of instruction: Issues and problems. New York:Holt.

Miller, A. G., & Thomas, R. (1972). Cooperation and competitionamong Blackfoot Indian and urban Crnadian children. ChildDevelopment, 43, 1104-1110.

Moore, C. G. (1982). The Navajo culture and the learning ofmathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Institute ofEducation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214708).

Moore, E. G. J. (1985). Ethnicity as a variable in childdevelopment. In Spencer, M. G., Brookins, G. K., & Allen,W. R. (Eds.) The social and affective development of Blackchildren (pp. 101-115). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

More, A. J. (1984). Okanagan/Nicola Indian quality of educationstudy. Penticton: Okanagan Indian Learning Institute.

More, A. J. (1987). Native Indian learning styles: A reviewfor researchers and teachers. Journal of American IndianEducation, 27(1 17-29.

Morgan, H. ;1Q76). Neonatal precocity and the Black experience.Negro Educational Review, 27, 129-134.

Munro, D. (1979). Locus of control attribution: Factors amongblacks and whites in Africa. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 10, 157-172.

Newmeyer, J. A. (1970). Creativity and nonverbal communicationin preadolescent White and Black children. Unpublisheddoctoral disertation. Harvard University.

Nieto, C. (1986). The California challenge: Prepating teachersfor a growing Hispanic population. Action in TeacherEducation, 7(1), 1-8.

Norton, L. S. (1975). Elementary i.:nhool age children'sperceptions of teacher's non-verbal behavior. DissertationAbstracts International, 35(10-A), 6371.

Odell, S. J. (1979). Piagetian cons'arvation in Navajos.Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(12-A), 7139-7140.

Ogbu, J. U. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography ofeducation in an urban neighborhood. New York: AcademicPress.

r

26

Ogbu, J. U. (1977). Racial stratification and education: Thecase of Stockton, California. ICRD Bulletin, 12(3), 1-26.

Ogbu, J. U. (1978). America's other castelike minorities:American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans.Minority education and the caste system. New York:Academic Press.

Ogbu, J. U. (1982a). Cultural discontinuities and schooling.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13(4), 290-307.

Ogbu, J. U. (1982b). Equalization of educational opportunityand racial/ethnic inequality. In Altbach, P. G., Arnove, R.F., & Kelly, G. P. (Eds.) Comparative education (269-289).New York: Macmillan.

Ogbu, J. U. (1983). Minority status and schooling inpluralistic societies. Comparative Education Review, 27(2),168-190.

Ogbu, J. U. (1985). Research currents: Cultural-ecologicalinfluences on minority school learning. Language Arts,62(8), 860-869.

Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Frameworks. Variability in minority schoolperformance: A pr^blem in search of an explanation.Anthropology and Education Quari:erly, 18(4), 312-334.

Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. (1986). Understandingsociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and schooladjustment. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factorsin schooling language minority students (pp. 73-142).Sacramento: Bilingual Education Office, California StateDepartment of Education, Evaluation, Dissemination, andAssessment Center.

Oklahoma Department of Vocational and Technical Eduction.(1989). Summary Statistics: 1988-89 Final Dropout Report.(Planning Unit, Oklahoma State Department of Vocational andTechnical Education and the Accreditation Section of theOklahoma State Department of Education). Stillwater,Oklahoma.

Opler, M. (1946). Childhood and youth in Jicarrila Apachesociety. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum.

Orasanu, J., Lee, C., & Scribner, S. (1979). The development ofcategory organization and free recall: Ethnic and economicgroup comparisons. Child Development, 50, 1100-1109.

27

Ortiz, V. (1986). Reading activities and reading proficiencyamong Hispanic, Black, and White students. American Journalof Educat4on, 95(1), 58-76.

03borne, B. (1985). Research into Native North Americans'cognition: 1973-1982. Journal of American IndianEducation, 24(3), 9-25.

Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: Agenerative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.

Parsons, 0. A., & Schneider, J. M. (1974). Locus of control inuniversity students from Eastern and Western societies.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 456-461.

Pepper, F., & Henry, S. L. (1986). Social and cultural effectson Indian learning style: Classroom implications.Canadian Journal of Native Education, 13(1), 54-61.

Perney, V. H. (1976). Effects of race and sex on fielddependence-independence in children. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 42, 975-980.

Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of therelationships among the learning style sociologicalpreferences of gifted and nongifted primary children,selected instructional strategies, attitudes, andachievement in problem solving and rote memorization.Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. New York.

Persi, J., & Brunatti, G. (1987). Cognitive measures andcognitive bias: A comparison of the performances of nativeand non-native low achievers. Canadian Journal of NativeEducation, 14(1), 15-18.

Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicativecompetence. Warm Springs children in community andclassroom. In Cazden, C., Hymes, D., & John, V. (Eds.),Functions of language in the classroom (370-394). New York:Teachers College Press.

Piestrup, A. (1973). Black dialect interference andaccommodation of reading instruction in first grade.Monograph #4. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Language Behavior Research Laboratory.

Ramirez, M. (1973). Cognitive styles and cultural democracy ineducation of Mexican Americans. Social Science OuarterlY,53, 895-904.

Ramirez. M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracV,bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic.

28

Ramirez, M., Castaneda, A., & Herold, P. (1974). Therelationship of acculturatiml to cognitive style amongMexican Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5,212-219.

Ramirez, M., & Price-Williams, D. R. (1974). Cognitive stylesof children of three ethnic groups in the United States.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 212-219.

Reyes, L. H., & Stanic, G. M. (1985, April). A review of theliterature on Blacks and mathematics. Research/TechnicalReport 143. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association.

Reynolds, C. H. (1976). Correlational findings, educationalimplications, criticisms of locus of control research: Areview. JouLnal of Black Studies, 6(3), 221-256.

Rhodes, R. W. (i988). Holistic teaching/learning for NativeAmerican students. Journal of American Indian Education,27(2), 21-29.

Ribal, J. E. (1963). Social character and meaning ofselfishness and altruism. Sociology and Social Research,47, 311-321.

Ross, A. C. (1982). Brain hemispheric functions and the NativeAmerican. Journal of American Indian Education, 21(3), 2-5.

Rychlak, J. F. (1975). Affective assessment, intelligence,social class, and racial learning style. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32, 989-995.

Ryckman, R. M., Posen, C. F., & Kulberg, G. E. (1978). Locus ofcontrol among American and Rhodesian students. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 104, 165-173.

Sack, W. H., Beiser, M., Clarke, G., & Redshirt, R. (1987). Thehigh achieving Sioux Indian child: Some preliminaryfindings from the flower of two soils project. Journal ofthe National Center (University of Colorado Health SciencesCenter), 1(1), 37-51.

Sampson, G. L. (1981). Attainmeh- of Piaget's formaloperational level in mathematics relative to ethnic groupand reading ability. Dissertation Abstracts International,41(12), 5014.

Sandefur. (1987, January 21). Mathematics teachers are too lazyto change their ways: As a result, teaching is stagnant.Chronicle of Higher Education.

29

Santos, S. L. (1986). Promoting intercultural understandingthrough multicultural teacher training. Action in TeacherEducation, 7(1), 19-25.

Sapp, G., Elliott, G. R. & Bounds, S. (1983). Dealing withdiversity among college students. The Journal of HumanisticEducation and Development, 22(2), 80-85.

Sawyer, J. (1966). The altruism scale: A measure ofcooprarative, individualistic, and competitive interpersonalorientation. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 407-416.

Scallon, R., & Scallon, S. (1979a). The literate two-year-old:The fictionalization of self. Unpublished manuscript, 8.

Scallon, R., & Scallon, S. (1979b). Thematic abstraction: AChipewyan two-year-old. Unpublished manuscript, 2.

Scallon, R., & Scallon, S, (1933). Narrative, Literacy, andFace in Interethnic Communication. New Jersey: AblexPublishing Company.

Schindler, D. E., & Davison, D. M. (1985). Language, culture,and the mathematics concepts of American Indian learners.Journal of American Indian Education, 24, 27-34.

Schoem, D. (1982). Explaining Jewish student failure.Anthropology and Education Ouarterly, 13(4), 308-322.

Scott, P. B. (1983). Mathematics and achievement test scores ofAmerican Indian and Anglo students: A comparison. Journalof American Indian Education, 22(3), 17-19.

Scott, S. A. (1979). Comparative linguistic processing,dichotic listening, and cerebal listening. DissertationAbstracts International, 40(3-A), 1368-1369.

Scott, S., Hynd, G. W., Hunt, L., & Weed, W. (1979). Cerebalspeech lateralization in the Native American Navajo.Neuropsychologia, 17(1), 89-92.

Serpell, R. (1976). Culture's influence on behavior. London:Methuen.

Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variablein school success? Review of Educational Research, 52,219-244.

Shannon, L. (1975). Development of time perspective in threedifferent groups: A cultural difference or an expecancyinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 114-115.

30

Shannon, L. (1976). Age change in time perspective in NativeAmericans, Mexican Americans, and Anglo-Americans. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7(1), 317-122.

Sheingold, K., & Pea, R. D. (1981). The impact of classroomcomputer experiences on children's problem solving. planningand peer collaboration. New York: Bank Street College ofEducation.

Siegel, I., Anderson, L. M., & Shapiro, H. (1966).Categorization behavior in lower- and middle-class preschoolchildren: Differences in dealing with representation offamiliar objects. Journal of Negro Education, 35, 218-229.

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York:Vancage.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Guest worker or immigrant--different ways of reproducing an underclass. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 2, 89-115.

Slade, M. (1982, October 24). Aptitide, intelligence or what?New York Times.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1987). An analysis ofmulticultural educatior in the United States. HarvardEducational Review, 57(4), 421-444.

Smith, A. (1986). Strategies for individualizing instructionacross the disciplines for the culturally diverse learner.In Thinking across the disciplines. Proceedings of theAnnual Conference of the International Society forIndividualized Instruction, October 9-11, 1986, Atlanta,Georgia.

Smith, L. (1981). Mathematics education in an American Indianculture. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.

Smith, L. H., & Renzulli. (1984). Learning style preferences:A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory IntoPractice, 23(1), 44-55.

Spolsky, B. (1988). Bridging the gap: A general theory ofsecond language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 377-396.

Staub, E. A. (1970). A child in distress: The influence of ageand number of witnesses on children's attempts to help.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 130-140.

I1*)

*.P0,4

31

Staub, E. A. (1971a). A child in distress: The influence ofnurturance and moe ling on children's attempts to help.Developmental Psycnology, 5, 124-132.

Staub, E. A. (1971b). Use of role playing and induction intraining for prosocial behavior. Child Development, 42,805-816.

Steinberg, R. H. (1974). Psychometric and operativeintelligence in an Indian school population. DissertationAbstracts International, 35(5-B), 2449.

Stodolsky, S. S., & Lesser, G. (1967). Learning patterns in thedisadvantaged. Harvard Educational Review, 37, 546-593;reprinted Series No. 5, Harvard Educational Review, 1975,2z-69.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (1985). Opportunity, family dynamics andschool achievement: The sociocultural context of motivationamong recent immigrants from Central America. Paper read atthe Universicy of California Symposium on Linguistics,Minorities and Education. Tahoe City, May 30-June 1.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (1986). In pursuit of a dream: NewHispanic immigrants in American inner city schools.Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Berkeley.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (1987a). "Becoming someboay": CentralAmerican immigrants in U.S. inner-city schoo'.s.Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 2/6-286.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (1987b). Towards a psycho-socialunderstanding of Hispanic adaptation to United Statesschooling. In Trueba, H. T. (Ed.) Learning and the languageminority student (156-168). Cambridge: Newberry HousePublishers.

Sudzina, M. (1987). An investigation of the relationshipbetween the reading styles of second graders and theirachievement in three different basal reader programs.Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Swanson, R. A., & Henderson, R. W. (1979). Introduction of aconcrete operational concept through televised modelling:Evidence and speculation on mediational processes.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(3), 202-210.

Swisher, K., & Deyhle, 0. (1987). Styles of learning andlearning of styles: Educational conflicts for AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native youtn. Journal of Multilingual and

f

32

Multicultural Development, 8(4), 345-360.

Tafoya, T. (1982). Coyote's eyes: Native cognitive styles.Journal of American Indian Education, 21(2), 21-33.

Terrell, J. E., & Terrell, D. (1974). Indian women of thewestern morning. New York: Dial Press.

