Gifted, Creative, and Talented Native

Americans: A Call for Relevant

Research for Marginalized Cultures

Marcia Gentry, Ph.D.,

C. Matthew Fugate, M. A.

Purdue University

2012 NAGC Convention, - Denver, CO November 15-17, 2012

Research Agenda Needed

“As a group, Native American students are not

afforded educational opportunities equal to other

American students”

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2003, p.xi

One of the least researched, most overlooked, and

most underserved populations in the field

Gentry & Fugate, 2012; Yoon & Gentry, 2009

Collaborative Approach

We developed relationships and worked with Native

Americans communities from three nations:

Diné, AZ

Lakota, SD

Ojibwe, MN

Purposes

1. Test literature-based assumptions about gifted,

Native American students

2. Set a research agenda for the field of gifted

education that addresses needs and gaps concerning

the discovery and development of giftedness,

creativity, and talent among Native American

populations

Background

In the GCT literature…

Limited number of empirical studies, scholarly articles,

chapters, and government reports in the past 30 years.

Literature is largely dated

Native Americans are frequently homogenized as one group of

people rather than as culturally diverse populations, leading to

stereotyping and overgeneralization

Little knowledge exists of needs and talent pathways

Literature from outside the field often takes a deficit viewpoint

(e.g., poverty, learning deficiencies, violence, substance abuse)

Method

Literature Review

We searched ERIC and PsycINFO for publications (search terms:

gifted/talented, Native American/American Indian), which revealed a

limited number of empirical studies, scholarly articles, chapters, and

government reports in the past 30 years (e.g., Bradley, 1989;

Christensen, 1991; George, 1987; Grigg, Moran, & Kuang, 2010;

Hartley, 1991; Herring, 1996; Kirschenbaum, 1989; Maker, 1989;

Mead, Grigg, Moran, & Kuang, 2010; Montgomery, 2001; Omdal,

Rude, Betts, & Toy, 2010; Peterson, 1999; Tonemah, 1991).

Method

Analysis of the literature yielded general assumptions. From

which we identified four themes.

Theme 1 – Talent Development

Theme 2 – Culture and Traditions

Theme 3 – Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

Theme 4 – Communication

Methods

Participants

N=100 teachers, aides, and administrators (50% Native American, 46%

White, 4% Hispanic) n=20 Diné, n=16 Lakota, n=64 Ojibwe

2 Focus groups (Diné, Lakota) and 1 professional development group

(Ojibwe) responded to the literature-based assumptions using Tony

Stead’s (2006) Reading Analysis of Non-Fiction Framework (RAN):

A modification of the traditional KWL chart

KWL charts are limiting

They do not sufficiently support the research process

The do not take into account misinformation

Methods

RAN process(43)

What we think we know

Assumptions that are believed to be true

Yes, we were right!

Confirmation of assumptions

Misconceptions

Assumptions that should be disregarded

New Information

Additional information not stated in our assumptions that should be considered

Wonderings

Important research questions raised based upon the new information

Theme 1: Talent Development

Talented youth exist among Native Populations(49)

Recognition, development, services, and programs are needed

to nurture these youth(49)

More youth can achieve at higher levels than current

expectations indicate(49)

Consideration should be give to develop spiritualistic,

naturalistic, leadership, visual/spatial, artistic, musical

CPS, and communication strengths(18,47)

Programs and curriculum should be tied to culture(31)

Group work and solving relevant problems should be a focus(18)

Early and on-going identification and enrichment should be

done in a variety of areas(17)

Theme 1: Talent Development Misconceptions

All three tribal groups agreed with the assumptions found in

the literature regarding talent development.

We have yet to fully engage in this work

Professional Development is needed to for school

administrators, teachers, and helping professionals

No misconceptions were identified.

Theme 1: Talent Development New Understandings

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Boys see women as

dominate in the family

structure

Need for positive, male

role models

Group work and problems

should be aligned with

students’ needs

Some Diné students prefer

to work individually

Native Americans’

strengths in verbal and

mathematical areas should be

acknowledged

A lack of knowledge exists

among Lakota students

regarding their post-

secondary and career options

There is a lack of

understanding between

Lakota students and non-

Native educators

Students are aware of and

want to be part of the global

community

Cultural teachings should

begin with the home and with

elders

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions

Collective society(6,22,27,43)

Matriarchal society(18,24)

Respect for authority and elders(10)

Traditions/cultural knowledge important for future generations(10,34)

Oral traditions, ceremonies, and storytelling are important(10)

Present, cyclical view of time(6,21)

