Journal of American Indian EducationSpecial Edition
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AND NON-NATIVE STUDENTS Joan K. Wauters, Janet Merrill Bruce, David R. Black, and Phillip N. Hocker Research on learning styles, particularly those of minority students, is still very new and technically unrefined. This study examines the results of one learning style instrument, the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS), used to evaluate 200 Alaskan high school seniors. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze differences between Native and non-Native subjects. Rural and urban subjects were also compared. Significant differences were found in learning styles between Native and non-Native subjects on the Persistence, Peer, Authority, Auditory, and Visual subscales. The two groups, however, were both strikingly dissimilar to the PEPS norm group. Pedagogical implications for Alaskan students are included which suggest the use of diverse teaching modalities and frequent student-teacher interactions.Native Americans have consistently been identified as the most underrepresented of all minority groups in American colleges and universities (Crossland, 1971; Astin, 1982). Approximately 27% of American Indians enroll in college following high school compared to almost 50% of Anglo students. Even this percentage for American Indians may be inflated due to the high number of students who report Indian ancestry without verification (Astin, 1982). At the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, only about half as many Native students receive college degrees compared to non-Native students (Kleinfeld, Travis & Hubbard, 1982). In southeast Alaska, only about 10% of college-bound Native students ever complete a degree program, according to the education program director of the Tlingit-Haida Central Council (E.G. Widmark, personal communication, May 15, 1987). Insufficient academic preparation is often cited as the reason for Native students' failure in postsecondary institutions (McGrath, 1962; Tippeconnic, 1976). However, cultural conflict between Native values and those of the dominant Anglo society may play an important role, too. Many Native students feel alienated from the traditional educational system, which is often unwittingly biased against minority students with different styles of communication and learning (Wasson, 1973). Cultural dissonance between Native and Anglo ways of learning seems to contribute to low self-concept and academic failure among Native American students (Martin, 1978; Wasson, 1973). Educators and psychologists have begun to study students' cognitive and affective patterns to better understand how different individuals learn. Some research suggests that the right hemisphere tends to be dominant for American Indian students, which indicates that they may perceive the world more holistically in comparison to analytically oriented left-hemisphere dominant individuals (Cattey, 1980; Ross, 1982). Right-hemisphere dominant individuals also tend to synthesize patterns and complex processes rather than breaking them down into their component parts (Cattey, 1980). However, American education often concentrates on learning activities which require high analytical and verbal skills and not on tasks that would develop the right hemisphere (Ross, 1982). Thus, Indian students' failure to adapt to a scholastic system based on the linear logic of Western philosophy might be rooted in their more holistic perception of the world. Ability test scores of Native students also indicate possible differences in perception and information processing. Native American students tend to score lower than average on tests of verbal ability; in fact, English is the subject that Alaska Native high school students most often fail (Ray, 1959). However, Kleinfeld's (1970) work on the cognitive strengths of Eskimos showed that these children have above-average abilities in perceptual analysis and image memory. A study by John (1972) of Navajo children revealed that they also were above average in motor skills and in visual discrimination. These differences shown in hemispheric dominance and information processing suggest that learning styles of Native and non-Native students may be different. Determining the learning styles of Native American students may provide more instructional opportunities for success since student performance can be increased by matching instruction to learning style (Bloom, 1976). This study of Native and non-Native student learning styles was conducted as part of a larger project to determine the instructional needs and preferences of potential freshman students at the University of Alaska Southeast. In order to design a developmental college program for this population, university researchers tested high school seniors in eight communities throughout southeast Alaska. The objective of the learning styles portion of the study was to determine if learning styles of Alaska Native students differed from non-Native students, and how their learning styles compared with established norms. A second objective was to discover if community size (urban or rural) had an effect on the cognitive styles of these students. Subjects were 200 high school seniors: 107 men and 93 women. All senior students from the following Southeastern Alaskan high schools were included in the study: Klawock, Hydaburg, Mt. Edgecumbe, Wrangell, Petersburg, Hoonan, and Metlakatla. Students from Juneau also participated but were randomly selected because testing the entire senior student population was beyond the economic and personnel resources of the investigators. Seniors were categorized by ethnicity (Native or non-Native) and community type (rural or urban). There were 112 Native students and 88 non-Native students. A student had to report being one-quarter Alaska Native to be classified as such, which is the criterion used by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971). School counselors also verified whether a student was an Alaska Native by reviewing school records. There was 100% agreement between self-report of ethnicity and the records check. The Alaska Native group consisted of students from the southeast and interior of Alaska. Southeastern Alaska Natives comprised 25.5% of the total subject population, of which 17.5%, 5.5%, and 2.5% were Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Haida, respectively. Interior Alaska Natives represented 30.5% of the total subject population, of which 25.0%, 4.0%, and 1.5% were Eskimos, Athabascans, and Aleuts, respectively. There were 138 students from rural areas and 62 students from urban areas. To be classified as urban, students had to have lived the majority of their lives in a city with a population of approximately 20,000 persons or more. Juneau was the only city to qualify as urban since all other communities tested had populations less than 20,000. Instrument Selection The Dunn model of learning style inventory was selected because it defines learning style in terms of students' preferences for specific learning modalities, attitudes, and environmental conditions, some of which can be influenced by instructors and educational institutions. The Dunn instrument appears to yield a more detailed analysis of learning style factors than other available instruments. The Dunns and Gary Price have developed instruments to measure these preferences at two age levels. The more widely used instrument, the Dunn Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1975), is designed for elementary through junior high school students. For this study, the adult version, The Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1979) was selected. The PEPS asks adults to rate their responses to 21 variables in four general categories related to learning conditions in school or on the job. The first category, "Immediate Environment," measures student preferences in regard to such factors as classroom noise level, lighting, and temperature. Emotionality deals with students' self-perceptions about their motivation, persistence, and responsibility as learners. "Sociological Needs" examines student preferences for learning alone, with peers, with authority figures, or in a variety of sociological settings. "Physical Needs" covers learning modality preferences (e.g., auditory or visual) as well as items related to time of day and level of activity preferred for learning. Table I provides a description of each of the 21 variables measured. The PEPS instrument contains 100 items. Students indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale. Test-retest reliability for the instrument is .60 (Price, Dunn & Dunn, 1979). The PEPS computer scored, and standard scores were generated for the 21 learning style variables. Descriptions of the 21 Variables from the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey
Testing was conducted on-site at the schools in each of the eight communities. Student group size ranged from six to 60 students, and the testing process took approximately two hours per group. After filling out a demographic and informational cover sheet, students completed the following three instruments: the Written English Expression Placement Test (WEEPT), the Reading Placement Test (RPT) (Comparative Guidance and Placement Program of the College Board, 1976), and the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1979). The data from the WEEPT and the RPT were used in other research and are reported in The Journal of College Reading and Learning (Wauters, Merrill & Black, 1984). MANOVA Results of the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS)
**p < .01 Native and non-Native students in this study were more similar to each other than to the PEPS norms (M = 50, SD = + 10; Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1979). Figure 1I shows the learning styles of Native and non-Native students compared to norms for the PEPS. Both student groups averaged more than one standard deviation above the PEPS mean on nine of the 21 variables. Alaskan student norms for all variables in the "Emotionality" category (Motivated, Persistent, Responsible, Structure), two of the four in the "Sociological Needs" category (Alone and Several Ways), and three of the nine in the "Physical Needs" category (Visual, Tactile, and Kinesthetic) were more than one standard deviation above the PEPS norm. In addition, Native students scored above the norm on the Authority variable. Finally, Alaskan students also scored more than one standard deviation below the mean on the "Warmth" variable in the "Immediate Environment" category. Using the PEPS norm group as a reference, it appears that these Alaskan students have a distinctive profile in regard to their learning style preferences. As suggested by the PEPS manual (Price, Dunn & Dunn, 1979), certain teaching strategies may be more appropriate for these students. Because the individual group patterns of Native and non-Native students both differ from the norm group, most of the learning style description and pedagogical recommendations based on this inventory can be applied to both groups of Alaskan high school seniors. One notable finding in the present study is the high self-ratings of "Motivation and Persistence" by both Native and non-Native students. This finding appears to contradict results of other researchers working with Native Americans; Harris (1979) and Martin (1978) reported that American Indian students possess low self-esteem and lack confidence in their academic abilities. This contradiction in findings on self-concept related to learning style may be explained by the extreme selectivity of the sample in this study. A recent cross-sectional study of early leavers from high school in Southeast Alaska reveals that up to 60% of all Native students may have dropped out by the end of their senior year in high school (Research Summary, 1988). Thus, those Native students who have attained status as seniors may indeed be the most persistent and motivated of that population. Another possible explanation for the unusually high reported persistence of all Alaskan students compared to the norm group may be the relatively low reliability of this variable as reported in the PEPS manual (Price, Dunn & Dunn, 1979). The fact that Alaskan students see themselves as motivated, persistent, and responsible indicates that they are capable of independent learning. However, they show a strong preference for precise, guided assignments by their high score on the variable of "Structure," which suggests they recognize the need for teacher direction. They also indicate a need for a variety of different classroom interaction patterns, including learning alone, with peers, and with help from authorities (e.g., teachers and tutors). While non-Native students score just within the norm, Native students are significantly above them in their desire for frequent teacher-student interactions. This preference indicates that instructors should offer ample opportunities for positive supervision and interaction with those students. Interpersonal contact between students and teacher may be an important element in the achievement of Natives. Kleinfeld (1972) found that the most successful teachers are those who are personally warm and supportive of Alaska Native students, as opposed to those who concentrate solely on academic tasks or have a detached demeanor. Although both groups are well within the norm on preference for learning with peers, Native students are significantly more peer-oriented than non-Natives. This finding corroborates other research on Native students which shows that they are positively oriented to collaborative learning and small group tasks (Philips, 1972; Johnson, Johnson, Tiffany & Zaidman, 1984). In order to support the creation of peer support networks within the classroom, small group work such as discussion circles and collaborative writing assignments can be encouraged. Peer tutoring might be a helpful strategy as well. On learning modality preferences, Alaskan students overwhelmingly rate kinesthetic learning highest, followed by strong preferences for visual and tactile learning. Since most instructors instead rely heavily upon auditory learning through lectures, these preferences for nontraditional instructional modes are worth noting. Traditional styles of learning within Native American cultures, which emphasize the transfer of skiffs by observing and imitating the actions of elders (Riner, 1979; Kaulback, 1984) may be good models to emulate for such students. Tasks requiring experiential involvement such as field trips and live interviews should be emphasized. These students may also respond well to a variety of visual aid materials such as graphs, pictures, and diagrams. In addition, experimentation with videotapes and computer-aided instruction may be valuable. In preferences for environmental conditions for learning, Alaskan students were within the norm except for a below-average score for classroom warmth. Considering their climatic environment, it does not seem surprising that Alaskans prefer a cooler classroom. Overall, the wide divergence of the students in this study from the norm group suggests that caution should be exercised in interpreting these results. One reason for the apparent differences could be that the PEPS norm group was comprised of a diverse group encompassing a range of ages from undergraduate college students to senior citizens, whereas students in this study were all high school seniors. Since the norm group was more mature and included workers as well as students, large variations in the responses of the two groups may be expected. Furthermore, testing conditions were not similar: the Alaskan students were tested in a controlled classroom setting while some of the norm group respondents mailed in their responses (Price, Dunn & Dunn, 1979). These factors may indicate that new norms should be established for high school age students in high school settings. The present study raises several issues to be addressed in future research. Since research on learning styles is still relatively recent and technically unrefined, further evaluation of the reliability and validity of such