Trimble, J. E. (1981). Value differentials and their importancein counseling American Indians. In Pederson, P., Draguns,J., Lonner, W., & Trimble, J. Counseling across cultures(2nd ed.). Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. .

Trimble, J. E., & Richardson, S. S. (1982). Locus of controlmeasures among American Indians. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 13(2), 228-238. (Also published in White CloudJournal.)

Trotman, F. K. (1977). Race, IQ, and the middle class. Journalof Educational Psychology, 69, 266-273.

Tyler, J. D., & Holsinger, D. N. (1975). Locus of controldifferences between rural American Indian and whitechildren. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 149-155.

Valdivieso, R. (1986). Hispanics and schools: A newperspective. Educational Horizons, 64(4), 190-196.

Valverde, S. A. (1987). A comparative study of Hispanic highschool dropouts and graduates: Why do some leave schoolearly and some finish? Education and Urban Society, 19(3),320-329.

Van Ness, H. (1981). Social control and social organization inan Alaskan Athabaskan classroom: A microethnography of'getting ready' for reading. In Trueba, H., & Guthrie, G.(Eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom. Rowley:Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment.London: Methuen.

Vogt, L. A., Jordon, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1987). Explainingschool failure, producing school success: Two cases.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 276-286.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological _processes. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.

Wachs, T., Uzgiris, I., & Hunt, J. McV. (1971). Cognitivedevelopment in infants of different age levels and fromdifferent environemntal backgrounds: An explanatoryinvestigation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 283-316.

Wallis, P. (1984). Holistic learning--a must with AmericanIndian students. Momcntum, 14.

-51,,era

33

Wax, M. L., Wax, R. H., & Dumont, R. V., Jr. (1964). Formaleducation in an American Indian community. Social Problems,11(Suppl.), 95-96.

Webb, G. M. (1983). Left/Right brains, tealamates in learning.Exceptional Children, 49, 11-15.

Wedlund, G., (Ed.). (1987). Directory of learning/teachingstyles practitioners. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Weitz, J. M. (1971). Cultural change and tield dependence intwo native Canadian linguistic families. Unpublisheddoctoral disseration, University of Ottawa.

Werner, O., & Begishe, K. Y. (1986). Styles of learning: Theevidence from Navajo thought. Paper presented at theconference on styles of learning.

Wheeler, R. (1980). An alternative to failure: Teachingreading according to students' perceptual strengths. KappaDelta Pi Record, 17, 59-63.

White, S., Tharp, R. G., Jordan, C., & Vogt, L. (1988).Cultural patterns of cognition reflected in the questioningstyles of Anglo and Navajo teachers. In Topping, D.,Kobayshi, V., & Crowell, D. C. (Eds.) Thinking: The ThirdInternational Conference. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, D. G. (1986). Simultaneous and sequential processing,reading, and neurolortical maturation of Native Indian(TsimshianL children. Unpublished doctoral disertation,University of British Columbia.

Wilson, R. (1971). A comparison of learning styles in Africantribal growth with Afro-American learning situations and thechannels of cultural connection: An analysis of documentarymaterial. Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.35/05-A,71-29811.

olitkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease ofperception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19,1-15.

r01 I,7

34

Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York:Wiley.

Witkin, H. A. (1967). A cognitive style approach to cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology,2(4), 233-250.

Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognit-ive styles:Essence and origins. New York: International UniversitiesPress, Inc.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., Cox, P. W.(1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitivestyles and their educational implications. Review ofEducational Research, 47(1), 1-64.

Wober, M. (1967). Adopting Witkin'A field-independence theoryto accommodate new informatioh from Africa. British Journalof Psychology, 58,

Wolcott, H. (1967). A Kwakiutal village eald school. Chicago:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

Woolard, K. A. (1981). Ethnicity ir -ducation: Some problemsof language and identity in Spain eild the United States.Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Ahthropology, Berkeley:University of California.

Wylie, L. (1976). The school at Vaucluse: Educating the Frenchchild. In Roberts, J. I., & kkinsanyo, S. K. (Eds.)Schooling in the Cultural Context (pp. 84-104). New York:David McKay.

Yogeu, A., & Ilan, Y. (1987). Does self-esteem affecteducational aspirations? The case of the ethnic enclave.Urban Education, 22(2), 182-202.

Young, V. H. (1970). Family and childhood in a Southern GeorgiaCommunity. American Anthropologist, 72, 269-288.

Zigler, E., Abelson, W., & Seitz, V. (1973). Motivationalfactors in the performance of economically disadvantagedchildren on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. ChildDevelopment, 44, 294-303.

Zigler, E., & Butterfield, E. 0.968). Motivational aspects ofchanges in IQ test performance of culturally deprivednursery scnool children. Child Development, 39, 1-14.

...........e.....r.......¢.....a.

APPENDIX AREVIEW OP LITERATURE CATEGORIZATION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE CATEGORILATION

AUTHOR(S)

YEAR

0.ACattey(1980)

36

SUBJECTS ASPEcTS FINDINGS

Callaghan

Colliers(1967)

CoombsColeman

FeldmanDittman(1970)

Freedman(1979)

Navajo,Chinese,Anglo-Americancultvres

Navajo& Anglomothers &infants

Navajochildren

Navajochildren

Indianchildren

Chinese,Caucasian,& Blackbabies

Havighurst Indian(1957) childrenJohn(1972)Coombs(1958)

* Culturaldifferencesin processinginformation

* ethnicdifferences;agressiveness;visual contact

* visualdiscrimiration

* imagery/verbal coding

* motorcoordination

* ethnicdifferences

* imagery/verbal coding

112

** Both the Chinese &the Navajo cultures:** employ language dif-ferently than Anglos** employ right-hemis-pherically orientedmyths, metaphors,symbols, and allegories** stress harmony & unity--a basic "onervIss"

** Navajo babies showedgreater passivity** Navajo mothers usedtheir eyes rather thantheir voice to attractthe baby's attention

** Navajos excel at tasksrequiring fine visualdiscrimination

** Navajo children excelin spelling 'visual)while Anglos excel invocabulary (verbal)

** pre-school Indianchildren evidence finemotor coordination

** Chinese babies aremore amenable & adaptablein situations where otherbabies register annoyanceand complaint

** Indian children learnmore rapidly through imi-tation & direct visual &tactile experiences thanthrough verbal processes

John(1972)

Auipers

Scott(1979)

Navajochildren

Navajochildren

Navajo,HopiIndians

* styles oflearning/visual

* visual &spatialconfiguration

* cerebralspeechlateralization/hemisphericorientation

** Indian children of theSouthwest are visual inapproaches to the world** Navajo youngstersmanifest greatersensitivity to geometricdesigns than white chil-dren of the same age

** Navajos demonstratea left ear (rightcerebral hemisphere) ad-vantage compared to thetraditional right ear inAnglos** lateralization forlanguage in the NativeAmerican Hopi differsmore dramatically thanwould be expected

0.BLewisGingerich(1980)

AmericanIndian &non-Indiangraduatestudents

* Leadership ** Indian students have avery different concept ofa leader** a task produces aleader and with the endof the task the functionis fulfilled--a leadermanifests differentdegrees of leadershipbehavior** the quality of theleader's values stressedover the person

0.0HalpinHalpinWhiddon(1980)

American * Self esteem,Indian & locus of controlWhite children

** Identification ofspecific parentalbehaviors across bothcultures that appearedto be antecedents of aninternal locus of controland positive self esteem

1.AHale(1981)

Blackchildren

* Culturalinfluences

** Learning environmentsdo not match the culture& learning styles ofBlack students

Akbar Afro- *cultural ** The Afro-American(1975) American characteristics child:

child ** is highly effective** uses languagerequiring a wide use ofmany coined interjections"N uses considerablebody language** relies on words thatdepend upon context formeaning** prefers using expres-sions that have severalconnotations** adopts a systematicuse of nuances of into-nation and body languagesuch as eye movement andpositioning** prefers oral-auralmodalities for learningcommunication** is highly sensitive toothers/ nonverbal cues** seeks to be peopleoriented** 31 sociocentrict* ses internal cues forpl'oblem** feels highlyempathetic** likes spontaneity** adapts rapidly tonovel stimuli

Boykin ** suggested the reason(1978) White children are more

academically successfulHolt is that they have a(1964) greater tolerance lorSilberman monotony; affective stim-(1973) ulation and vivacity are

necessary for -he Birlkchild to be motivated toachieve in academics

410

Boykin(1978)

MaransLourie1967)

GoldmanSanders(1969)WachsUzgirisHunt(1971)

Brazelton Zambian &Young WhiteBullowa American(1971) mothers

Cohen(1971)

DixonFoster(1971)

* Earlydevelopment

39

** suggested that theBlack home environmentprovides an abundance ofstimulation, intensity,& variation through highnoise levels & large num-bers of people; analyzedas over stimulation &conceptual deafness bysome social scientists,Boykin proposed greaterpsychological & behavior-al verve in Blackchildren as a result** Zambian mothers' highcontact, loving environ-ment for their babiesprovided more handling &feeding contact &produced more stimu-lation, alertness, socialinterest andconsolability

** differences betweenchildren who functionwith relational &analytical styles is sogreat that children whssecognitive organization isrelational are unlikelyto be rewarded withgrades regardless oftheir native ability,extent of learning, orexperiences; children wholive in more fluid or"shared-function" primarygroups are more likely toexhibit the relationalcognitive style

** the non-Western heri-tage of Afro-Americanssuggests knowledge stemsfrom the propositionthat, "I feel, thereforeI think, therefore, Iam" vs. "I think, there-fore, I am."

40

Esen Nigerian child- ** referred to clusters(1973) culture rearing of African attitudes as

pl.actices "care syndrome"; chil-dren grow up in a socialnetwork characterized byphysical closeness,acceptance & care

Gitter ** found Black childrenBlack to be more feelingMostofsky oriented, people(1972) oriented, & more pro-Young ficient at non-verbal(1970) communication than White

children

Hilliard(1976)

** Afro-American people:** tend to view things intheir entirety & not asisolated parts** seem to preferinferential reasoningrather than deductive orinductive reasoning** tend to approximatespace, number, & timeinstead of aiming forcomplete accuracy** appear to focus onpeople & their activitiesrather than objects** have a keen sense ofjustice & quicklyperceive injustice** tend to prefernovelty, personal freedom& distinctiveness** in general, tend notto be word dependent, butare proficient in non-verbal as well as verbalcommunication

Lester ** Black culture(1969) emphasizes the nonverbal;

experience counts, notwhat is said

Morgan(1976)

Newmever(1970)Young(1970)GitterBlackMostofsky(1972)

Piestrup(1973)

Silberman(1970)

Young(1970)

4 ,r;

41

** maintained thatschools do not supportthe natural energy levelof Black children whoneed an active environ-ment for successfullearning; Black childrenelicit more punishmentand are labeled hyper-active more frequentlybecause of their highmotoric activity

** supported thehypothesis that Blackculture developsproficiency in non-verbal communication

** identified factorswhicb created good rap-port in teacher-Blackstudent interaction:warmth, verbal interplayduring instruction,rhythmic style of speech& distinctive intonationin speech patterns

** described stylisticdimensions of the oraltradition in Blackculture: call and res-ponse, rhythmic patterns,spontaneity &concreteness

** suggested that Whitechildren are objectoriented & have numerousopportunites to manipu-late objects & discoverproperties & relation-ships; Black children aremore people oriented; theaffective orientation islinked to the greatercontinuity in thebehavior of black mothers

ZiglerButterfield(1968)ZiglerAbelsonSeitz(1973)

** rapport with theteacher in educationalsettings seems to bestrongly related to aca-demic performance forBlack students & not verycritical for Whites

2.ALeBrasseur American * Cultural ** Many different IndianFreark Indian values tribes have the following(1982) values that may influence

school performance:avoidance of competition,high value on coopera-tion, strong peerinfluence** proposed teachingstrategies for NativeAmerican students

2.BKnight Anglo- * Cooperative ** Reported the absenceKagan American & Competitive of a relation between(1982) Mexican- Social Behavior social behavior & the

American number of siblings &family birth order; family sizestructure and ordinal position of

the child may interactidth other factors(AcClintock et al., 1979)in influencing prosocialbehavior