Religion and spirituality are ways of life(25,43)

Live in harmony with nature(53)

Non-materialistic(37)

Patience and self-control are valued(6)

Tribal leaders, spiritual leaders, & medicine people are valued(10)

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions

All three tribal groups agreed on the importance of culture

knowledge through oral traditions(10,34)

Students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools are

more likely to have opportunities for cultural integration(28)

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions

Six foundational elements (Demmert, Grissmer, & Towner,

2006)

1. Recognition and use of native language

2. Pedagogy reflecting the current cultural characteristics and

values of the community

3. Strategies that combine traditional culture with contemporary

techniques

4. Recognition of spirituality of the culture of visual arts, legends,

and oral histories in a contemporary context

5. Community participation and collaboration with parents, elders,

and other community resources

6. Understanding and use of social and political mores

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions: Misconceptions

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Collective society

Non-materialistic

Tribal leaders, spiritual

leaders, & medicine people

are valued

Collective society

Matriarchal society

Live in harmony with

nature

Tribal leaders, spiritual

leaders, & medicine people

are valued

Religion and spirituality are

ways of life

Live in harmony with

nature

Non-materialistic

Patience and self-control

are valued

Theme 2: Culture and Traditions New Understandings

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Clan system following

mother’s family. Uncle serves as

the role model. In school, group

work usually follows clan

groups.

Increased materialism

among youth

Tribal leaders are

politicians, not respected like

elders and medicine people

Alcoholism affects

everyone

Teachers are valued

Adults returning to school,

spiritual awakening

More women than men in

workforce

Self-determination is

valued

Collective society is

generational, not as prevalent

with youth

Move away from

matriarchal society

Importance of tradition

culture varies among families

Culture integrated into

school curriculum

Value of religion/spirituality

varies by family

Harmony with nature is a

1970’s stereotype

Non-materialism due to

Poverty

Tribal leaders=politicians

Practice “give-away”

Ceremonies/pow-wows

more important than oral

traditions

Focus on present with little

consideration of future

Value of religion/spirituality

varies by family

Gang affiliations replacing

search for spirituality

Widespread abuse of

nature…but escape to woods

Possessions=status;

Money=power and happiness

Little patience, lack of self-

control

Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

Public display of knowledge is

not encouraged(23,35)

Cooperative and sharing(6)

Anonymity(18)

Non-competitive, non-

aggressive(46)

Watch, learn, then do(23)

Practice(23)

Hands-on participation(23)

Spatial strengths(34,39)

Simultaneous processing(11,34)

Naturalistic, holistic views(29)

Story telling, auditory

learning(10,18)

Psychomotor, physical

learning(18)

Concern for accuracy over

speed(29)

Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

All three tribal groups agreed on the following assumptions:

Cooperation and sharing(6)

Watch, learn, do(24)

Hands-on participation(24)

Spatial strengths(35,38)

Simultaneous processing(11,35)

Storytelling, auditory learning(10,18)

Psychomotor, physical learning(18)

Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

Misconceptions

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Public display of knowledge

is not encouraged

Concern for accuracy over

speed

Anonymity

Naturalistic, holistic views

Non-competitive, non-

aggressive

Practice

Naturalistic, holistic views

Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

New Understandings

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Differences exist between

urban and rural (Rez) youth

Fear rejection by peers for

being smart “not cool”

Level of anonymity depends

on individual

Self-discipline leads to

perfectionism

Students prefer to learn

through modeling

Little connection to Earth,

focus on instant gratification

Quiet, guarded, most prefer

to work individually

Fighting and aggression are

common

Younger generation pushed

to be assertive, leading to

aggression

Instant gratification/self

preservation

Practice is viewed as a sign

of weakness

Naturalistic views replaced

by ideals of pop culture

Theme 3: Cognitive Styles and Learning Preferences

The influence of peers can have a profound effect on

achievement due to similar(1,2,3,33,41)

Values

Level of achievement

Academic goals

Theme 4: Communication

Soft, slow speech, quite, few interjections, delayed responses(29)

Non-verbal communication emphasized(52)

Indirect, non-verbal cues to speaker or listener(10)

May be fluent in two or more languages(23)

Introspective rather than questioning(18)

Feelings unlikely to be openly expressed(23)

Theme 4: Communication Misconceptions

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

May be fluent in two or more languages

Theme 4: Communication Misconceptions

The assumption of fluency in two or more languages came

from a study by Hartley (1991) comparing similarities and

differences among gifted Diné and gifted students in dominate

culture.

