Robert W. Rhodes

Numerous reports have indicated that the education of American Indians has been a dismal failure (i.e. Kennedy, 1969). These reports indicate low scores for American Indians on all measures of academic achievement (Bishop, 1988 and Ingrassi, 1987). The American Indian success rate in completing high school is far below the national average, the percentages entering colleges are far below averages for other ethnic minorities, and the school dropout rate far exceeds national averages (Platero, 1986 and TCI, 1987, Arizona, n.d.). In short, the schools are not doing well at educating American Indian students.

In Arizona, the problem is worse for educational systems on the reservations than it is for those educational systems off reservations. The dropout rate is even higher, the test scores are even lower (Rhodes, 1989).

Curriculum has received some criticism, particularly on the reservations, as being somewhat ineffective for American Indians (Reyhner, 1988 and Gilliland, 1988). However, to try to lay the blame for the failures on the curriculum is not realistic. Since the graduation skills on and off the reservation are similar and expectations of schools, teachers, and parents are similar, it is apparently generally assumed that there cannot be a great difference in on-reservation and off-reservation curricula. Since the graduation expectations are similar, the assumption is that materials, classroom expectations, and techniques must be similar. There may be some problem with part of these assumptions.

Most textbooks and curricula on the reservations are derived from the same approved lists as are used off reservations. The teaching techniques and methodologies are likewise the same or very similar. The apparent assumption is that the American Indian students are similar enough to the populations off the reservations to use the same teaching styles. Herein may lie a problem.

If the teaching techniques and methodologies are essentially the same on and off the reservations and the students are not learning as well in one environment as in another, then it would be appropriate to look at the learning style of the students. If they are similar, then similar methodologies should work, and we will have to look elsewhere for possible explanations as to why reservation American Indians do not do well in schools. If the learning styles are different, then we may need different teaching methodologies and styles to gain the same level of learning with reservation American Indians as with off reservation students.

Ross (1982) writes that American Indians are predominantly right brained, but provides no research base while Crisjohn and Peters (1986) feel that American Indians follow the norms for brain dominance.

This study attempted to determine the brain dominance and learning style of Navajo and Hopi students living and attending school on the reservations in Northern Arizona. Information was also gathered on Navajo and Hopi adults teaching in reservation schools and on Navajo and Hopi adults not teaching in the schools. These results are compared with each other and with norms for the general United States population.

Four hundred twenty-four subjects were tested for brain dominance and learning style. The breakdown of the subgroups is as follows.

The high school students were primarily from the Hopi High School at Kearns Canyon, Arizona, on the Hopi Reservation, and Chinle High School at Chinle, Arizona, on the Navajo Reservation. There has been some testing of students at Tuba City High School, Tuba City, Arizona, on the Navajo Reservation, with slightly differing results, but the testing instruments were not the same as those used for this study (Schwartz, 1989). The Hopi student sample represents about 25% of the Hopi high school students attending school on the Hopi Reservation. The Navajo student sample represents about 2% of the Navajo high school student population. The student samples contain those students present in the social studies classes of one teacher at the Hopi High School and one teacher at Chinle High School, plus a few other students who were accessible to the researcher.

The sample of Navajo and Hopi adults teaching in reservation schools came from 16 reservation schools. The Hopi sample represents about 50% of the Hopi teachers and teacher aides on the reservation, and the Navajo sample represents about 1.5% of the population. While the sample was not randomly chosen from the total population of Navajo and Hopi teachers and teacher aides, a wide geographical area and several schools are represented.

The sample of Hopi adults not working in schools came primarily from third mesa and included tribal and government workers as well as individuals not working and/or self-employed. The sample of Navajo adults not working in schools came primarily from Hard Rock, Dinnebito, Ganado, Dilcon and Window Rock. It includes tribal government workers from Window Rock and other adults who are salaried workers, unemployed or self-employed. These samples of adults not working in schools are a very small percentage of the populations.

In each subgroup, the sample tested was the sample available for testing. A truly random sample from the total population was not available. Subgroup sizes were adequate to assure statistical significance.

Two tests were administered. The first was The Hemispheric Mode Indicator (McCarthy, 1986), which was used to determine brain hemispheric dominance. This instrument provides a numerical score which can be interpreted to show whether the subject is 1) left brain dominant, 2) whole brain leaning left, 3) whole brain (neither side dominant), 4) whole brain leaning right, or 5) right brain dominant.

The second test administered was the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985). This test determines a learning style quadrant based on the subject's declared perceptual and processing methods. Through a series of forced answer rankings, a score is determined to place the subject's perceptual methods on a continuum with concrete experience at one extreme and abstract conceptualization at the other. The subject's processing methods are then ranked on a continuum from active experimentation to reflective observation. (See Figure 1)

These tests were selected because they are short and easy to administer, individually and in large groups, and they have reliability and validity factors of at least .70.