McClintock ** suggested the largerBayard size of the M-A family,McClintock strength of familial(1979) interdependence, and

patterning of relation-ships as reasons fortheir relatively greaterpreference forcooperative orprosocial outcomes ininterdependent situations

Ribal ** suggested larger(1963) family size is associatedSawyer positively with(1966) generosity

Staub(1970)(1971a/b)

43

** the cultural dif-ference in family sizemay have resulted in ahigher proportion ofolder siblings among theM-A children which mayhave resulted in acultural difference insocial behavior

2.0Marashio(1982)

Sioux, Tewa,Hopi,Winnebago

* TraditionalNative Americans'perspectives towardteaching andlearning

** Juxtaposed the tradi-tional holistic approachto learning that pervadesNative American culturewith the utilitarian edu-cation commonly ex-perienced in Euro-Ameri-can schools

2.DRoss(1982)

NativeAmerican

* BrainHemisphericFunctions

** Native Americans aremore dominant in righthemispheric thinking

2.ETafoya(1982)

ScallonScallon(1979a)

ScallonScallon(1979b)

AmericanIndian

AthabaskanIndianchildren

AthabaskanIndianchildren

* Traditionalteaching paradigms* child-rearingpractices

* literacy& orality

* child-rearingpractices

** Traditional Indianlearning focuses on:process over product,legends and stories astraditional teachingparadigms, knowledgeobtained from the self,cognitive developmentthrough problem-solvingtechniques

** orality rather thanessayist literacy

** children observefrom subordinatepositions

2.FTrimbleRichardson(1982)

AmericanIndian adults

* Locus of control

45

** Ethnic minorities andthose from low SES levelsscore in a more externallocus of control direc-tion than Caucasians

GurinGurinLaoBeattie(1969)

Lefcourt(1966)

Reynolds(1976)

TylerHolsinger(1975)

EchohawkParsons(1972)

JessorGravesHansonJessor(1968)

Munro(1979)

RyckmanPosenKulberg(1978)

ParsonsSchneider(1974)

JonesZoppel(1979)

Trimble(1981)

Blackstudents

AmericanIndian &Caucasianstudents

AmericanIndian &Caucasianstudents

AmericanIndian,Caucasian,Spanish Americanpeoples

MAcks & Whitesin Africa

Rhodesian &American students

People ofWestern, Eastern& Middle Easterncountries

Blackpopulations inJamaica & U.S.

Indian & AlaskaNative populations

44

** with adequate SEScontrols differencesin locus of controlmay disappear

** measuring locus ofcontrol for Black youthrequires distinguishinghow much control one be-lieves most people inEociety possess (controlideology) and how muchcontrol one believes onepersonally possessespersonal control)

** may be negative impl:.-cations to internalbeliefs for some minoricygroups

** separate factors for(1) personal effort andattributes and (2) chance& supernatural

** separation of personalcontrol from ideologicalcontrol requires moreresearch in the struc-tural equivalence of thevarious scales to measurelocus of control

Black &White UrbanCollegestudents

45

* Learning styles ** Students demonstrateparticipativeand collaborativelearning styles more thanavoidant, competitive,dependent or independent

NativeAmericans

Pueblo &Whitestudentsenteringteachertraining

* Math education

* mathematicsachievement testscores

** Proposed directionsfor research based on 7guiding questionsregarding mathematicseducation for NativeAmericans

** Pueblo students scoredhigher on applicationproblems related to real-world experience; theapplications-orientedapproach stressed inteaching math may be evenmore important to nativestudents

NativeAmerican

Navajo

* Culture andlearning stylesrelated tolearning math

* culture andlearning stylesrelated tolearningmathematics

** Navajo students:** learn more effectivelythrough culture-basedmathematics though main-stream mathematics cannotbe pushed aside; verylittle research has beendone relating theindigenous mathematics ofNative Americans toschool mathematics** traditional Indiancommunities have highlysophisticated forms ofnonverbal communication

** speak a language thatdoes not have a word formultiply, divide, if,cosine or sine, nor dostudents have the beliefsassociated with them

Green American(1977) Indians

Cardell MescaleroCross ApacheLutz students(1978)

* math education

* math educationpeer learning

46

** find it difficult toaccept ervuations as equalif the member parts arenot identical** have difficultyaccepting problems inwhich a hypotheticalsituation is expressed** in traditional Indiancultures are required todevelop excellent memoryskills, skills which maybe a barrier in highermathematics

** rebel againststringent discipline ofhigh schools and choosenot to study the mostdisciplined, visibleWestern forms ofeducation

** achieved greater gainsin math skills when spon-taneous groups wereformed by students formath activities

4.0Loflin Eskimo * Cognitive ** Proposed a model for

(1984) children abilities reconstructing the logicunderlying the communi-cative interaction ofnative Alaskan childrento determine theirnatural reasoning ability

4.DMahan Anglo student * Cultural & ** Administration of a

(1984) teachers; methodological "Frequent Concerns" sur-Navajo, Hopi, concerns vey of student teachers& Apache revealed they can beelementary culturally sensitive tostudents reservation school Indian

students

4.EMahanHenderson(1984)

Navajo * Cultural ** Socioeconomic and.,nfluences cultulal factors in-

fluence the effectivenessof education for the'

Navajo perception of edu-cation as an all-encom-passing, li;:e-long pro-cess contrasts with theinstitutional, sys-temized, and fragmentednature of mainstreameducational approaches

Guthrie ** cultural factorsHall influence educational(1981) success or failure

** the most importantJencks determinant of educa-Smith tion attainment isAcland family backgroundBane ** Indians haveCohen traditionally receivedGintis inferior education & haveHeyns been assigned low statusMichelson & menial jobs leading(1972) to the pel-ception of

schooling as havingOgbu little value in improving(1978) social & occupational

status** cooperation isstressed over competition** the traditional Navajoindependent life stylebased on seasonal changescontrasts with the 180-day structured schoolsystem** Navajo custom of re-ticence on a firstencounter with an unfa-miliar person or situa-tion creates difficultieson the very first day ofschool** Navajo students mayavoid eye contact with ateacher as a sign ofrespect for an elder** Navajo children aregiven tremendous res-ponsibility at a veryyoung age; Navajogirls, as membersof a matrilineal culture,have prestige and influ-

Z(*)

48

ence over what happens inthe home & are oftenowners of livestock andmaterials** threats of physicalpunishment & force areunacceptable and inef-fective methods of behav-ioral control in Navajoculture while teasing orshaming are common** for Navajo students,praise may not be rein-forcing** Navajo children aretaught to live for and beconcerned with thepresent** rather than "Explain-Read-Do-Recite" ap-proaches to learning,Navajos prefer learningthrough extensiveobservation andimitation, along with theassurance of success** Navajo cultural andreligious taboos may beignored by certain liter-ature selections and artactivities

5.AAllen * Learning ** Proposed adaptingMerrill stra:egies instructional interven-(1985) tion to matJh the

learning strategies ofindividuals

5.BChilcott Arizona * World view ** The Yaqui world view(1985) Yaqui Indians Is not accommodated by

modern industrial societyand its system ofeducation

5.0Keefe(1985)

* Learning stylevariables

5fi

** Learning stylecharacteristics reflectgenetic coding, personal-ity development, and en-vironmental adaptation

Letteri(1982)

Keefe, ed.(1979)

Keefe, ed.(1982)

KeefeLanguis(1983)

5.DLightMartin(1985)

Gridley(1974)

TerrellTerrell(1974)

Review ofliterature

Review ofliterature

* student learningstyles

* student learningstyles and brainbehavior

49

** since some skills aremore productive of schoolachievement than others,training should focus onenhancing these analyti-cal skills, rather thanmatching styles

** the NASSPdeveloped a imAtidimen-siLonal view o. style with"Learning Style" as theall encompassing conceptlabel for 21 elements;accepted Osborne &Wittrock (1983) models ofgenerative learning; ob-jective of providing 1_a-chers and learners with aworkable diagnostic toolfor more personalizededucation

** defined 3 broad cate-gories of style:cognitive, affective,physiological; styleitself conceived of asa "gestalt"

Review ofliterature onNative Ameri-can culture

* Wmerican Indianculture's tradi-tional view ofchildren

** American Indianapproaches to childguidance:** dependence on adults** respect for elders** obedience throughexplanations for desiredbehavior

** Indian children weretaught to respect life

** many rituals, like theHopi Kachina, are relatedto children

LlewellynHoebel(1967)

Opler(1946)

Gill(1982)

CheyenneIndians

JicarrilaApacheIndian

AmericanIndians

* self-control,self-restraint;childrearingcustoms

* childrearingcustoms

* childrearingcustoms

50

** children are to haveparents' full attention,subsequently learning torespect elders; chastise-ment of children is ab-horred** children are en-couraged to play in suchways that train them foradult responsibilities

** the grandparent servesas main disciplinarian;rigorous training toteach moral standards anddevelop character

** American Indiansattach a high degree ofimportance to childhoodas the time for beliefs,values, and attitudesinstruction

5.EOgbu(1985)

Minoritygroups

* Primary and ** Explored societalsecondary cultural treatment of minoritiesdifferences and nature of minorities'

own response to treatmentto support need forunderstanding minoritylearners' sense of socialidentity and culturalframe of reference thatdevelop and influencetheir strategies towardschooling; proposedaccommodation withoutassimilation

5.FOsborne(1985)

Dennis(1943)

Native NorthAmericans

Hopi Indians

* Cognition

* animism* consciousnessof inanimateobjects* moral realism

çc

Native North Americans:** have strengths whichare not tapped by teststraditionally used byWestern societies** may developcompensatory skillsbecause of rigors ofsurvival in traditionalenvironments

ColeGayGlickSharp(1971)

AnnisFrost(1973)

Kleinfeld(1973)(1975)(1979)

McArthur(1973)

Anhelm(1974)

Beaulieu(1974)ColeScribner(1974)

Steink.(1974)

Dasen(1975)

Norton(1975)

AlbasMcCluskeyAlbas(1976)

Granzberg(1976)

Kpelle

Euro-Canadians &Cree Indians

Inuit,Eskimo &Indianstudents

Inuits &Nsengas

AmericanIndian &AnglostudentsSioux &Mohawk

CanadianIndians

* cross-cultural

* visual acuity* environment

* visual, spatial,aural modes* watch-then-dolearning style* memory coding* cross-culturaltesting* psychometricintelligence

* visualpreferences

* perceivedinformation needs* environment

* psychometric &operativeintelligence

Inuit Indians; * perceptionEbrie, Africa; skillsAboriginals, * conservationAustralia skills

Caucasian, * nonverbalBlack, & behaviorsIndian Children

WhiteCanadians &Cree Indians

* emotionalcontent ofspeech

Euro- * self-cont:olCanadians & * dependence

C:13k

51

** particularlythe Inuits mayhave developedgreater figureskills than othercultural groups** are more dominant inright hemisphericthinking related tocreative abilities** may respond moreaccurately via the leftear on listening tasks** particularly theNavajo, as well as theChinese, are likely to bebetter in visualdiscrimination skills** as well as non-Indianstudents, may developcognitive styles acrossage cohorts rather thanlongitudinally** may prefer contrastover Anglo preferencesof angularity, linearity,and curvilinearity** the visual acuitydifferences of NativeAmericans may be tunedby the early visualenvironment; thecarpentered nature ofurban surroundings mayresult in greater aware-ness of horizontal andvertical lines amongurban dwellers asopposed to people wholive in non-carpenteredenvironments** emphasize watching,listening, and waiting inorder to learn** develop high self-esteem in school throughpraise of grades,parental pleasure attheir effort, and praise** do not become morefuture-oriented with age,as do Anglo students

Serpell

Shannon(1975)(1976)

KaganBuriel(1977)

Martin(3977)

Odell(1979)

Scott(1979)

ScottHyndHuntWeed(1979)

SwansonHenderson(1979)

Cattey(1980)

HalpinHalpinWhiddon(1980)

Sampson(1981)

