Volume 33 Number 1
October 1993

Lynn McAlpine and Donald M. Taylor

Aboriginal communities have been plagued with systemic school failure (More, 1986). One explanation has been that the kinds of interactions required of the aboriginal child in a classroom with a mainstream teacher are discontinuous with the kinds of interactions learned in the home and community culture (Erickson, 1987). A frequent response to this discontinuity in aboriginally controlled schools has been to place aboriginal teachers in classrooms, on the assumption that individuals from the same cultural community have the most intimate understanding of the values, customs, and language of the child, and are best able to create an appropriate learning environment. However, the effects on aboriginal teachers of being educated in culturally discontinuous classrooms themselves, both at university and grade school levels, may hinder such teachers from developing culturally based pedagogical practices. In order to limit the impact of this factor, and thereby gain a clearer picture of the ways in which aboriginal teachers might create a distinctly different classroom environment from mainstream teachers, this study drew from a pool of aboriginal teachers who have been trained as teachers through a community based program delivered in the home communities of the participants. (The program is a partnership between participating communities and the Office of Native and Northern Education, McGill University, see McAlpine, Cross, Whiteduck & Wolforth, 1990). The inquiry examined teacher preferences, that is, beliefs teachers have about teaching and learning that lead them to act in specific ways in constructing learning environments (Solas, 1992).

Three questions that were investigated in this study were 1) whether distinctive teaching preferences would be found between a large sample of aboriginal teachers and two populations of mainstream teachers; 2) whether differences in teaching preferences would be found across Cree, Inuit, and Mohawk teachers; and 3) whether the Canfield Instructional Styles (CIS) inventory was a valid tool for discriminating aboriginal teachers' instructional preferences.

The preparation of aboriginal teachers in culturally discontinuous university settings may hinder them from developing culturally based pedagogical practices (Lipka, 1991). In order to limit the impact of this factor, and thereby obtain a clearer picture of the ways in which the teaching preferences of aboriginal teachers from different cultural groups might be distinct from mainstream ones and from each other, this study drew from a pool of aboriginal teachers who have been trained in a field-based teacher education program. This field-based program uses an apprenticeship model where participants are placed in classrooms in their own communities while taking courses. Further, depending on the community, courses may actually be taught in the aboriginal language. Teachers have their own classrooms before completing their Bachelor of Arts degree in education, a process which can take 6-12 years.

The 45 participants in this study represented teachers from this program who were attending a summer school on campus. Attendance at the summer school was optional but encouraged by community administrators of the program. There were 13 Cree, 16 Inuit, and 16 Mohawk teachers; 9 of the 45 were male, distributed relatively equally across the three groups. The teachers represent a continuum along a number of factors, such as geographical isolation, language, and attendance at residential school. The Inuit teachers from Baffin and Keewatin in the North West Territories are geographically isolated, their communities accessible only by air. The Cree of northern Quebec, although isolated and largely dependent on air travel, have greater opportunity for access to the south, especially during the winter when ice roads are built. The Mohawk live in southern Quebec and their community road systems are linked to provincial highways.

The Cree and Inuit teachers are similar in that their own language has been, and still is, their principal language; whereas the Mohawk group includes those who only speak English, some who speak both, and only two who use Mohawk as their principal language. Most of the teachers had received the majority of their schooling in a mainstream language (English or French). The Mohawk tended to have more years of public schooling and post-secondary education than the other two groups. In regard to residential schooling, the Cree had experienced more years of residential school than either of the other two groups. The Cree and Inuit teachers tend to be in their early thirties; the Mohawk in their mid to late thirties. As for teaching experience, the Inuit had more teaching experience: eight years as opposed to two for the other groups. All of the Inuit teachers had only taught in Inuktittut. This was not the case for the other two groups; in fact, only two of the Cree teachers had taught in Cree, although Cree was perceived as their principal language. Less than half of the Cree teachers (40%) had had an aboriginal teacher as their co-operating teacher, whereas 75% of Inuit and 60% of Mohawk had had an aboriginal co-operating teacher.