Traditional—lived on the reservation

Acculturated—lived within a community in which they had

become integrated and assimilated with Anglo culture

One Anglo community

Theme 4: Communication New Understandings

Diné Lakota Ojibwe

Diné is an oral language

Educators view Navajo

language as a liability

Diné students frequently

lack fluency in both languages

Strong visual and spatial

skills incorporated into

traditional Diné

communication

Concern that lack of

expression may contribute to

alcoholism

Many Lakota students

placed in special education

due to a lack of understanding

of their communication

norms

Majority of students speak

only English

Many students speak in

gang-related slang

Takes time for Lakota

students to warm up to their

non-Native peers

Few are fluent in the

Ojibwe language, which some

see as a dying language

Prevalent use of gang

related slang

Theme 4: Communication

In order to conduct valuable and nuanced research when

working with Native youth, it is important to understand and

value the language, communication style, and culture.

(Peterson, 1999)

A Call for Future Research

Gifted, creative, and talented Native American children are

frequently overlooked by researchers. They face many

barriers including

marginalization(5,15);

living in remote, rural areas(4,8);

poverty; (16,28,50) and

issues with obtaining a quality education (infrastructure,

technology, funding, teacher quality, dropout rates, access to

post-secondary opportunities) (13,22,27)

Address the needs of Native American children and their

educators

Improvements in the recognition and development of

talent

A Call for Future Research

Researchers need to address the needs of Native American

children and their educators

Result in improvements in the recognition and

development of talent

Ideas generated by participants and

from the literature

Culture and Tradition

Family Roles and Connections

Gender

Curricular and Instructional Considerations

Technology

Connections to the Future

Culture & Tradition

How do 21st century skills align with tribal practices?

How do youth fit into the assumptions of tradition and

culture?

How are cultural values changing?

How do (can) teachers integrate cultural mores and

values?

How does knowledge of traditional ways affect students’

sense of self, self-esteem, and achievement?

Family Roles and Connections

What enrichment can be developed/provided for parents

of gifted students?

What role does family play in school success?

How can home-school connections be strengthened?

What methods can be used to connect students to the

“outside” world?

Gender

What methods best address the needs of gifted Diné,

Lakota, or Ojibwe boys (or girls)?

What implication does gender have on educational

services and their delivery?

How does a matriarchal society affect the social and

emotional development of the whole child?

What can be done about gangs?

How can youth be connected to school and education?

Curricular and Instructional Considerations

How can the non-verbal, visual, and spatial strengths of

these youth enhance their learning and success?

How can curriculum be adapted to fit the knowledge,

background, and experiences of the children?

What is the role of PBL in educating these populations?

Can teachers better meet students’ needs through

accountability, goal setting, and reflective practice?

Technology

What is the role of technology for this generation of

learners?

How can technology bring learning to the reservation?

How does technology inform the culture of today’s

generation of Native students?

How can the need for infrastructure in many schools be

addressed?

Connections to the Future

How can innovation and creativity be promoted among

this generation of learners to improve infrastructure and

living conditions on the reservations?

What steps can be taken to address the tension between

educational attainment and the poor job market on the

reservations?

How can educated young people effectively bring their

knowledge and skills home to the Reservation?

Limitations

Findings from these tribal communities are not generalizable to all

tribal communities on these reservations nor to those members

who live off the reservations.

Data collection procedures from the Ojibwe differed from that of

the Diné and Lakota participants.

“I will not fill this out. If you need research about Natives, come and live with

us for a year and visit with the families around here. It’s not even accurate

because there are different degrees of being traditional.”

--Ojibwe (non) Participant

http://gerinari.weebly.com/

References 1. Anderman, L. H. & Freeman, T. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. In M. L.Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation

and achievement, Vol. 13. Motivating students, improving Schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.),

Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

4. Bauch, P.A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of

Education, 76(2), 204-221.

5. Bernal, E.M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked

gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

6. Bradley, C. (1989). Give me the bow, I’ve got the arrow. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible

programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II (pp. 133-137). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

7. Brandt, E. A. (1992). The Navajo area student dropout study: Findings and implications. Journal of American Indian Education, 31, 48-63.

8. Bryant, J.A. (2007). Killing Mayberry: The crisis in rural American education. The Rural Educator, 29, 7-11.

9. Callahan, C. M., & McIntire, J. A. (1994). Identifying outstanding talent in American Indian and Alaska Native students. Washington, DC: Office

of Educational Research and Improvement.