Cree Indians

Navajns &Anglos

NativeAmericans,Mexican-Americans &Anglos

Moxican-Americans

Indian &Non-IndianStudents

Navajo Adults& Children

Navajos &Anglos

Navajos

PapagoChildren

Chinese &Navajos

FlatheadIndians &Anglos

Black, White,& IndianStudents

* abstract ability

* hemisphericdominance* environment* perceptionsof time

* fielddependence/independence

* developmentallevels

* developmentallevels

* hemi-phericdominance

* hemisphericdominance* speechlateralization

* visualdiscrimination* directinsta ction

* child-rearingpractices* hemisphericdominance

* self-esteem* locus of control* child-rearingpractices

* forpal opera-tional bility* reauincf ability

52

** may define self-control differently thanothel cultures** may idemify emotionsfrom vocalizations bymembers of their ownculture far moreaccurately than those bymembers of other cultures** may perceive nonverbalbehaviors of teachersdifferently because ofcultural group membership** may have a differentworld orientation thanpeople of other cultures** may have a differentperception of time thanpeople of other cultures** evidence nosignificant differenceregarding operationalabilities when comparedto whites** may find directinstructionsuperfluolis when modelinghds occurre-** may benefit fromboth operative andpsychometric intelligenceinvestigations** may devalopa broadcluster of spatial-field-independenceabilities and adistinct%ve cluster ofabilitis involvinginductive reasoning tromnonverbal stimulibecause of ecology andchild-rearing practices** may not receive validresults on psycholog.caltests used in particularcultural contexts

Masden(1982)

Hopi Indians (replication ofDennis's 1943study)

Tafoya American * child-rearing(1982) Indians practices

* watch-then-doWitkin learning styleMoore * storytellingGoodenough * cognitive stylesCox(1977)

53

5.GSchindler American * Language, ** Any classroom that mayDavison Indian culture, & contain children whose(1985) learners mathematics dominant language is not

concepts English, requires ateacher wro can analyzethe dominant language andcreate a second languageof mathematics descrip-tions that are meaningful** indi:enous peoples areoften tnable to solvemathematics problems thatare not perceived asculturally relevant** native speakersof Navajo find itdifficult to construct anexactly parallelsystematic analysis ofmath concepts inEnglish

Bradley(1984)

Navajostudents

Closs Copper(1977) Eskimo

culture

** Navajo language donot have words for multi-tiply, d'.vide, if, cosineor sine; students havedifficulty with conceptsfor which their languagehas no words, such as ahypothetical situation

** tells of the analogousstory told to show thefutility of counting be-yond everday numbering

Leap AmericanMcNett IndianCantor elementaryBaker studentsLaylinRenker(1982)

Gay Kpelle ofCole Liberia(1967)

Smith, L. Navajo(1981) studentsMoore, C. G.(1982)

_

54

** Picuris AmericanIndian math involvesknowing when "not" tocount -- computational"silence"; a mathoperation that is nottypically performed in anAmerican Indian languagecreates conflict betweenwhat is linguisticallypossible and culturallyreal

** presenting mathconcepts in English with-out consideration ofKpelle languagedevelopment & culturalusage led to rotememorization withoutcomprehension of concepts

** styles of thought &communication in the Na-vajo language influencethe students' approach tolearning math concepts &solving problems

6.ALee, M. W. Black * Learning(1986) students styles &

computerprogramming

** Cognitive styles canbe more appropriatelymatched through the useof computers; self esteemis also enhanced** one's level of knowl-edge is increased r!henone functions competentlyin both the relational &analytical thinkingstyles** Black children areoften proficient in therelational learningstyles which emphasizevisual and audiostimuli & not in theanalytical skills valuedin American publicschools

Cole(1971)

Hale(1981)

Havighurst(1976)

SheingoldPea(1981)St3dolskyLesser(1967)

Webb(1983)

55

** teaching Blackchildren computer pro-gramming at an early ageprovides them opportuni-ties to develop analyti-cal thinking skills whiletheir environment isteaching them to functionwith relational thinkingskills

** cognition develops inconjunction with thebehaviors in which peopleengage in everyday life,regardless of ethnicgrouk affiliation

** a person's behavioralstyle is usually a cul-tural framework for howthat person views theworld; successful peopleintegrate differentstyles

** social classes &ethnic groups are twomajor ecological struc-tures that producediversity in human life-styles & development

** programming computersencourages development ofproblem-solving skills** different kinds of in-tellectual skills arefostered/hindered indifferent environments

** relational learnersfail in school far moreoften than analyticallearners

AmodeoBrown(1986)

Studentsfrom Mexico

* Differencesin Mexican &American schoolsregarding accepta-ble behavior

r-,

In Mexico:** students' interaction.7with their teachers tendto be formal

EstradaLaBelle(1979)

Mexicanstudents

* learning styles

56

** students are to bepunctualte* students are to res-pect authority** students are graded onmanners and academics** students are to beacknowledged beforespeaking** the lecture method iswidely used

** schools emphasizecooperation

6.0Valdivieso(1986)

Hispanicstudents

* Academicachievement

** Hispanics are ingreater need of a home-to-school link

7.AForeman(1987)

Ross(1932)

AmericanIndians

NativeAmericans

* Self-determination

* brainhemisphericfunctions

** Educational designswhich select one body ofinformation to bepresented to all studentsat a set time and at someforced rate cannotpossibly accommodate alllearners

** Native Americansare more dominant inright hemisphericthinking

7.BMcNeil(1987)

* Learnerdifferences

** the only valid schoolreform is that which con-siders students' varieddifferences & strengths

7.0More(1987)

MacArthur(1968)

NativeIndians

CanadianEskimos/NorthernCanadianIndians

* InternalCognitive Process

* fielddependence/independence

Native people evidence:** a higher frequencyand relative strength inglobal processing on bothverbal and non-verbaltasks** a relative strengthin simultaneousprocessing, but a

Weitz(1971)

John(1972)

Krywaniuk(1974)

Messer(1976)

WitkinMooreGoodenoughCox(1977)

DasKirbyJarman(1979)(1982)

BradshawNettleton(1981)

DasManosKanungo(1975)

Tafoya(1982)

KaufmanKaufman(1983)

GreenbaumGreenbaum(1983)

Kirby(1984)

Algonkian/Athapaskan

Navajochildren

NativeIndians

CanadianNative,Black &Whitechildren

AmericanIndians

Navajo &Sioux

AmericanIndians

* fielddependence/independence

* imagery

* simultaneous/successivecognitiveprocesses* impulsive/reflective

* fielddependence/independence

57

possibility thatsequential processingabilities develop muchslower than simultaneousskills because they arenot used in the primarygrades

** the possibility ofusing strengths insimultaneous processingto develop sequentialprocessing** a higher frequency andrelative strength inprocessing visual/spatialinformation** a higher frequency andrelative strength amongIndian students in usingimagery for coding

* simultaneous/ and understandingsuccessive ** reflective more thancognitive processes impulsive (or watch-

then-do rather thantrial-and-error)processing

* global/analytic

* cognitive &personality tests

* imagery/verbal coding

* simultaneous/successivecognitive processes

* imagery/verbal coding

* simultaneous/sequentialcognitive processes

More(1984)

Cullanine(1985)

Bryant(1986)

Karlebach(1986)

Williams(1986)

Vernon(1969)

Bowd(1971)

Kaulbach(1984)

Kleinfeld(1972)

Philips(1972)

EricksonMohatt(1982)

ScallanScallan(1983)

Okanagan/NicolaIndians

NativeIndians

NativeIndians

NativeIndians

TsimshianNativeIndians

NorthernCanadianIndians &Inuits

NativeIndians

AmericanIndians &Eskimos

Indians &Eskimos

Warm SpringsChildren

IndianStudents

* imagery/verbal coding* impulsive/reflective* field dependence/independence* global/analytic* simultaneous/successivecognitive processes

* fielddependence/independence* imagery/verbal coding

* imagery/verbal coding

* simultaneous/sequential processes

* External Conditions

* visual, auditory, andkinesthetic sensorymodes

* spatial/mechanicalabilities

* visual, auditory, andkinesthetic sensorymodes

* Teaching andCommunication Styles

* teaching styles/communication styles

* communication styles

* communication styles

* interethniccommunication styles

f;

58

SmithRenzulli(1984)

Vernon(1969)

Gue(1971)

Weitz(197.0

John(1972)

Philips(1972)

Berry(1976)

DavisPyatowski(1976)

Berry(1980)

Davidman(1981)

EriksonMohatt(1982)

Ross(1982)

Tafoya(1982)

ScallonScallon(1987)

NativeIndians

NativeCanadianIndians

NativeCanadianIndians

NavajoChildren

Warm SpringsChildren

NativeIndians

IndianChildren

NativeIndians

IndianChildren

Nativr.!

Americans

AmericanIndians

AmericanIndians

* teaching styles/learning styles

* Traditional LearningStyles

* global learning styles

* value orientations

* cross-culturalcognitive styles

* learning styles* storytelling

* communication styles

* cross-culturalcognitive styles

* value orientations

* communication styles

* learning styles

* communication styles

* brain hemisphericfunctions

* child-rearingpractices* learning styles* storytelling

* storytelling* talking about self* child-rearingpractices

6 i

59

ChrisjohnPeters(1986)

PepperHenry(1986)

7.DOgbu(1987)(1986)(1983)(1982a)(1982b)(1977)(1974)

AmericanIndians

NativeIndians

* self-testing* learning style

* brain hemisphericfunctions

* learning styles

60

Asian- * Cultural domainsAmerican, and minorityBlack, performance inChicano, schoolChinase, * Primary &Filipino, secondary culturalJapanese, diff(-:encesMexican American,Mexicano,Native American,Native Hawaiian,Puerto Rican,Punjabis,East Asian,West Indian,White American,Central & SouthAmerican immigrant students

f')

** The main factor dif-ferentiating more suc-cessful from less suc-cessful minorities ap-peared to be nature ofhistory, subordination,and exploitation of theminorities and nature ofthe minorities' owninstrumental and ex-pressive responses totheir treatment** students may attendschool with differentassumptions about"getting ahead" basedon primary culturaldifferences** minority groups who dowell in school are thosewho differ more from thedominant group inlanguage and culture** students may attendschool with a differentstyle of learning thanthe one emphasized atschool** the Chinese have atraditional style oflearning that emphasizesexternal forms & rotememorization** difficulties incrossing cultural/language boundaries, folktheory of making it andsurvival strategies, anddistrust of white peopleand the public schools

Suarez-Orozco Hispanics(1987)Matute-Bianchi(1986)Valverde(1987)Woolard(1982)

Coleman(1966)Slade(1982)

Gibson(1983)Matute-Bianchi(1986)Suarez-Orozco(1986)

* schoolachievement

* standardizedtesting

61

shape the schoolingstrategies of involuntaryminorities** in the 1930's, Asia'..American & Mexican-American students wereexperiencing difficultywith the English languagein American publicschools; by 1947, theAsian-Americans hadconquered the limitedlanguage proficiencyproblem but the Mexican-Americans were stillexperiencing difficulty** in the 1960's & 70's,Chinese, Filipino, &Japanese students didbetter than Black andMexican-Americanstudents in the sameschools

** Hispanics of Central &South America and Cubado better than Mexican-American, native-bornChicano, & Puerto Ricanstudents and are lesslikely to dropout

** Asian-Americanstudents did better thanother language &cultural minoritieson standard exams

** cross-culturalevidence of varibilityin minority schoolperformance facingcultural, language,and other barriers

62

Vogt Native *Cultural ** Culturally specificJordaL Hawaiian compatibility/ compatibilities contri-Tharp & Navajo incompatib3V,Ay bute to educational cf-(1987) children fectiveness; cultural

incompatibility is onecredible explanation forschool failure; elementsfound effective forNative Hawaiian childrenare not culturally com-patible or effective forNavajo children** Hawaiian teaching-learning interactions arecharacterized byvoluntary participation;traditional school-culture script is "oneperson at a time"** indirect rraise andpraise to a group moreeffective than directpraise of one child** industriousnessrequired school adapta-tion to children'sculturally based skillsand inclinations** management routinescompatible with Navajoculture were moreeffective: ignoringmisbehavior or loweringone's eyes, indirectlyreferring to the misdeedwhile praising honorablebehavior standards

Au Native * reading ** emphasis on teacher(1980) Hawaiian comprehension responsiveness to

children children's talkAu generated spontaneousJordan change in interaction(1981) style and sociolinguistic

participation structures

Cazden American * thought ** holistic nature-ofJohn Indians processes/ thought characterized by(1971) holistic a preference for workingJohn with the whole before(1972) attempting analysis of

Phillips(1972)WhiteTharpJordanVogt(198E)

parts or sections(linear)

