Karen Swisher

Schools as institutions of learning in this country are set up to accommodate styles of teaching and learning which are incongruent with the traditional values and styles of learning that characterize many American Indian/Alaskan Native’ students. Indian children are often schooled in an atmosphere of individualism and competition although the literature indicates that many Indian children are raised in an atmosphere that stresses cooperation and de-emphasizes competition.

The rhetoric which addresses the issue of competition in the classroom as it relates to the schooling of American Indian children is increasing. An hypothesis exists which seems to suggest that Indian children possess a predisposition to a cooperative rather than a competitive style of learning especially when competitive means competing with other students for one teacher’s attention either to be recognized publicly for an answer, or a "reward" less public in the form of a grade on a paper or report card. The Indian child in this situation often withdraws, not willing to be singled out or "spotlighted" (Mohatt & Erickson, 198 1). The child’s predisposition is to learn cooperatively in groups rather than competitively as an individual (Wax, 1971; Brewer, 1977; Lockart, 1978). For example, in the statement, "Individual competition is not always an effective motivating force for Indian children," Brewer (1977, p. 22), an Oglala Sioux suggests that the "traditional" use of competition in the classroom, i.e., being alone and competing as an individual, is the issue rather than the idea of competition itself. She suggests that:

Lockart (1978), in discussing the cultural conflicts the Indian child often experiences in the non-Indian classroom, also speaks to the concern for competition:

Wax (197 1), in looking at competition as it relates to the peer society of American Indian youth, writes:

A good example of an Indian child’s group competitiveness can be found on nearly every Indian reservation or place where Indian youth (and adults) come together to play team sports. The competition, when it is a group effort toward a goal, is very fierce and an individual stands out only as a member contributing to a goal.

In their investigation of aspects of teacher and student behavior that seem to be culturally patterned and have special relevance for Indian education, Mohatt and Erickson (1981) speak of the "teacher searchlight" phenomenon. This term is descriptive of a teacher’s use of public scrutiny for "singling out," or calling attention to the individual child’s behavior in front of an audience or other children. In a study of Cherokee culture and school achievement Brown (1980) also notes that:

Brewer (1977) describes it as "standing out." Whatever the rubric under which we choose to place the meaning, the difference in the ways Indian children prefer to learn and demonstrate what they have learned seems to be culturally patterned.

While learning style is generally used to describe the way in which students prefer to learn or acquire knowledge, interactional style has been used to describe the way in which students demonstrate learning or knowledge. In both learning style and interactional style preference, it is apparent from the literature that Indian students from different tribal groups are predisposed to cooperative versus competitive styles of acquiring and demonstrating knowledge.

in an ethnographic study of the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon, Philips (1983) observed the participation/interaction of Anglo and Indian students in public school classrooms. Based on this, she identified four different participant structures used by teachers to draw out or elicit student interaction and demonstrations of their learning: (1) whole class interaction with the teacher; (2) small group interaction with the teacher; (3) one-to-one involvement between teacher and single student, usually during desk work in which interaction is initiated by a student’s raised hand or approach to the teacher’s desk; and (4) student-led groups supervised by the teacher. Philips (1983) reports that Warm Springs Indian children, in contrast with Anglo children, were reluctant to participate in the first two structures; however, they were more talkative than Anglo children in the context of student-initiated verbal interaction and student-led group projects.

Situations in which the learning and/or interactional style of the home environment conflicts or interferes with the learning/interactional style required for "successful" participation in the classroom are termed "discontinuity" or "cultural incongruity." A series of investigators have proposed that these incongruities adversely affect achievement (Philips, 1983; Cazden, 1982; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Heath, 1982; Van Ness, 1981; Dumont, 1972).

John (1972) suggested that Navajo children’s "styles of learning" through which they had been enculturated at home were very different from those in which they were expected to learn in school. In describing learning by Oglala Sioux children at home and school, Brewer (197 1) says these children used processes of observation and self-testing in private, followed by demonstration of a task for approval as essential steps in their acquisition of knowledge and skills. "Learning through public mistakes was not and is not a method of learning which Indians value" (Brewer, 1971, p. 22).

Other ethnographic literature corroborates the view that observation is essential to learning for Navajo children. Several investigators (Longstreet, 1978; John, 1972; Leighton & Kluckhohn, 1948) have reported that Navajo children repeatedly observe an activity, and review the performance in their heads until they are certain that they can do the task well the very first time they undertake its performance. Longstreet (1978) reports an example given by Sirarpi Ohannessian in the Study of the Problems of Teaching English to American Indians:

While educational researchers have directed some attention to cultural variables, Brown (1979) claimed that few research studies have actually investigated the relationship between traditional cultural values and the school achievement of Indian children. Traditional values such as avoidance of competition, emphasis on cooperation, and strong peer influence are not found in all tribal groups; however, they are fairly common to many different Indian tribes. According to Brown (1979) there are only two studies conducted by Hess in 1974 and Brown in 1977 which have gone beyond anecdotal discussion and investigated traditional values in relation to achievement of Indian children. Hess reports:

Brown (1979) also reported that Hess found high levels of classroom competition negatively related to the achievement of Indian students. Her 1974 sample of 481 American Indian students were enrolled in grades three through eight on a northern Plains reservation.