In other words, this sample of teachers, representing three different cultural groups, varied along a continuum represented at one end by geographical isolation, extensive use of the aboriginal language, teaching in the aboriginal language, and fewer years of formal schooling (often via community schools). In the middle, there was less geographical isolation, extensive use of the aboriginal language outside but not inside the school, and similar years of formal schooling but often in residential schools away from family and community. The other end represented proximity to mainstream communities, more limited use of the aboriginal language in the community and school, and more years of formal community schooling.

Table 1
Instructional Scales on CIS

The Conditions category measures teacher preferences about the conditions under which students perform best. Conditions are represented by 8 scales: peer, organization, goal setting, competition, instructor, detail, independence, and authority. The Interest/Content category measures four preferences for curriculum content: numeric, qualitative, inanimate, and people. The Mode category measures preferences among four modes of instruction: listening and lecturing, reading, iconics, and direct experience.

The instructional scales can be analyzed individually, or summed to provide a typology, a synthesis of preferences. A final formulation provides a measure of influence: a belief (strong to weak) regarding the effect that instruction has on learning performance.

Also used as a basis for understanding teachers' instructional preferences was the Teaching Styles Instrument (TS) which the authors developed with the help of two colleagues. It is based on 1) a synthesis of ethnographic research in aboriginal classrooms and 2) personal experiences working with aboriginal teachers over a number of years. Since the items represent the possible perspectives of aboriginal teachers more directly than the CIS inventory, the TS instrument provides a mechanism for better understanding the value of the CIS when used with aboriginal teachers. In completing the instrument, individuals first provided the demographic data presented above. After this section, they were asked to rate statements, using a rating scale from 'not at all important' to 'very important', on a) how children learn best; b) how teachers teach best; c) the role of the school in developing aboriginal and mainstream languages; and d) ways of maintaining classroom control. Since 'very important' receives a score of sixteen and 'not at all important' a zero, the higher the score the stronger the belief. A mean score of 8.0 for the TS instrument indicates neither a high nor a low preference.

The following is the list of statements that teachers were asked to rate.

a) Strong knowledge of community ways of behaving and interacting.

b) In control of class and has authority over children.

c) Well-informed of what goes on in the community.

d) Well-informed of latest teaching methods.

a) Listening to the teacher.

b) Talking with other children.

c) Working alone at their desks with books and papers.

d) Speaking individually with the teacher.

e) Being called upon in class to answer questions.

a) Showing how.

b) Telling how.

c) Letting children learn from each other.

d) Encouraging children to work alone.

Role of the school in developing mainstream and aboriginal languages, (a distinction was made between oral and written language):

a) To be strong in the aboriginal language.

b) To be strong in another language.

c) To be strong in both the aboriginal and another language.

d) To read and write in the aboriginal language.

e) To read and write in another language.

f) To read and write in both the aboriginal and another language.

a) Showing you are "the boss."

b) Talking quietly to students throughout the day.

c) Using appropriate punishment where needed.

d) Setting up routines for children to follow.

e) Demanding punctuality.

The purpose of the study and the procedure were explained to respondents in one of their summer school classes. They were asked to complete the two instruments at home. Those who did not return them within a week were contacted. The results were first analyzed individually and those who had provided their names received an analysis of their teaching preferences. The results were then further analyzed to address the research questions.

The principal goal of this study was to analyze the teaching preferences of Cree, Inuit, and Mohawk teachers representing variations along a continuum represented by, for instance, degree of isolation from mainstream communities, degree of use of aboriginal language, and number of years of formal schooling. The results described below show that these teachers share preferences that are distinct from those of mainstream teachers. Furthermore, there are a number of unique features of each group that differentiate them from each other.