63

Crowell Native * positive ** motiw '_on, content(1977) Hawaiian reinforcement & coverage, & industrious-Gallimore children on-task behavior ness did not result inBoggs school success asJordan measured on standardized(1974) tests; selection of

educational practicesKlein based, in part, on their(1981) cultural compatibility

produced success onstandardized readingtests

D'Amato Native(19S6) Hawaiian

chilt.3-en

Jordan Native(1977) Hawaiian

children

Gallimore NativeBoggs HawaiianJordan children(1974)Jordan(1977)(1984)

Jordan NavajoTharp childrenVogt(1985)

* personalinteraction

* instructionalpractice

* classroominteraction

* male/femaleroles

ET, 5

** balance requiredbetween warmt:. or soli-darity and toughness orautonomy; these extremeswere ineffective withNavajo children

** emphasis on compre-hension, focusing onmeaning over decontex-tualized skills drill, ismore effective

** pattern of multiplecaretakers and companiongroups in natal culturemanifests itself in highrates of peer inter-action, frequent scanningfor other children'serrors, and offering andsoliciting peer help

** separation of sexes,learly defines culturalroles

Anderson(1988)

AllportPettigrew(1957)

Bruner(1966)

Witkin(1967)

Wober(1967)

GagneCephart(1968)

KillbricRobbins(1968)

McNeil(1968)

Cohen(1969)

McNeilPhillips(1969)

Anglo-European * Cognitive/Whites, Learning StylesCajun Whites,Appalachian Anglos,American Indians,Mexican-Americans,African-Americans,Vietnamese-Americans.Puerto Rican-AmericansChinese-MericansJapane-e-AmericansEuropeans

African &EuropeanChildren

African &EuropeanChildren

Africans

Blacks

Blacks &Whites

Blacks &Whites

Mexican-American,Puerto Rican,& Blackchildren

Blacks &Whites

* perception ofmovement

* perception ofconservationtask

* environmentalfactors

* cognitivesystems

* disjunctive/conjunctiveconcepts

* linearperspective* depth

* schoolenvironment

* schoolenvironment* fielddependence/independence* communicationstyle

* schoolenvironment

611

64

Non-Westernpopulations often:** differ in worldviews and cosmicorientations** emphasize groupcooperation*4 reflect groupvs. individualachievement** value harmonywith nature** experience timeas relative** accept affec-tive expression** comes fromextended families** thinkholistically** view religion asinseparable fromculture rather thanas a distinct part** accept the worldview of othercultures withoutexpressing thesuperiority of theirown** are socially, nottask, oriented** percei\e elementsas a part of a totalpicturep6rdepb&sh on verbaltasks** learn better frommaterials which have ahuman/social contentand which are character-ized by fantasy and humor** are stronglyinfluenced byauthority figures'expressions ofconfidence or doubtin their performance

** often find theirlearning styles con-flict with traditional

Mbiti(1970)Ma3sick(1970)

DregoskiSerpell(1974)

KaganMadsen(1971)

Wilson(1971)

Matthews(1973)

Ramirez(1973)

RamirezPrice-Williams(1974)

Vygotsky(1978)

Cooper(1980)

McDermott(1980)

Baldwin(1980)

Brown(1986)

Sandefur(1987)

Africans

MeNican-Americans

African &Europeanchildren

Mexican,Mexican-American,Anglo-AmericanChildren

B),cks &Whites

Mexican-Americans

Mexican-Americans &Anglo-Americans

Blacks

Blacks

Blacks

* worldorientation* fielddependence/independence* classificationsystem

* motivationalstyles

* learning styles

1_

school environments** often find theircommunication stylesconflict with Westerncommunication styles** use imageryas a dominant wayof thinking, writing,conceptualizing, andspeaking** tend to use thesecond person"you" to refllctgroup identity** think in descrip-tive abstractions** perceive thoughtas wholistic

* evaluation ** emphasize exten-of reality sive expression of* cognitive systems concrete emotional

words and metaphors* field ** introduce them-dependence/ selves into theindependence objectives of events

* fielddependence/independence* motivationalstyles

* communicationstyle

* holisticlearning* communicationstyle

* holistic/affective learning

* worldorientation

* holistic/affective learning

* t.maching styles

i 0

vicmrn.V .ilINNII.MilliMW=IMMITO110"

8.BBanks(1988)

LesserFiferClark(1965)

LesserFiferClark(1967)

Burnes(1970)

Backman(1972)

Black,Chinese,IrishCatholic,Jewish,Mexican-American,Puerto Rican,White students

* Ethnicity,class, cognitive,and motivationalltyles

Chinese,Jewish,Black,Puerto Ricanstudents

Chinese,Black,IrishCatholicstudents

* verbal ability;reasoning; numberfacility; spaceconceptualization

** While c.thnicityis to some extentclass sensitive, itseffects persistacross social-classsegments within anethnic group** social class causeswithin-ethni,l-groupvariations as well

** the 4 ethnicgroups were markedlydifferent in boththe level of eachmental ability andthe pattern amongnose abilities

* replication of ** data for Ch3nse'65 study; verbal; and Black studentsability; reasoning; similar to data onnumber facility; these fr-Im earlierspace conceptuali- study; I.C. showedzation neither a distinc-

tive ethnic-grouppattern nor simi-larity of patternsfor the two socialclasses (middle andlower)

Black & * scores on WISCWhite students

* mental abilityfactors and rela-tion to ethnicity,social class, andsex

** igiificantsouial-class dif-ferences in scores,but no significantracial class dif-ferences; scores onsub-tests for Blacksand Whites did notshow a pattern byrace or culturalgroup

** sex accounts f.:+1,769% of the totalvariance in theshape of patterns;ethnicity for 13%;social-class group, 2%

SiegelAndersonShapiro(1966)

OrasanuLeeScribner(1979)

Rychlak(1975)

Trotman(1977)

E'ackudents

&

ELackc-_ldren

&

,L_ack

clldren

Black &Whitestuat:nts

* categorizationbehavior of lower-class and middle-class preschool

* development ofcategory organiza-tion and freerecall

* affectivelearning styles

* socialization &intellectual envi-ronment

67

** lower-class andmiddle-class child-ren differed intheir ability togroup pictures, notobjects; 1.c. child-ren formed groupsbased on interdepen-dence of items; m.c.children formedgrouped on basis ofcommon physical at-tributes

** White childrensorted taxonomicallymore often than didBlack children, whoshowed preferencefor functional sort-ing; although theyshowed differences inorganizational pre-ferences, theyshowed no differ-ences in recall

** moving from posi-tive to negativereinforcement valueacross lists re-sulted in less non-specific transferthan moving fromnegative to positivereinforcement acrosssuccessive lists;the pattern was moreapparent for Blacksthan Whites, forlower class than middleclass students

** higher level ofintellectual homeenvironment for m.c.Wnites than for m.c.Blacks; culturaldifference in homeexperience andparent-child inter-actions in Black and

Moore(1985)

KamiiRadin(1967)

Witkin(1950 & 1962)Witkin &Goodenough(1981)

RamirezCastaneda(1974)

Cohen(1969)

Blackchildren

Blackmothers &their pre-school children

Mexican-Americanstudents

* intelligencetest performancesas indicated byWISC scores

* socializationpractices

* learning styles;field dependence/independence

* field indepen-dent & field sen-sitive learningstyles &behaviors

* analytic &relationallearning styles

71)

68

White families ofsame social class** Black childrenadopted by Whitefamilies scoredhigher

** practices oflower-lower and mid-dle-class Blackmothers differ signi-ficantly -- socialclass is not a deter-minant of behaviorbut a statement ofprobability that atype of behavior islikely to occur

** some learners arefield independent andeasily perceive ahidden figure on theEmbedded FiguresTest while others arefield dependent andfind it difficult toperceive because ofthe obscuring design

1, Mexican-Americanchildren tend to befield sensitive(like to work withothers to achieve acommon goal) and aresensitive to thefeelings and opinionsof others; teachers pre-fer field-independentstudents and assign themhigher grades, thoughcognitive style is notrelated to measuredintelligence or IQ

** styles of thinkingare produced by thekinds of families andgroups in to whichstudents are socialized

RamirezPrice-Williams(1974)

Perney(1976)

GarnerCole(1986)

BattleRotter(1963)

Mexican-American,Black, &Anglo students

Black &Whitestudents

* field dependent/independent

69

** Black and Mexican-American students scoredin a significantly morefield dependent directionthan did Anglos;teachers' level of fieldindependence does notdiffer significantly fromthat of Anglo students;social-class effect wasnot significant in thestudy

* field dependent/ ** significant fieldindependent dependence differences

between Black and Whitestudents and betweenmales & females; Blackfemales were the mostfield dependent subjectsin the study

* field dependent/ ** both field dependentindependent, locus and locus of control areof control related to academic

achievement with fielddependence being moreimportant; when locus ofcontrol and field depen-dence were combined,locus of controldominated

* locus ofcontrol

** locus of control isrelated primarily tosocial class rather thanrace or ethnicity

8.0CarboHodges(1988)Carbo(1987)CarboDunnDunn(1986)Della ValleDunnDunnGeisart

Review of * Learningliterature styles

7 3

** Research indicatesthat many at-risk stu-dents have not beentaught with strategies,methods, materials thataccommodate their learn-ing style preferencesand strengths** mismatching students'learning styles with in-struction results intheir feeling anxious &even physically ill;

SinatraZenhausern(1988)Dunn(1988)

DunnDeBelloBrennanMurrain(1981)DunnDunn(1978)Hamilton(1983)Hart(1983)Hodges(1982)(3985)(1987)Kroon(1985)LaShell(1986)Lynch(1981)Perrin(1984)Sudzina(1987)Wedlund(1987)Wheeler(1980)

the cerebrum "downshifts"during anxiety** when learning styleshave been matched toappropriate instructional

approaches, teachers havereported sharp decreasesin stress** Strategies for basinginstruction on learningstyles:** identify & matchlearning style strengths** share learning styleinformation with students** deemphasize skill workrequirinig stronglyanalytic learning style** use a variety ofmethods in reading** involve the tactile &kinesthetic modalities ofthe learner & includemany visuals** provide appropriateamounts of structure** allow students towork based on sociolog-ical preferences** establish quietworking areas** create at least onespeciil work area in aclassr.jom** experiment with sched-uling the most difficultsubjects during late mor-ning/early noon hour

8.D_Rhodes Hopi, * Holistic ** The thought processes(1988) Navajo Teaching/Learning required & encouraged for

students survival on the reserva-tion are quite differentfrom those required andencouraged for survivalin institutions ofhigher education** Native Americanlearning styles emphasize

71

** the process of story-telling rather thanemphasis on major pointsor chronology; the "wholepicture" is stressed** use of the presenta-tional or group argumen-tative process, a circu-lar or spiral processrather than a linear one** holistic observedonaltechniques over cate-gorization techniques** consensus in decisionmaking** responsibility forchildren at an early age

Becktell Navajo * learning ** the Navajo learning(1986) learners process process is composed of 4

components: (1) observe,(2) think, (3) ux2er-stand/feel, (4) a:t vs.the Anglo: (1) act, (2)

observe/think/clarify,(3) understand

McCartin American * testing ** though scores ofSchill Indian American Indian students(1977) students tend to fall off inBass higher grades on achieve-Burger ment tests, they continue(1967-68) to score well on non-Havighurst verbal tests(1957)Dennis(1943)

Wdllis Indian * holistic ** requires holistic(1984) students teaching/ approach to educate

learning Indian students

Werner Navajo * learning ** Anglos learn throPghBegishe learners process trial & error; Navajcs(1986) learn before they try &

expect trial & success

1 Note: In entries for which subjects are not identified, multiple groupswere involved.

2 Note: More's use of "Native Indians" typically refers to CanadianIndians although he uses the term interchangeably with "American Indians."3 Note: Names of ethnic and tribal groups have been categorized accordingto the original researcher's/writer's terms and spellings.