Brown’s (1980) study of cooperative and competitive behavior among Cherokee children indicates that Cherokee grade school children were more cooperative and less competitive than an Anglo comparison group. He found that cooperative behavior was negatively related to measures of their school achievement. Brown (1980) explained that:

He concluded that cooperative and competitive behaviors can be "adaptive" or "maladaptive" depending upon the social context in which the behavior takes place. In an environment requiring group solidarity and cohesiveness, cooperative behavior is an adaptive trait; however, in an environment of individualism and competition, cooperative behavior is maladaptive.

Data which lend support to the cooperative vs. competitive learning/interactional style of Indian children thesis have dealt with "cooperative" in a broad sense. In other words, grouping and the use of team games are suggested as techniques for promoting cooperation in the classroom. For example, Brewer (1977) encouraged teachers to capitalize on competition as a motivating force by substituting games and group teams in the classroom. Wax (1971) suggested that simple contests in spelling or arithmetic could introduce the principle he describes as competition which is socially defined as benefiting the peer society. Lockhart (1978) suggests that if teachers are aware of the "winner/loser" conflict

As a result of his study with Cherokee children, Brown (198 1) suggested that classrooms ought to be places where emphasis is placed on cooperation. He concluded that

What Brown and others are suggesting is a restructuring of individualistic, competitive classrooms to reflect a congruency between those home-learned cultural or traditional cooperative values and the way in which learning occurs and is demonstrated at school. A growing body of literature reports that classrooms organized to promote cooperation are equally effective as those organized along a more competitive structure (Brown, 1981; Slavin, 1989).

While Brown and others suggest that cooperative learning appears to be an approach that is compatible with the learning/interactional style of some Indian children, "cooperative" is defined broadly, i.e., as grouping and team games. Specific strategies for cooperative learning have been developed and researched with selected populations of students in public schools (Slavin, 1989). The elements which define the strategies as cooperative have been identified to include individual accountability, group rewards, equal opportunities for success, face-to-face interaction, and interpersonal and small group skills (Slavin, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984).

Although Indian students have not been identified as a sizable population in the research studies, the strategies included in the corpus of studies from the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University should be considered for applicability in classrooms attended by Indian students. Achievement gains, liking of self and others, and liking of school, are just some of the outcomes documented in research studies of desegregated classrooms involving Student Team Learning (De Vries, Edwards, & Slavin, 1979; Cooper, Johnson, Johnson, & Wilderson, 1980; Gonzales, 1979; Slavin, 1977, 1979; Slavin & Oickle, 1980; Ziegler, 1980). The effects of Student Team Learning strategies have been more dramatic for minority students than for white students (Slavin, 1986).

In recent years cooperative learning contrasted with competitive or individualized learning has been of considerable interest to researchers such as Elliot Aronson, David and Roger Johnson, Spencer Kagan, Yael and Shlomo Sharan, and Robert Slavin. As a result, an extensive compendium of strategies or techniques which have a strong research base are available to classroom teachers.

Several Student Team Learning techniques have been developed, or adapted, and researched at The Johns Hopkins University Center for the Social Organization of Schools. Student Team Learning has as its basis the idea that when students are placed on learning teams, much the same as athletic teams, each student knows that a group of peers support his or her academic efforts. In order for the team to be successful, all team members must do their best. Three techniques, Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD), Teams Games Tournaments (TGT), and Jigsaw, have been extensively researched and found to significantly increase student learning. The research has demonstrated that teams of heterogeneous achievement, gender, and ethnic composition can be successfully transferred from the playing field to the classroom (Slavin, 1986).

In all of the Student Team Learning techniques, students are assigned to four- or five-member heterogeneous learning teams that stay together for five to six weeks or for the duration of a unit of study. The team is a microcosm of the class. Each week the teacher introduces new material in a lecture or some other method of presentation. The team members then study the presented materials in their teams, making sure all team members understand the materials. A quiz on the material follows the team practice session in STAD and Jigsaw. If TGT is used, the students show their individual mastery in weekly academic tournament games.