One intention of the study was to investigate whether distinctive preferences would surface between aboriginal and mainstream teachers. Thus, the means for the aboriginal teachers for each of the scales in the CIS were compared with the means of 64 mainstream teachers teaching aboriginal children in an earlier study of teacher preferences (Tamaoka, 1986), and the CIS norms. (As only the means were available from the two earlier studies, more stringent analyses were not possible). Of importance is that the teacher sample in the Tamaoka study was drawn from a school in north-western Canada with an aboriginal learner population whereas the CIS norms represent teachers from mainstream schools in the U.S. In the Tamaoka inquiry, which studied 64 mainstream teachers and a small sample (16) of aboriginal teachers whose cultural identity was not stated, there were significant differences found between the groups which will be discussed below.

In the present study, the aboriginal teachers showed a positive preference for peer (11.1) while CIS norms showed a negative preference (13.5) and a less positive preference for organization (11.2) than did CIS norms (9.5). In comparing the aboriginal teachers with the mainstream teachers in the Tamaoka study, mainstream teachers still showed a stronger preference for organization (9.7), and a negative preference for independence (14.7) as opposed to a more neutral preference (13.1) by the aboriginal teachers. (See Figure 1).

These findings appear to replicate the Tamaoka (1986) study in which mainstrearn teachers more strongly preferred to teach from logical and organized materials, and aboriginal teachers, although expressing neither a high nor a low preference, were more likely to encourage students to work independently. A preference for independence is defined by the authors of the CIS as a belief that valuable learning occurs when students work independently (sic) and have the opportunity to decide how to accomplish goals. Webster's dictionary defines independent as free from the influence or control of others; self-governing and self-reliant. The finding that aboriginal teachers are more likely to encourage students to work independently is somewhat surprising as it is often suggested in the literature on aboriginal learning/teaching styles (e.g., More, 1987; Roberts & Clifton, 1988) that interdependence or a collectivity-oriented perspective is more highly valued culturally. These findings, showing a greater preference for independence and a lesser preference for organization amongst aboriginal teachers, were replicated in this study and will be elaborated in a later section.

The fact that mainstream teachers teaching aboriginal children approximate some aboriginal teacher preferences may be understood as examples of the bi-directional nature of classroom interaction, the power of learners to influence instructors to modify their teaching beliefs.

All responses were flatter, showing less strong negative or positive preferences. Although direct experience was the most positive preference for aboriginal teachers (11.2), this was still a lower preference than the CIS norm (9.5).

There was a neutral preference shown by aboriginal teachers for lecturing (12.5) whereas CIS norms were negative (13.8); reading (13.5) was less negative than CIS norms (14.6). In comparing the aboriginal teachers with the mainstream teachers from the earlier study, the responses for the mainstream teachers were very similar to the aboriginal teachers (11.3 for direct experience and 13.4 reading), except for lecturing where mainstream teachers matched the norms (13.8). This provides further evidence of the ability of learners to influence instructors to modify their teaching preferences. (See Figure 3).

The second goal of the study was to investigate whether differences in preference would be found across Creel Inuit and Mohawk teachers. Frequency analyses were performed for each of the scales on both instruments using raw scores. The mean rating was calculated for each scale for each group. It should be noted that one of the limitations of the following comparisons is the small number of respondents in each of the groups.

As to how teachers teach best, there was a strong belief in letting children learn from each other (scores from 10.7 to 13.3), corroborating the response on the previous question. Telling how was neutral negative (Inuit - 7.4) to moderately positive (Mohawk - 9.9) to strong (Cree - 12.5) as a preference. In fact, the Cree are significantly higher (p<.01) than the Inuit on this measure. Showing how was moderately positive (Inuit - 10.2) to strong (Mohawk - 13.3 and Cree - 13.7), and encouraging children to learn alone was mildly positive (Inuit - 9.4 and Cree - 9. 1) to neutral negative (Mohawk - 7.2). (See Figure 5).