APPENDIX B

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF AUTHORS/FESEARCHERSCODED TO CATEGORIZATION

Abelson 1.AAcland ,...E

Akbar 1.AAlbas, C. A. 5.FAlbas, D. C. 5.FAllen 5.AAllport 8.AAmodeo 6.BAnderson 8.BAnhelm 5.FAnnis 5.FAu 7.EBackman 8.BBaker 5.GBaldwin 8.ABane 4.EBanks 8.BBass 8.DBattle 8.BBayard 2.BBeattie 2.FBeaulieu 5.FBecktell 8.DBegishe 8.DBerry 7.0Black 1.ABoggs 7.EBounds 3.ABowd 7.0Boykin 1.ABradley 4.B, 5.GBradshaw 7.0Brazelton A.1Brennan 8.0Brown 6.B, 8.ABruner 8.ABryant 7.0Burnes 8.BBurger 8.DBuriel 5.FButterfield 1.ACantor 5.GCarbo C CCardell 4.BCattey 0.A, 5,FCazden 7.ECheek 4.AChilcott 5.BChrisjohn 7.0Clark 8.B

AUTHORS/RESEARCHERS

7 f;

75

Closs 5.GCohen, D. 4.ECohen, R. A. 1.A, 8.A, 8.BCole, E. G. 8.BCole, M. 5.F, 6.AColeman 7.DCooper 8.ACox 5.F, 7.0Cross 4.BCullanine 7.0D'Amato 7.EDas 7.0Dasen 5.FDavidman 7.0Davis, T. 7.0Davison 5.GDe Bello 8.0Della Valle 8.0Dennis 5.F, 8.DDeregowski 8.ADixon 1.ADunn, K. 8.0Dunn, R. 8.07;chohawk 2.FElliott 3.AErickson 7.0Esen 1 AEstrada 6.8Fifer 8.BFoster 5.FForeman 7.AFreark 2.AFrost 5.FGagne 8.AGallimore 7.EGarner 8.BGay 5.F, R.G, 6.AGeisart 8.0Gephart 8.AGibson 7.DGill 5.DGingerich 0.BGitter 1.AGlick 5.F, 6.AGoldman 1.AGoodenough 5.F, 7.C, 8.BGranzberg 5.FGreen 4.BGreenbaum, F. 7.0Greenbaurn, S. 7.0Gridley 5.DGue 7.0

Gurin, G.Gurin, P.GuthrieHaleHallHalpinHamiltonHartHavighurstHendersonHenryHilliard

2.F2.F4.E1.A,4.E0.C,8.08.06.A,4.E,7.01.A

6.A

5.F

8.D5.F

Hodges 8.0Holsinger 2.FHolt 1.AHunt, J. 1.AHunt, L. 5.FHynd 5.FJarmen 7.0Jencks 4.EJessor, R. 2.FJessor, S. L. 2.FJohn 0.A, 7.C,Jones 2.FJordan, C. 7.EKagan 5.F, 8.AKamii 8.BKanungo 7.0Karlebach 7.0Kaufman, A. S. 7.0Kaufman, N. L. 7.0Kaulbach 7.0Keefe 5.0Killbride 8.AKirby 7.0Klein 7.EKleinfeld 5.F, 7.0Knight 2.BKroon 8.0Krywaniuk 7.0Kuhlberg 2.FLaBelle 6.BLanguis 5.0Lao 2.FLaShell 8.0Laylin 5.GLeBrasseur 2.ALeap 5.GLee, C. 8.BLee, M. W. 6.ALefcourt 2.FLesser 6.A, 8.B

7.E

LesterLetteriLewis 0.BLight 5.DLlewellyn 5.DLoflin 4.0Lourie 1.ALutz 4.BLynch 8.0Madsen 5.F, 8.AMahan 4.D, 4.EManos 7.0Marans 1.AMarashio 2.0Martin, J. C. 5.FMartin, R. E. 5.DMatthews 8.AMatute-Bianchi 7.0Mbiti 8.AMcArthur 5.F, 7.0McCartin 8.DMcClintock, C. 2.BMcClintock, E. 2.BMcCluskey 5.F

8.A8.A7.B5.G7.0

7.05.F, 7.04.B, 5.G8.B7.01.A1.A2.F8.07.01.A5.F5.F4.E, 5.E, 7.D5.D

1.A

McDermottMcNeil, K.McNeil, L.McNettMesserMessickMohattMoore, C. A.Moore, C. G.Moore, E.MoreMorganMostofskyMunroMurrainNettletonNewmeyerNortonOdellOgbuOplerOrasanuOsborneParsonsPeaPepperPerneyPerrin

8.B5.F2.F6.A7.08.B8.0

7 ;)

77

Peters 7.0Pettigrew R.APhilips 7.C, 7.EPhillips 8.APiestrup 1.APosen 2.FPrice-Williams 8.APyatowsky 7.0Radin 8.BRamirez 8.A, 8.BRenker 5.GRenzulli 7.0Reynolds 2.FRhodes 8.DRibal 2.BRichardson 8.BRobbins 8.ARoss 2.D, 7.A, 7.0Rotter 8.BRychlak 8.BRyckman 2.FSampson 5.FSandcur 8.ASanders 1.ASapp 3.ASawyer 2.BScallon, R. 2.E, 7.0Scallon, S. 2.E, 7.0Schill 8.DSchindler 5.GSchneider 2.FScott, P. B. 4.AScott, S. 0.A, 5.FScribner 5.F, 8.BSeitz 1.ASerpell 5.F, 8.AShannon 5.FShapiro 8.BSharp 5.F, 6.ASheingold 6.ASiegel 8.BSilberman 1.ASinatra 8.0Slade 7.DSmith, L. 4.B, 5.GSmith, L. H. 7.0Smith, M. 4.EStaub 2.BSteinberg 5.FStodolsky 6.ASuarez-Orozco 7.DSudzina 8.0

_

78

Swanson 5.FTafoyaTerrell, D.

2.e,5.D

5.F, 7.0

Terrell, J. E. 5.DTharp 7.ETrimble 2.FTrotman 8.BTyler 2.FUzgiris 1.AValdivieso 6.0Valverde 7.DVernon 7.0Vogt 7.EVygotski 8.AWachs 1.AWallis 8.DWebb 6.AWedlund 8.0WeedWeitz

0.A,7.0

5.F

Werner 8.DWheeler 8.0WhiddonWhite

0.C,7.E

5.F

Williams 7.0Wilson 8.AWitkinWober

"..F,

8.A7.C, 8.A, 8.B

Woolard 7.DYoung 1.AZenhausern 8.0Zigler I.AZoppel 2.P

80

APPENDIX CTAXONOMY OF LEARNING STYLE ASPECTS

AND LEARNER ORIENTATIONS

i 2

81

TAXONOMY

ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSabstraction/ * metaphoric ability . . . lack of creativeoperational level conceptualization

* abstract . . . ...oncreteFINDINGS:

Native Americans are more right domin-r. hemispheric thinking (relatedto creative abilities).

Native Americans may benefit from both operative and psychometricintelligence investigations.

A higher frequency and relative strength was found among Indian studentsin using imagery for coding and understanding.

Non-Western populations often use imagery as a dominant way of thinking,writing, conceptualizing, and speaking; think in descriptive abstractions;and emphasize extensiNie expression of concrete emotional words andmetaphors.

SOURCES: Anderson, 1988; Dregoski & Serpell, 1074; John, 1972; More, 1987;Osborne, 1985; Sampson, 1981.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»,..>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONScoding * imagery . . . verbal/semantics

* abstract . . . concreteFINDINGS:

Navajo children excel in spelling ('visual), while Anglos excel invocabulary (verbal).

Indian chil,ren learn more rapidly through imitation and direct visualand tactile experiences than through verbal processes.

Native Indians evidence a higher frequency and relative strength inglobal processing on both verbal and nonverbal tasks, and in using imageryfor coding and understanding.

Native students tend to use imagery coding (both abstract and concrete)while non-Native students use verbal ceding (labels or definitions).

Both the Chinese and the Navajo cultures employ right- hemisphericallyoriented myths, metaphors, symbols and allegories.

Non-Western populations use imagery as a dominant way of thinking,writing, conceptualizing and speaking.

Non-Western populations think in descriptive abstractions.

SOURCES: Anderson, 1988; Bryant, 1986; Cattey, 1980; Coombs, 1958; Coombs &Coleman; Greenbaum & Greerbaum, 1983; Havighurst, 1957; John, 1972;Karlebach, 1926; More, 1984, 1987; Tafoya, 1982.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONScommunication * verbal . . . non-verbal

* oral . . . aural* orality literacy . . . essayiLA literacy

82

FINDINGS:The Afro-American &ild uses language requiring a wide use of many

coined interjections; uses considerable body language; relies on words thatdepend upon context for meaning; prefers using expressions that have severalconnotations; adopts a systematic use of nuances of intonation and bodylanguage such as eye movement and positioning; prefers oral-aural modalitiesfor learning communication; and is highly sensitive to others' nonverbalcues.

Black children were found to be more feeling oriented, people oriented,and more proficient at nonverbal communication than White children.

Black culture emphasizes the nonverbal; experience counts, not what issaid.

Black culture develops proficiency in nonverbal communication.Factors which creat good rapport in teacher-Black student interaction

include: warmth, verbal interplay during instruction, rhythmic style ofspeech and distinctive intonation in speech patterns.

Stylistic dimensions of the oral tradition in Black culture include calland response, rhythmic patterns, spontaneity and concreteness.

Athabaskan Indian children demonstrate orality literacy rather thanessayist literacy.

Traditional Indian communities have highly sophisticated forms ofnonverbal communication.

Native North Americans may identify emotions from vocalizations bymembers of their own culture far more accurately than those by members ofother cultures; may perceive nonverbal behaviors of teachers differentlybecause of cultural identity; may develop a broad cluster of spatial-field-independence abilities and a distinctive cluster of abilities involvinginductive reasoning from nonverbal stimuli because of ecology and child-rearing prac_ices; and evilence a higher frequency and relative strength inglobal r-ocessing on both verbal and nonverbal tasks.

No11-Western populations do best on verbal tasks and often find theircommunication styles are in variance with the Western communication styles.

Concrete/abstract differences may be more an indication that culturallyirrelevant ideas become more relevant when presented concretely.

The Native American system of legends is the best example of imagerycoding.

The Navajo custom of retice ce on a first encounter with anunfamiliar person or situation creates difficulties on the very first day ofschool.

SOURCES: Abkar, 1975; Albas, McCluskey, Albas, 1976; Anderson, 1988; Berry,1980; Bradley, 1984; Cohen, 1969; Cooper, 1980, Erickson & Mohatt, 1982;Gibson, 1983; Gitter, Black & Mostofsky, 1972; Hale, 198-; Wlliard, 1976;Kleinfeld, 1972; Lester, 1969; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; More, 1987; Newmeyer,1970; Ogbu, 1974, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987; Osborne, 1985;Philips, 1972; Piestrup, 1973; Scallon & Scallon, 1979a, 1983; Silberman,1970; Smith & Renzulli, 1984; Suarez-Orozco, 1986; Tafoya, 1982; Vygotski,1978; Young, 1970.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»

83

ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONbdiscipline * misbehavior punished . . . misbehavior

ignored* stringent/structured . . . learn from

national consequencesFINDINGS:

Navajo students rebel against the stringent discipline of high schoolsand choose not to study the most disciplined, visible Western forms ofeducation.

Threats of physical punishment and force are unacceptable andineffective methods of behavioral control in Navajo culture while teasing orshaming are common.

In traditional American Indian cultures, obedience is approachedthrough explarations for desired behavior, the grandparent serves as maindisciplinarian, and there is rigorous training to teach moral standards anddevelop character.

Culturally specific management routines compatible with Navajo cultureare more effective: ignoring misbehavior or lowering one's eyes, indirectlyreferring to the misdeed while praising honorable behavior standards.

SOURCES: Bradley, 1984; Green, 1977; Guthrie & Hall, 1981; Jencks, Smith,Acland, Bane, Cohen, Gintis, Hayns, Michelson, 1972; Light & Martin, 1985;Mahan & Henderson, 1984; Ogbu, 1978; Opler, 194t.; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSevaluation * teacher controlled . . . student initiated

* teacher test . . . self testFINDINGS:

Traditional American Indian learning focuses on process over product,legends and stories as traditional teaching paradigms, knowledge obtainedfrom the self, and cognitive development through problem-solving techniques.

Native American people evidence reflective more than 57rIllsiveprocessing (watch-then-do vs. trial-and-error).

Though scores of American Indian students tend to fall off in highergrades on achievement tests, they c%...L.inue to scora well on nonverbal tests.