Individual improvement scores form the basis for STAD and Jigsaw scoring and determine points contributed to the team score. Each student is assigned an individual base score. The student then tries to improve the score on each quiz; the discrepancy or gain between the base score and each subsequent quiz score constitutes the number of points the individual contributes to a team score. Students try to exceed their own past records; competition is with self. In TGT, students compete in tournaments with members of other teams who are comparable in past performance. Equality of competition and the provision for all students to contribute maximum points to their team’s score are important components of TGT. Both STAD and TGT provide for public recognition of the highest scoring teams through bulletin board postings or class newsletters, for example.

Critics of competition in the classroom have questioned the tournament component of TGT. But there is a difference in the type of competition in a traditionally structured classroom and one structured for team learning. The philosophy regarding competition upon which the TGT technique is based is reflected by a team of Johns Hopkins University researchers in their statement:

In other words, the competition in TGT differs in that it is carefully set up to be fair.

Student Team Learning strategies have compiled an enviable record of research which documents positive contributions to academic achievement. In 40 studies of Student Team Learning methods, 33 studies found students in Student Team Learning classes gained more in achievement than did students in traditional classes studying the same objectives (Slavin, 1988).

The literature about the cooperative nature of Indian children presents enough evidence to conclude that practitioners ought to consider classroom organizational structures which promote cooperative learning activities. It should be noted, however, that the relationship between cooperation/competition and achievement for Indian children needs further investigation. While several studies have been conducted with racially mixed groups of students (Black, white and Hispanic), the effects of specific techniques or strategies (such as Student Team Learning), on achievement and interaction outcomes of Indian children have apparently not been researched and reported to any great extent. There is, therefore, a need to examine practice, and document in an empirical manner the successful strategies which are culturally congruent and achievement oriented.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Brewer, A. (1971). On Indian education. Integrateducation, 15, 21-23.

Brown, A. (1979). The cross-over effect: A legitimate issue in Indian education? In Multicultural education and the American Indian (pp. 93-113). Los Angeles, CA: American Indian Studies Center, University of California.

Brown, A. (1980). Cherokee culture and school achievement. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 4, 55-74.

Cazden, C. (1982). Four comments. In P. Gilmore and A. Glatthokom (Eds.) Children in and out of school. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Cooper, L., Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Wilderson, F. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 243-252.

DeVries, D.L., Edwards, K.J., & Slavin, R.E. (1978). Biracial learning teams and race relations in the classroom: Four field experiments on Teams-Games-Toumaments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 356-362.

DeVries, D.L., & Slavin, R.E. (1978). Teams-Games-Toumaments (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 28-38.

Dumont, R.V., Jr. (1972). Learning English and how to be silent: Studies in Sioux and Cherokee classrooms. In C.B. Cazden, V.P. John, and D. Hymes (Eds.) Functions of Language in the Classroom (pp. 344-369). New York, NY. Teachers College Press.

Dumont, R.V., & Wax, M.L. (1969). Cherokee school society and the intercultural classroom. Human Organization, 28, 217-226.

Erickson, F. & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.) Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. New York, NY Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gonzales, A. (1979). Classroom cooperation and ethnic balance. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.

Heath, S.B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In G. Spindler (Ed.) Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York, NY. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

John, V.P. (1972). Styles of learning-styles of teaching: Reflections on the education of Navajo children. In C. Cazden et al. (Eds.) Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 341-343). New York, NY. Teachers College Press.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70.

Leighton, D., & Kluckhohn, C. (1948). Children of the people. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lockhart, B. (1978). Cultural conflict: The Indian child in the non-Indian classroom. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center.

Longstreet, E. (1978). Aspects of ethnicity. New York, NY. Teachers College Press.

Mohatt, G. & Erickson, F. (1981). Cultural differences in teaching styles in an Odawa school: A sociolinguistic approach. In H.T. Trueba, G.P. Guthrie, & K.H. Au (Eds.) Culture and the bilingual classroom (pp. 105-138). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture. New York, NY. Longman.

Slavin, R.E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47, 52-54.

Slavin, R.E. (1988). Student team learning: An overview and practical guide (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University.

Slavin, R.E. (1979). Effects of biracial learning teams on cross-racial friendships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 381-387.

Slavin, R.E. (1977). How student learning teams can integrate the desegregated classroom. Integrateducation, 15, 56-58.

Slavin, R.E., Hollifield, J., Carter, R., Leavy, M., Thomas, H., & Lewis, J. (1981). Student team learning workshop leader’s manual. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University.

Slavin, R.E. & Oickle, E. (1981). Effects of learning teams on student achievement and race relations: Treatment by race interactions. Sociology of Education, 54, 174-180.

Van Ness, H. (198 1). Social control and social organization in an Alaskan Athabaskan classroom: A microethnography of ‘Getting Ready’ for reading. In H.T. Trueba et al. (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom (pp. 120-138). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Wax, M.L. (1971). Indian Americans: Unity and diversity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ziegler, S. (1980). The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship Additional evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto

.