inventories needs to be conducted (Ferrell, 1983). As learning style inventories are improved, testing should be extended to other levels of junior and senior high students so that possible differences in learning styles can be detected and addressed before students drop out. The similarities shown between Native and non-Native students in the present study may be due in large part to the fact that those with variant patterns have already been self-selected out of a school system which does not accommodate them. In order to increase the numbers of Native American students in higher education, we must first curb attrition at the lower levels. Matching instructional techniques to learning styles is one positive step in this direction. Joan Wauters is an associate professor of English at the University of Alaska, Southeast, where Phillip Hocker is an associate professor of education. Janet Merrill Bruce is a former counselor at the University of Alaska Southeast and the Juneau Douglas School District. David Black is an associate professor of health promotion and psychology at Purdue University. Astin, AX (1982). Minorities in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cattey, M. (1980). Cultural differences in processing information. Journal of American Indian Education, 20 (1), 23-29. Comparative Guidance and Placement Program of 'Me College Board (1972). Reading placement test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Comparative Guidance and Placement Program of The College Board (1972). Written English expression placement test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Crossland, F. E. (1971). Minority access to college. New York: Schocken Books. Dunn, R., Dunn, K. & Price, G.E. (1975). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc. Dunn, R., Dunn, K. & Price, G.E. (1979). Productivity environmental preference survey. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc. Ferrell, B.G. (1983). A factor analytic comparison of four learning styles instruments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 33-39. Harris, L. (1979). Characteristics of self regard, locus of control, and academic achievement of selected American Indian students in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1979.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3143A. John, V.P. (1972). Styles of learning—styles of teaching: Reflections on the education of Navajo children. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 331-343). New York: Teachers College Press. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Tiffany, M. & Zaidman, B. (1984). Cross-ethnic relationships: The impact of intergroup cooperation and intergroup competition. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 75-79. Kaulback, B. (1984). Styles of learning among Native children: A review of the research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 11 (3), 27-37. Kleinfeld, J.S. (1970). Cognitive strengths of Eskimos and implications for education (ISEGR Occasional Paper No. 3). Fairbanks, AK: Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska. Kleinfeld, J. S. (1972). Effective teachers of Indian and Eskimo high school students (ISEGR Report No. 34). Fairbanks, AK: Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska. Kleinfeld, J.S., Travis, R. & Hubbard, V. (1982). Native college success in the seventies: Trends at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks (ISER Occasional Paper No. 15). Fairbanks, AK: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. McGrath, G.D., Rossel, R., Meador, B., Helmstadter, G.C. & Barnes, J. (1962). Higher education of Southwestern Indians with reference to success and failure (Cooperative Research Project No. 938). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Martin, J.C. (1978). Locus of control and self-esteem in Indian and white students. Journal of American Indian Education, 18 (1), 23-29. Philips, S.U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V.P. John and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press. Price, G.E., Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1979). Productivity environmental preference survey manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc. Ray, C. (1959). Alaska Native secondary school dropouts (Rev. ed.). College, AK: University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Research Summary. 1987 early leavers from Juneau Douglas High School (1988). Unpublished report, City and Borough of Juneau School District. Riner, R.D. (1979). American Indian education: A rite that fails. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 10, 236-253. Ross, A.C. (1982). Brain hemispheric functions and the Native American. Journal of American Indian Education, 21 (3), 2-5. Tippeconnic, J.W. (1976). Observations on the American Indian college student, with implications for reading. Twenty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Wasson, W.C. (1973). Philosophical differences between Europeans and Native Americans as an explanation of the alienation of Native American students from the educational system (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 3044A. Wauters, J., Merrill, J. & Black, D. (1984). Exploring learning styles of minority students: An Alaskan study. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 17, 101-111. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