SOURCES: Bass & Burger, 1967-68; Dennis, 1943; Havighurst, 1957; McCartin &Schill, 1977; More, 1987; Rhodes, 1988; Scallon & Scallon, 1983; Tafoya,1982.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSfamily * interdependence . . . independencerelationship/ * extended . . . nuclearinteraction

FINDINGS:An important determinant of education attainment is family background.Family size and ordinal position of the child may interact with other

factors in influencing prosocial behavior.The larger size of the Mexican-American family, strength of

familial interdependence, and patterning of relationships are reported as

84

reasons for their relatively greater preference for cooperative or prosocialoutcomes in interdependent situations.

Larger family size is associated positively with generosity.Traditional American Indian child-rearing practices focus on children

observing from subordinate positions.Navajo children are given tremendous responsibility at a very young age.

Navajo girls, as members of a matrilintal culture, have prestige andinfluence over what happens in the home and are often owne..s of livestock andmaterials.

American Indians attach a high degree of importance to enildhood as thetime for beliefs, values, and attit4des instruction.

Native North American Indians may develop a broad cluster of spatial-field-independence abilities and a distinctive cluster of abilities involvinginductive reasoning from nonverbal stimuli because of ecology and child-rearing practices.

The patterr. of multiple caretakers and companion groups in NativeHawaiian natal culture manifests itself in high rates of peer interaction,frequent scanning for other children's errors, and offering and solicitingpeer help.

Separation of sexes in traditional Navajo families cledrly definescultural roles.

Styles of thinking are produced by the kinds of families and groups intowhich students are socialized--Black children adopted by White families werefound to score higher.

When compared with Caucasian and Black babies, Chinese babies are moreamenable and adaptable in situations where other babies register annoyanceand crmplaire-

Zambian mothers' high con4.act, loving environment for their babiesprovides more handling and feeding contact, thereby producing morestimulation, alertness, social interest, and consolability in their children.

In the Nigerian culture, children grow up in a social networkcharacterized by physical closeness, acceptance, and care.

SOURCES: Banks, 1988; Brazelton, Young & Bullowa, 1971; Cattey, 1980; Cohen,1969; Esen, 1973; Freedman, 1979; Gallimore, Boggs & Jo-dan, 1974; Gill,1982; Guthrie & Hall, 1981; Hale, 1981; Halpin, Halpin & Whiddon, 1980;Jencks, Smith, Acland, Bane, Cohen, Gintis, Heyns, Michelson, 1972; Jordan,1977, 1984; Jordan, Tharp & Vogt, 1985; Knight & Kagan, 1982; Light & Martin,1985; McClintock, Bayard & McClintock, 1979; Mahan & Henderson, 1984; Moore,1985; More, 1987; Ogbu, 1978; Osborne, 1985; Ribal, 1963; Sawyer, 1966;Scallon & Scallon, 1979b, 1983; Staub, 1970, 1971a, 1971b; Tafoya, 1982;Valdivieso, 1986; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSfield dependence/ * less able to separate part from whole .

independence able to impose organizational structure

FINDINGS:Afro-American people tend to view things in their entirety and not as

isolated parts and to approximate space, number, and time instead of aimingfor complete accuracy.

85

* Significant field dependence differences exist between Black and Whitestudents and between males and females; Black, -emales evidence the mostfield-dependence.* Native North American Indians may develop a broad cluster of spatial-field-independence ,bilities and a distinctive cluster of abilities involvinginductive reasoning from nonverbal stimuli because of ecology and child-rearing practices.* Native American pec?le evidence a higher frequency and relative strengthin global processing on both verbal and nonverbal tasks.* Native North American Indians evidence a relative strength insimultaneous processing, but a possibility that sequential processingabilities develop much slower than simultaneous skills because they are notused in the primary grades.* A field dependent person is less able to separate a part from the whole,but is more conscious of other people and therefore often socially intuitive.

SOUW:ES: Anderson, 1988; Banks, 1988; Cohen, 1969; Cullanine, 1985; Garner* Cole, 1986; Hale, 1981; Hilliard, 1976; Kagan &Buriel, 1977; MacArthur,1968; Messick, 1970; More, 1984, 1987; Osborne, 1985; Perney, 1976; Ramirez,1973; Ramirez E Castaneda, 1976; Ramirez & Price-Williams, 1974; Weitz, 1971;Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977; Witkin, 1950, 1962; Witkin &Goodenough, 1981.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»+>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONShemispheric * right . . . leftorientation * holistic . . . logical, analytical

* divergent . . . convergent* intuition . . . intellect* subjective . . . objective* concept formation . . . specialization

FINDINGS:* Both the Chinese and the Navajo cultures employ right- hemisphericallyoriented myths, metaphors, symbols, and allegories.* Navajos demonstrate a left-ear (right cerebral hemisphere) advantagecompared to the traditional right ear in Anglos.* Native Americans are more dominant in right hemispheric thinking.* Native North Americans are more dominant in right hemispheric thinkingrelated to creative abilities.* Relational learners fail in scnool far more often than analyticalJearners.

SOURCES: Cattey, 1960; Chrisjohn & Peters, 1986; Foreman, 1987; Lee, 1986;More, 1987; Osborne, 1985; Ross, 1982; Scott, 1979; Scott, Hynd, Hunt & Weed,1979; Webb, 1983; Witkin, 1977.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ASPECT YEARNER ORIENTATIONSinformation A simultaneous . . . sequentialprocessing * holistic, emphasizing whole . . .

system/ analytic, emphasizing individual parts

rel

86

cognitive * integrates without temporal ordering . . .

processing integrates with temporal or serial ordering* spatial events . . verbal events* memorization ability . . . lack of highlydeveloped memorization ability

* approximation . . . accuracy

FINDINGS:Afro-American people tend to view things in their entirety and not as

isolated parts; to prefer inferential reasoning rather than deductive orinductive reasoning; and to approximate space, number and time instead ofaiming for complete accuracy.

Navajo students speak a language that does rlt have a word fmultiply, divide, if, cosine or sine, nor do stuLmts Lave the beliefL.associated with them.

Navajo students find it difficult to accept (i) equations as equal ifthe member parts are not identical and (2) problems in which a hypotheticalsituation is expressed.

Navajo students learn more effectively through culture-based mathematicsthough main-stream mathematics cannot be pushed aside; very little researchhas been done relating the indigenous math,..matics of Native Americans toschool mathematics.

In traditional Indj.an cultures, children are required to developexcellent memory skills, skIlls which may be a barrier in higher mathematics.

American Indians' holistic nature of thought characterizes a preferencefor working with the whole before attempting analysis of parts or sections(linear).

Black, Chinese, Jewish, and Puerto Rican students are markedly differentin both the level of each mental ability and the pattern among thoseabilities.

Black students, lower-class and middle-class children differ in theirability to group pictures, not objects; lower-class children form groupsbased on interdependence of items; middle-class children formed grouped onbasis of common physical attributes.

White children sort taxonomically more often than do Black childrenwhoshow preference for functional sorting; although they show differences inorganizational preferences, they show no differences in recall.

Indian students use simultaneous processing more frequently andeffectively than non-Indian students, particularly non-assimilated Indianstudents.

For students whose internal cognitive processing emphasizes the globalor holistic, whole language and sight-word vocabulary building are mo:leeffective t1Lan the more traditional phonics and sounding-out-wordsapproaches.

SOURCES: Banks, 1988; Bradley, 1984; Cazden & John, 1971; Cohen, 1969; Das,Kirby & Jarman, 1979, 1982; Gardner, 1959; Hale, 1981; Hilliard, 1976; John,1972; Kagan, 1966; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983; Kirby, 1984; Krywaniuk, 1974;Lesser, Fifer & Clark, 1965, 1967; Moore, 1982; More, 1984, 1987; Orasanu,Lee & Scribner, 1979; Philips, 1972; Siegel, Anderson & Shapiro, 1966; Smith,1981; Swisher & Deyhle, 1987; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987; White, Tharp,Jordan & Vogt, 1988.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»:.>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSlearning pattern/ * holistic . . . utilitariancognitive style * applications oriented . . . theory oriented

* conjunctive concepts . . . disjunctiveconcepts

* cognitive . . . affective . .

physiologicalFINDINGS:

Traditional American Indian learnt j focuses on process over product,legends and stories as traditional teaLning paradigms, knowledge obtainedfrom the self, colnitive development through problem-solving techniques.

The application-oriented approach in teaching math may be even moreimportant to Native students.

Navajo students learn more effectively through culture-basedmathematics though mainstream mathematics cannot be pushed asid ; verylittle research has been done relating the indigenous mathematics of NativeAmericans to school mathematics.

Navajo students in traditional Indian c-'tures are required to developexcellent memory skills, skills which may be , barrier in higher mathematics.

Socioeconomic and cultural factors influence the effectiveness ofeducation for the Navajo perception of education as an all-encompassing,life-long process contrasted with the instituUonal systemized, andfragmented nature of mainstream, educational approaches.

American Indians are often unable to solve mathematics problems that arenot perceived as culturally relevant.

Native speakers of Navajo find it difficult to construct an exactlyparallel systematic analysis of math concepts in English.

Picuris American Indian math involves knowing when "not" to count --computational "silence"; a math operation that is not typically performed inan American Indian language creates conflict between what is linguisticallypossible and culturally real.

Presenting math concepts in English without consideration of Kpelle (ofLiberia) language development and cultural usage led to rote memorizationwithout comprehension of concepts.

Navajo students' styles of thought and cGAmunication in the Navajolanguage influence the students' approach to learning math concepts andsolving problems.

A higher frequency and relative strength in processing visual/spatialinformation.

Native Hawaiian children's motivation, content coverage andindustriousness dors not result in school success as measured on standardizedtests; selection of educational practices based, in part, on their culturalcompatibility produces success on standardized reading tests.

Native Hawaiian child-rearing patterns of multiple caretakers andcompanion groups in natal culture manifests itself in high rates of peerinteraction, frequent scanning for other children's errors, and offering andsoliciting peer help.

Africans are socially, not task, oriented.The Chinese have a traditional style of learning that emphasizes

external forms and rote memorization.

bf)

SOURCES: Anderson, 1988; ...lanks, 1988; Becktell, 1986; Bradley, 1984;Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1981; Brown, 1986; Cheek, 1984; Cooper, 1980; Das,Kirby & Jarman 1979, 1982; Das, Manos & Kanungo, 1975; Davidman, 1981; Gagne& Gephart, 1968; Gallimore, Boggs & Jordan, 1974; Gay & Cole, 1967; Guthriey Hall, 1981; Jencks, 1972; John, 1972; Jordan, 1977, 1984; Kaufman &

Kaufman, 1983; Killbride & Robbins, 1968; Kirby, 1984; Krywaniuk, 1974; Leap,McNett, Cantor, Baker, Laylin & Renker, 1982; Lesser, Fifer & Clark, 1965,1967; Mahan & Henderson, 1984; Marashio, 1982; Matthews, 1973; McDermott,1980; Messer, 1976, Moore, 15.'82; More, 1984, 1987; Norton, 1975; Ogbu, 1974,1977, 1978, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987; Osborne, 1985; Pepper & Henry,1986; Rhodes, 1988; Scallon & Scallon, 1983; Schindler & Davison, 1935;Scott, 1983; Smith, L., 1981; Tafoya, 1982; Vernon, 1969; Vogt, Jordan &Tharp, 1987; Wallis, 1984; Weitz, 1971; Werner & 1986; Williams,1986; Wilson, 1971; Wober, 1967.

>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSlocus of control * internal . . . external

FINDINGS:Specific parental behaviors across both American Indian and White

cultures appear to be antecedents of an internal locus of control andpositive self-esteem.

Ethnic minorities and those from low SES levels score in a more externallocus of control direction than Caucasians.

Differences in locus of control for Black students may disappear withadequat.e SES controls.

Measuring locus of ..:ontrol for Black youth requires distinguishing howmuch control one believes most people in society possess (ideologicalcontrol) and how much control one believes one personally possesses (personalcontrol).

Native North American cultures may define self-control differently thanother cultlres.

The Chinese have a traditional style learning that emphasizesexternal forms and rote memorization.

Both field dependr_nce and locus of control are related to academicachievement with field dependence being more important.

Locus of control is related primarily to social class rather than raceor ethnicity.