Both of the tests administered are self inventories and are subject to inaccurate reporting by the subjects, either intentionally or unintentionally. In both large group and individual administrations, subjects were told not to put their names on the tests unless they wanted to and to answer as honestly as they could. As a part of the process, the subjects were given their brain dominance and their learning style quadrant and explanations about each. Honesty or self reporting for the subjects tested appeared to be no more of a factor than it would have been for the norming population.

The results of brain dominance determination, learning style determination, and significance of the differences by pairs of subgroups are shown in Tables1-4. Designations of learning style quadrants are as shown by the numbers in Figure 1.

Tables I and 2 show the percentages of each subgroup which fall into each category of brain dominance or learning style. Tables 3 and 4 show the significances as determined by using chi square for each possible combinations of pairs of subsets. Significances are shown as p values.

TABLE 1
Brain Dominance

TABLE la

TABLE 2
Learning Style Quadrants

The numbers in Tables 1-4 indicate the actual percentages of subgroups which scored in the various categories and the significance of differences between subgroups or between subgroups and the norm, as derived from chi square.

TABLE 3
Significances between Groups

TABLE 4
Significance of Differences from Norms

Probability figures of .05 or smaller are deemed to be statistically significant. Those which are .01 or smaller are significant at an even higher level of confidence. The probability designation of "< .001" indicates more confidence (smaller) than .001.

It appears that the differences from the norms are significant for all Navajo and Hopi subgroups, with only the Anglo teachers being near the norms. Differences from the norm in learning style appeared significant for Navajo and Hopi students and Navajo adults working in the schools. Parents and Hopi adults working in the schools are not significantly different from the norms in learning style.

The between subgroup significances show that there are significant differences in dominance and quadrants between Navajo students and both Navajo and Anglo teachers. Hopi students are more like Hopi teachers, but not like their Anglo teachers. Navajo and Hopi students are different from each other to a significant degree only in learning style, not in dominance. Parents from the two tribes are not significantly different, nor are the Navajo and Hopi adults working in schools. Anglo school adults are significantly different from Hopi school adults in dominance and from Navajo school adults in learning style. Navajo parents are more like the students and less like the Navajo adults working in schools, particularly in learning style. Hopi parents differ significantly from students and Hopi school adults in dominance but not so much in learning style. Both Hopi and Navajo parents differ significantly from the Anglo school workers in dominance but are much more like them in learning style.

Looking at the placements for dominance and learning style, one sees that most Navajo students are right brained and quadrant I learners, with quadrant 4 next. Hopi students are right brained and quadrant I learners, with quadrant 2 next.

Navajo school teachers and aides tested as left brained and quadrant 2, with quadrant I second. Hopi teachers and aides tested as right brained and quadrant 1, with quadrant 2 next, much like the Hopi students.

Anglo teachers on the reservation are nearly equally distributed between right and left brained, and between quadrant 4 and quadrant 2.

Navajo parents appear as more right brained and quadrant I or 4. Hopi parents show as left brained with quadrant 2 predominating and quadrant 4 next.

The norms show a slight predominance of left brained people, though the figures are close, and quadrant 2 being the most common, with quadrant 4 next.

The American Indian population in all categories appears to have a much larger proportion of whole brained subjects than do either the Anglo population on the reservation or the norms.

The Anglos working on the reservation appear to be very close to the norms, while all populations of American Indians differ significantly from the norms either in brain dominance alone or in both dominance and learning style. This would imply that there is indeed a difference between American Indians living on reservations and the general public living off reservations.

It is generally agreed that schools are oriented around activities which are appropriate for left brained, quadrant 2 learners (McCarthy, 1987). Most Navajo and Hopi students tested as right brained and quadrant I or 4 learners. This would imply a mismatch between the teaching style of the school and the learning style of the students.

This mismatch is compounded on the Navajo Reservation by the Navajo adults working in the schools, who match the traditional schooling situation by being strong in left brain dominance and quadrant 2, but they are very unlike the students. The implication is that the Navajo teachers' instinctive way of learning and teaching is not the natural way for Navajo students to learn. The results could be miscommunications, misunderstandings, frustrations, and eventually dropouts. Navajo students would have more commonality with Anglo teachers, according to the results of this study, than with Navajo teachers.

Hopi students would appear to have much the same mismatch with schools as do Navajo students. Their situation is moderated, though, in that the role models, Hopi teachers and aides, are more similar to the students. The Anglo teachers are more unlike the Hopi students. Where Navajo students would likely have more communication problems and frustration with Navajo teachers and aides, the Hopi student would more likely have those problems with the Anglo teachers.