10. Christensen, R. A. (1991). A personal perspective on Tribal-Alaska Native gifted and talented education. Journal of American Indian

Education, 31(1), 10-14.

11. Davidson, K. L. (1992). A comparison of Native American and White students’ cognitive strengths as measured by the Kaufman

Assessment Battery for Children. Roeper Review, 14(3), 111-115.

12. Demmert, W. G., Grissmer, D., & Towner, J. (2006). A review and analysis of the research on Native American students. Journal of

American Indian Education, 31, 24-47.

13. DeVoe, J. F., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008084.pdf.

14. Faircloth, S. C., & Tippeconnic, III, J. W. (2010). The dropout/graduation rate crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native students: Failure to

respond places the future of Native peoples at risk. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA;

www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.

References 15. Ford, D.Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and

retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14.

16. Ford, D.Y. (2007). Diamonds in the rough: Recognizing and meeting the needs of gifted children from low SES bakgrounds. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-37). Gifted Education Resource Institute. (2011). 2011-2016 strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.geri.soe.purdue.edu/PDF%20Files/GERI_Strategic_Plan_1.pdf

17. Gentry, M. (2009). Developing talents and improving student achievement among traditionally underrepresented populations: An experimental investigation scaling-up the total school cluster grouping model. Grant proposal funded by the Institute for Education Sciences, 2009-2014.

18. Gentry, M. (May, 2010). Effective practices in gifted education for Native Americans in Arizona: Definitions and directions to develop talents among Native children. Inaugural Leadership Summit: Identifying and Serving Gifted Native American Students. Ganado, AZ.

19. Gentry, M. & Fugate, C. M. (2012). Gifted, Native American Students: Underperforming, Under- identified, and Overlooked. Psychology in Schools, 49, 631-646.

20. Gentry, M. L., Richardson, J., Fugate, C. M., Wu, J., Jen, E. Y., Folyer, S., & Byers, W. (May, 2011). Putting the development of talents among Native American young on the national agenda: Future directions for research, partnership, and practices. Second Annual Leadership Summit: Identifying and Serving Gifted Native American Students. Ganado, AZ.

21. Garrison, L. (1989). Programming for the gifted American Indian student. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II (pp. 116-127). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

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

23. Grigg, W., Moran, R., and Kuang, M. (2010). National Indian education study - part I: Performance of American Indian and Alaska Native students at grades 4 and 8 on NAEP 2009 reading and mathematics assessments (NCES 2010–462). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

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

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

26. Julien, P. D., & Ostertag, B. A. (1982). Behavioral characteristics of gifted Navajo students as correlated with intellectual ability and creativity. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED214713.pdf.

27. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1989). Identification of the gifted and talented American Indian students. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 91-101). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

References 28. Mead, N., Grigg, W., Moran, R., and Kuang, M. (2010). National Indian Education Study 2009 - Part II: The Educational Experiences of American

Indian and Alaska Native Students in Grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2010–463). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

29. Miller, L.S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in

the United States at all levels of the education system (RM04190). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

30. Montgomery, D. (1989). Identification of giftedness among American Indian people. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in

gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 79-90). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

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

Author.

32. Omdal, S., Rude, H., Betts, G., & Toy, R. (2011). American Indian students: Balancing Western and Native giftedness. In J. A. Castellano &

A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds. (pp. 73-97). Waco,

TX US: Prufrock Press.

33. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals,

goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34. Peterson, J. S. (1999). Gifted--through whose cultural lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education

of the Gifted, 22(4), 354-383.

35. Preston, V. (1991). Mathematics and science curricula in elementary and secondary education for American Indian and Alaska Native students. In

Indian Nations At Risk Task Force Commissioned Papers. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

36. Robbins, R. (1991). American Indian Gifted and talented students: Their problems and proposed solutions. Journal of American Indian

Education, 31(1), 15-24.

37. Sanders, D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: An important factor in the academic failures of American Indian students. Journal of Multicultural

Counseling and Development, 15(2), 81-90.

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

Education, 14(1), 30-38.

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

69.

References 40. Sarouphim, K. M., & Maker, C. J. (2009, April). Ethnic and gender differences in the use of DISCOVER: A multi-cultural analysis. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

41. Schunk, D. H. & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Routledge.

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

43. Sisk, D. A. (1989). Identifying and nurturing talent among the American Indians. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Volume II. (pp. 128-132). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

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

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

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

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

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

49. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis: Federal funding and unmet needs in Indian country.Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

50. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED359743.pdf.

51. Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, Jr., J. J. (2009). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/news-knowledge/research-reports/

52. Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136.

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