SOURCES: Blnks, 1988; Battle & Rotter, 1963; Echohawk & Parsons, 1972;Garner & Cole, 1986; Gurin, Gurin, Lao & Beattie, 1969; Halpin, Halpin &Whiddon, 1980; Jessor, Graves, Hanson & Jessor, 1968; J)nes & Zoppel, 1979;Lefcourt, 1966; Munro, 1979; Oghu, 1974, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986,1987; Osborne, 1985; Parsons & Schneider, 1974; Reynolds, 1976; Ryckman,Posen & Kulberg, 1978; Trimble, 1981; Trimble & Richardson, 1982; Tyler &Holsinger, 1975.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r>>>>>>>>: r>>>>>>

89

ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSperception channel/ * auditorysensory mode/ * verbalexternal * tactileconditions * visual

* spatial* kinesthetic

FINDINGS:Navajo youngsters manifest greater sensitivity to g.aometric designs than

White children of the same age and excel at tasks requiring fine visualdiscrimination.

Indian pre-school children evidence fine motf,r coordination.Northern Canadian Indians and Inuits evidence a higher frequency and

relative strength in processing visual/spatial information.Indian and Inuit children are most successful at processing visual

information and have the most difficulty performing well on verbal contenttasks. Kaulback cautioned that these findings did not imply a deficit in theability to conceptualize through language.

Navajo Indian children learn more rapidly through imitation and directvisual and tactile en)eriences than through verbal processes.

American Indian children learn more rapidly through imitation and directvisual and tactile experiences than through verbal processes.

American Indian children of the Southwest are visual in approaches tothe world.

The visual acuity rlifferences of Native North Americans may be tuned bythe early visual environment; the carpentered nature of urban surroundingsmay result in greater awareness of horizontal and vertical lines among urbandwellers as opposed to people who live in non-carpentered environments.

SOURCES: Anhelm, 1974; Annis & Frost, 1973; Bowd, 1971; Cattey, 1980;Colliers, 1967; Coombs, 1958; Feldman & Dittman, 1970; Havighurst, 1957;John, 1972; Kaulbach, 1984; Kleinfeld, 1973, 1975, 1979; Kuipers; More, 1987;Osborne, 1985; Vernon, 1969.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ASPECTreflective/impulsiveprocessing

LEARNER ORIENTATIOAS* watoh/listen-then-do

trial-and-error

FINDINGS:Yaqui culture experts children to learn by watching and modelling; a

task should not be attempted until it can be performed well. The culturallearning style conflicts with the school learning style when students aregiven crediL for trying and then forced to attempt the task before ridiculingpeers.

Rather than "explain-read-do-recite" approaches to learning, Navajosprefer learning through extensive observation and imitation, along with theassurance of success, learning through reflective more than impulsiveprocess11.7.

91

90

The Navajo learning process is composetA of 4 components: (1) observe,(2) think, (3) understand/feel, (4) act vs. the Anglo: (1) act, (1)

observe/think/clarify (3) understand.Anglos learn through trial and error; Navajos learn before theytryard

expect trial and success.

SOURCES: Appleton, 1983; Becktell, 1986; Mahan & Henderson, 1984; More,1984, 1987; Swisher & Deyhle, 1987; Rhodes, 1988: Wax, Wax & Dumon, 1964;Werner & Begishe, 1986.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>».>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSsocial * competitive . . . cooperativeinteraction/ * aggressive . . . passivemotivation * interpersonal . . . intrapersonal

* antisocIal . . . prosocial* respect for elders . . . elders as equals

FINDINGS:Navajo aild Chinese cultures stress harmony and unity--a basic "oneness."Navajo mothers use their eyes rather than their voice to attract the

baby's attention; the babies show greater passivity than Anglo babies.Chinese babies are more amenable and adavtable in situations where other

babies register annoyance and complaint.Zambian mother's high contact, loving environment for their babies

provide more handling and feeding contact and produce more stimulation,alertness, social interest and consolability in their children.

In Nigerian culture, children grow up in a social network zharacterizedby physical closeness, acceptance and care.

Black children are more feeling oriented, people oriented and moreproficient at nonverbal communication than White children.

Many different American Indian tribes have the following values that mayinfluence school performance: avoidance of competition, high value oncooperation, strong peer influence.

Black and White urban ccIlege students demonstrate participtive andcollaborative learning styles more than avoidant, competitive, dependent orindependent.

In Navajo culture, cooperation is stressed over competition.Navajo students may avoid eye contact with a teacher as a sign of

respect for an elder. The same is true in many Hispanic cultures.Navajo children are given tiemendous responsibility at a very young age;

Navaio girls, az members of a matrilineal culture, have prestige andinfluence over what happens in the home and are often owners of livestock andmaterials.

For Navajo students, praise may not be reincorcing.Cheyenne Indian children are to have parents' full attention,

subsequently learning to respect elders; chastisement of children isabhorred.

Cheyenne Indian children are encouraged to play in such ways that trainthem for adult responsibilities.

Mexican students' int:ractions with their teachers tend to be formal.Mexican culture stresses that students are to respect authority;

emphasize cooperation.

Traditional American Indian learning focuses on process overproduct, legends and stories as traditional teaching paradigms, knowledgeobtained for the self, and cognitive development through problem-solvingtechniques.

White Canadians and Cree Indians develop high self-esteem in schoolthrough praise of grades and parental pleasure at their effort.

Hawaiian teaching-learning interactions are characterized by voluntaryparticipation; traditional school-culture script is "one person at a time."

For both Native Hawaiian and Navajo children, indirect praise and praiseto a group are more effective than direct praise of one child.

A higher level of intellectual home environment exists for middle-classWhites than for middle-class Blacks; cultural differences exist in homeexperiences and parent-child interactions in Blac::. and White families of thesame social class.

Practices of lower-lower and middle-class Black mothers differsignificantly--socia' class is not a determinant of behavior but a statementof probability that a type of behavior is likely to occur.

Mexican-American children tend to be field sensitive (like to work withothers to achieve a common good) and are sensitive to the feelings andopinions of others; teachers prefer field-independent studehts and a-ssignthem higher grades, though cognitive style is not related to measuredintelligence or IQ.

Styles of thinking are produced by the kinds of families and groups intowhich students are socialized.

SOURCES:Abkar, 1975; Albas, McCluskey & Albas, 1976; Amodeo & Brown, 1986; Anderson,1988; Au, 1980; Au & Jordan, 1981; ainks, 1988; Boykin, 1978; Brazelton,Young & Bul]owa, 1971; Brown, 1980; Callaghan; Cattey, 1980; Cazden, 1982;Cohen, 1969; D'Amato, 1986; Dumont, 1972; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Esen,1973; Estrada & LaBelle, 1979; Freedman, 1979; Gitter, Black & Mostofsky,1972; Goldman & Sanders, 1969; Guthrie & Hall, 1981; Hale, 1981; Jencks,Smith, Ac'ar_, Bane, Cohen, Gintis, hayns, Michelson, 1972; Kagan & Madsen,1971; Kamii & Radin, 1967; Knight & Kagan, 1982; LeBrasseur & Freark, 1982;Light & Martin, 1985; Llewellyn & Hoebel, 1967; Mahan & Henderson, 1984;Marans & Lourie, 1967; Miller & Thomas, 1972; Morgan, 1976; Ogbu, 1978;Osborne, 1985; Philips, 1972; Piestrup, 1973; Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974;Ramirez & Price-Williams, 1974; Sapp, Elliott & Bounds, 1983; Silberman,1970; Swisher & Deyhle, 1987; Tafoya, 1982; Trotman, 1977; Wachs, Uzgiris &Hunt, 1971; Van Ness, 1981; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987; Wober, 1967; Wolcott,1967; Young, 1970.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSvisual * visual acuity . . . lack of acuityaiscrimination/attention

FINDINGS:Navajo children excel at tasks requiring fine visual discrimination.Navajo mothers use their eyes rather than their voice to attract their

baby's attention.

Cle)c.,t)

92

Navajo children are visual in their approach to the world.Particularly the Navajo, as well as the Chinese, are likely to be better

in visual discrimination skills.Visual acuity differences may be tuned by the early visual environment;

the carpentered nature of urban surroundings may result in greater awarenessof horizontal and vertical lines among urban dwellers as opposed to peoplewho in non-carpentgred environments.

Blacks and Native L.irth Americans perceive elements as a part of a totalpicture.

Native North American may prefer contrast over Anglo pr,..ferences ofangularity, linearity, and curvilinearity.

SOURCES:Anderson, 1988; Anhelm, 1974; Annis & Frost, 1973; Callaghan, 19E); Cattey,1980; Colliers, 1967; Dasen, 1975; John, 1972; Killbride & Robbins, 1968;Kleinfeld, 1973, 1975, 1979; Osborne, 1985; Swanson & Henderson, 1979.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>» .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»ASPECT LEARNER ORIENTATIONSworld orientations * global . . . analytic

* present . . . future* analytic . . . relational* obverse to learn . . . participate to learn* culture-based content . . . mainstreamed

content* culture sensitive . . . culture insensi'Ave

FINDINGS:The non-Western heritage of Afro-Americans suggests knowledge stems from

the proposition that, "I feel, th -efore, I think, therefore, I am" vs. "Ithink, therefore, I am."

Afro-American people tend to view things in their entirety and not asisolated parts.

Schools do Llt support the natural energy level of Black children whomaed an active environment for saccessful learning; Black children elicitmore punishment and are labeled hyperactive more frequently because of theirhigh motoric activity.

Whi*e children are object oriented and have numerous opportunities tomanipulate objerts and discover properties and relationships; Black childrenare more people oriented; the affective orientation is linked to the greatercontinuity in the behavior of Black mothers.

h utilitarian education is commonly taught in Euro-American schools.American Indian children often observe from subordinate positions.The Yaqui world-view is not accommodated by modern industrial society

and its system of education.American Indian children are taught to respect life.Hopi Indians have strengths which are not tapped 1-y tests traditionally

used by Western societies.Hopi Indians may develop compensatory skills because of rigors of

survival in tiaditinai environments.Tradit1onal 'American Indian students do not become more futuie-oriented

with age, as do 'Anglo students.

Native people evidence a higher frequency dnd relative strength inglobal processing on both verbal and non-verbal tvsks.

Non-Western populations often differ in vorld views and cosmicorientations; value harmony with nature; view religicn a= inseparable fromculture rather than as a distinct part; accept the world view of othercultures without expressing the superiority of thel. own; perceive elementse l e part of a total picture; often find their communication styles are invariance with the Western communication styles; think in descriptiveabstractions; perceive thought as holistic; and learn better frommaterials which have a human/social content and which are characterized byfantasy and humor.

The Navajo learning process is composed of 4 components: (1) observe,(2, think, (3) understand/feel, (4) act vs. the Anglo: (1) act, (2)observe/think/clarify, (3) understand.

Navajo cultural and religious taboos may be ignored by certainliterature selections and art activities.

SOURCES:Allport & Pettigrew, 1957; Anderson, 1988; Baldwin, 1980; Becktell, 1986;Bradley, 1984; Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1981; Bruner, 1965; Chilcott, 1985;Cohen, 1969, 1971; Cole, Gay, Glick & Sharp, 1971; Crowell, 1977; Davis &Pyatowski, 1976; Dennis, 1943; Dixon & Foster, 1971; Gallimore, Boggs &Jordan, 1974; Gay & Cole, 1967; Gridley, 1974; Gue, 1971; Guthrie & Hall,1981; Hale, 1981; Havighurst, 1976; Hilliaru, 1976; Jencks, Smith, Acland,Bane, Cohen, Gintis, Heyns, Michelson, 1972; Keefe, 1985: Keefe & Languis,1983; Klein, 1981; Kleinfeld, 1973, 1975, 1979; Lee, 1986; Light & Martin,1985; Mahan & Henderson, 1984; Marashio, 1982; Masden, 1982; Matthews, 1973;Mbiti, 1970; Moore, 1982; More, 1984, 19E7; Morgan, 1976; Ogbu, 1978;Osborne, 1985; Rhodes, 1988; Scallon & Scallon, 1979b; Schindler & Davidson,1985; Shannon, 1975, 1976; Smith, 1981; Tafoya, 1982; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp,1987; Webb, 1983; Witkin, 1967; Young, 1970.

V 111011111.,4. -

END

U.S. Dept. of Education

Office of EducationResearch and

Improvement (OERI)

ERIC

Date Filmed

March 21,1991

Appandix 16