Based on the results of this study, Navajo parents would likely have fewer communications problems and frustrations with Navajo students than would Navajo teachers and aides. Hopi parents would tend to have more communications problems and frustrations with Hopi students than would Hopi teachers and aides. In other words, it is likely that Navajo students use parents and non-school adults as role models where Hopi students use Hopi adults working in schools more than adults from the home environment.

Schools are generally concerned with linear presentation of materials in a passive rather than active format and in "scope and sequence" as an important concept in curriculum development. In contrast, 62% of Navajo students and 64% of Hopi students are right brain dominant, either slightly or greatly, and would need a more global and intuitive approach to subject material. Also, 69% of Navajo students and 67% of Hopi students are indicated to take in new information through concrete experience (quadrants I and 4) rather than through abstract conceptualization. The schools, though, tend to utilize textbooks and lecture to develop abstract conceptualization. The concrete, wholistic, feeling aspects of curriculum are minimized. The results of this study would indicate that a modification of school curriculum would be appropriate for Navajo and Hopi students, not from the standpoint of content, but rather from the methodologies to be used and the awarenesses of the larger concepts being developed in the students' minds.

It is also interesting that 65% of Navajo students and 78% of Hopi students appear to process information passively, through reflective observation (quadrants 1 and 2). That would imply that they need increased incubation time for ideas to develop and to make new information correlate with previously known information. The "monkey see, monkey do" or "watch me and do like I do" procedures which are used in traditional schooling would be less appropriate than a process of "watch me and try it when you feel comfortable with it." The immediate determination of students' mastery of material may not be as appropriate as a determination at a later time as to the usefulness of the material in a context.

It is important to understand that this discussion centers around statistics and averages, not individuals. Even from the figures, the schools fit 20-40% of Navajo students very well. There are 20% of Navajo students who were left brained or whole brained leaning left. Another 18% were whole brained. There were 25% of Navajo students, who tested as quadrant 2 learners, who are probably comfortable with the traditional school procedures. These figures correspond closely with the Navajo dropout figures as reported in the Chinle Demographic Study (TCI, 1987). That study shows that there is approximately a 70% dropout rate among Navajo students, leaving 30% to be successful in schools.

The usefulness of any research is to shed new light on a problem and suggest ways of beginning to solve the problem. As indicated, the historic ineffectiveness of efforts toward the education of American Indian students, in this case specifically Navajo and Hopi children, has been a problem. The results of this study provide some possibilities for alleviating that problem.

First, it appears that the teaching style of the schools, as well as of the teachers in the schools, does not match the learning styles of the students. Schools are generally centered around left brained activities and focused on sequential, passive perceiving and processing (quadrant 2) (McCarthy, 1987). Since teachers tend to think, perceive and process in their dominant style, it would follow that they would tend to teach in that style, unless the style of the system predominates. Thus, teachers would tend to teach either in quadrant 2 or in their own predominant quadrant (this study indicated mostly quadrant 2 or quadrant 4).

Teachers' dominant style is not an insurmountable problem, though, since it is the central assumption of the 4-MAT teaching system that all learners can learn in all four quadrants and all teachers can teach in all four quadrants. It is simply easiest and most comfortable for each of us to learn in our dominant quadrant. If properly informed and motivated, we can each assume the characteristics of other quadrants and function quite well (McCarthy, 1986 and Kolb, 1983). In learning outside of our dominant quadrants, we learn to be tolerant of other emphases and effectively translate the material into what is more meaningful for us. In teaching, we can make an effort to adapt to the students' needs and develop techniques which allow them to learn better. We can emphasize what they feel is necessary for understanding, and slowly develop the transition techniques necessary for more full communication and understanding between the quadrants.

Those teachers who do not have the same dominance or quadrant as their students and thus may inadvertently miscommunicate and misunderstand can, with training and patience, develop good teaching methodologies which will allow their students to learn very well (Jenkins, 1988).

Once the teachers become more sensitive to the learning styles of the students, they can adapt the curriculum, particularly the implementation of the curriculum more to student needs. This may involve some change in the materials of the curriculum, but often is limited only to methodologies.

There have been some attempts to help teachers with appropriate teaching techniques for American Indian students (see Becktell, 1986; Deyhle, 1983; Kleinfeld, 1975; Marashio, 1982; Polacca, 1962; Rhodes, 1988; Swisher & Deyhle, 1987). Numerous other books and articles can give insight into American Indian thought processes and will assist in the development of appropriate teaching strategies (see Cattey, 1980; Feralla, 1984; Kleinfeld, 1973; Tafoya, 1982).

It is important to remember that students should not be taught in their dominant mode all of the time. In actual practice, we all come into contact with situations demanding the use of different learning styles. In order to survive in the real world outside of schools, we need to be able to use all quadrants. Therefore, a system should be developed for schools in which new material is initially presented in a student's dominant style, but presented and used again later in other styles.

Research should be conducted to corroborate and expand the results of this study, particularly utilizing students and adults from other areas of the reservations. Next, a sample group of American Indian and Anglo populations needs to be studied in an off reservation setting to determine if the norms are accurate for the area surrounding the reservations. Work needs to be done to determine if American Indians in urban settings score more similarly to on-reservation American Indians or to off-reservation Anglos. These additional studies would provide a much more reliable research base for efforts at improving curriculum and methodology.

More appropriate, though, will be the future development of appropriate teaching strategies based on research of learning styles and analysis of successful practices. It is likely that specific teaching strategies could be developed from the results of this study, based on utilizing the strong perceptual and processing styles of Navajo and Hopi students. An analysis of student progress before and after use of such strategies, or analysis of a test group against a control group would give information as to whether this was an appropriate path to pursue.

Specific teaching methodologies need to be developed, based on the research in learning style and brain dominance. Associated specific teaching strategies can then be developed, tried, and analyzed to determine their success. During this process, teachers should be trained to utilize both the information available about learning style and the new teaching strategies. They should also be trained to be "classroom researchers" so they can gather accurate data concerning the successes of the strategies they are using.

Additional work also needs to take place concerning the relative importance in a school setting of role models, appropriate curriculum, and the effects of linear-sequential teaching for quadrant I and 4 learners.

We may then be making a viable effort to effectively teach students of one culture utilizing a system and methodology developed for another culture. Great care and much research is required to determine where the processes interface appropriately, and where new methods can be developed.

Arizona Department of Education (n.d.). 1986-87 dropout rates. Phoenix, Arizona.

Becktell, M. (1986). The adult Navajo learner: Learning styles and corresponding teaching strategies. Unpublished manuscript, Goddard College.

Bishop, C.D. (1988). Statewide report for Arizona pupil achievement testing. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education.

Cattey, M. (1980). Cultural differences in processing information. Journal of American Indian Education, 20 (1), 23-29.

Chrisjohn, R. D. & Peters, M. (1986). The right-brained Indian: Fact or fiction? Journal of American Indian Education, 26 (2), 1-6.

Deyhle, D. (1983). Measuring success and failure in the classroom: Teacher communication about tests and the understandings of young Navajo students. Peabody Journal of Education, 61 (1), 67-85.

Feralla, J. (1984). The main stalk: A synthesis of Navajo philosophy. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Gilliland, H. (1988). Teaching the Native American. Billings, MT: Council for Indian Education.

Ingrassi, J.M. (1987). Arizona department of education teacher testing unit year-end report, 1987. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.

Jenkins, J.M. (1988). A learning style approach to effective instruction. In James W. Keefe, (Ed.), Profiling and utilizing learning style. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kennedy, E. (1969). Indian education: A national tragedy -A national challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Kleinfeld, J.S. (1973). Intellectual strengths in culturally different groups: An Eskimo illustration. Review of Educational Research, 43 (3), 341-359.

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

Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. (1985). Learning-style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Kolb, D. (n.d.). Learning-style inventory 1985 technical specifications. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Liebeman, M.G. (1986). The hemispheric mode indicator technical notes. Barrington, IL: Excel, Inc.

Marashio, P. (1982). Enlighten my mind . . . Journal of American Indian Education, 21 (2), 2-10.

McCarthy, B. (1986). Hemispheric mode indicator (HMI). Barrington, IL: Excel, Inc.

McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4-MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel, Inc.

Platero, P.R., Brandt, E.A., Witherspoon, G., & Wong, P. (1986). Navajo students at risk. Window Rock, AZ: Platero Paperwork, Inc.

Polacca, K. (1962). Ways of working with the Navahos who have not learned the White Man’s ways. Journal of American Indian Education, 2 (1), 6-16.

Reyhner, J. (Ed.) (1988). Teaching the Indian child: A bilingual/multicultural approach (2nd ed.). Billings, MT. Eastern Montana College.

Rhodes, R.W. (1988). Holistic teaching/learning for Native American students. Journal of American Indian Education, 27 (2), 21-29.

Rhodes, R.W. (1989). Standardized testing of minority students: Navajo and Hopi examples. Journal of Navajo Education, 6 (2), 29-35.

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

Schwartz, J. (1989). Brain dominance and learning styles of selected Navajo students. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.

Swisher, K. & Deyhle, D. (1987). Styles of learning and learning of styles. Educational conflicts for American Indian/Alaskan Native youth. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8 (4), 343-360.

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

TCI, Inc. and Educational Data Systems, Inc. (1987). Chinle area demographic study, 1987. Washington, DC & Campbell, CA: Author.