In terms of maintaining classroom control, there was a strong belief across groups regarding setting up routines for children to follow (scores from 12.3 to 13.7) and moderately positive to strong preferences for talking quietly to students throughout the day (10.4 to 11.5). The Inuit and Mohawk teachers were neutral (8.7) to moderately positive (10.0) to demanding punctuality while the Cree were strongly in favour (12.3). In fact, the Cree were significantly higher (p<.05) than the Inuit on this factor. As for using appropriate punishment, the Inuit were mildly negative (6.5) and the Mohawk moderately positive (10.0) and the Cree more strongly positive (11.4). For the statement "showing you are the boss," the Cree were strongly positive (13.3), the Mohawk neutral (8.1) and the Inuit moderately negative (6.6); the difference between the Cree and the other two groups was significant (p<.001). (See Figure 6).

Finally, when questioned about the role of aboriginal language and literacy in the school, the three groups responded moderately to strongly in favour on all statements (all scores above 10), although the Mohawk showed less preference for aboriginal literacy than the other two groups. This is likely because English is the first language of the majority of Mohawk teachers. (See Figure 7).

What is most striking about these data are the differences between the Cree respondents and the Mohawk and Inuit on a number of factors. Cree were stronger than the others in believing that children learn best by listening to the teacher, by students speaking individually with the teacher, and students being called upon to answer questions in class. Cree were also stronger than the others in believing that the teacher teaches best by telling how and that the teacher maintains control by demanding punctuality and showing he/she is "the boss." These factors were significantly different, in some cases, from the Inuit and, in other instances, both the Inuit and the Mohawk. The distinctive nature of these factors, representative of much mainstream classroom discourse (e.g., Mehan, 1979), may indicate the influence of these teachers' earlier social and educational histories. The Cree teachers had experienced more years of residential schooling than the other two groups, that is, more years away from their families and communities living in dormitories with mainstream caregivers and instructors. Consequently, they had fewer years of community schooling than either of the other groups. As well, only 40% of the Cree teachers had had an aboriginal teacher as their co-operating teacher, compared to 75% of the Inuit and 60% of the Mohawk. In other words, they had had more experience, both formally and informally, with mainstream teaching preferences (and less of aboriginal preferences) than either of the other two groups.

The fact that nearly half the Inuit teachers could be categorized as conceptual, whereas individuals from the other groups tended to represent a broader spectrum of styles, may be related to the importance given to reading and writing Inuktittut in the schools in which they teach. All of these teachers, in contrast to the Cree and Mohawk ones, have only taught in their own language, as Inuktittut is the only language of instruction until grade three in their schools. As well, literacy in syllabics is highly prized and a central focus both of the school curriculum and their teacher preparation program. Finally, the Inuit teachers have had considerably more teaching experience than the other two groups, and may have developed a strong belief in highly organized language-oriented activities through years of practice.

The low representation in the applied and independent/applied typologies is also notable. Applied is described as: prefers that students work on activities that have a clear relation to real-world experiences; likely to feel frustrated with a heavy reliance on lectures, the extensive use of language for information exchange; and instruction involving practicums and team labs will likely be emphasized. The descriptors for the independent/applied typology are: prefers that students work alone using materials related to real-world experience; less satisfaction working with interactive situations involving language-intensive activities; and prefers individual labs.

What is striking in the spread of these teacher typologies is the apparent preference for reading, writing, speaking activities, and the lack of preference for instructional activities that are related to real-world activities. This finding does not appear congruent with some of the literature on aboriginal student preferences (e.g., Rhodes, 1988; Wauters, Brugs, Black & Hocker, 1989; Wyatt, 1978) which suggests that experiential, concrete experience is preferred. Although recognizing that teacher and student preferences may not always be similar, this finding bears attention and will be explored in the next section.

The final intention of the study was to investigate the validity of the CIS as a tool for discriminating the instructional preferences of aboriginal teachers. This was done by comparing the correlations between the two instruments to see whether the factors in the CIS were conceptually linked to the factors in the TS, an instrument designed specifically to highlight preferences of aboriginal teachers. The statistical analysis of the scores of the aboriginal teachers showed the following positive and negative relationships at p<.01 level unless otherwise noted. (See Table 2).

Table 2

Significant Correlations Between CIS and TS Items*

Notes: p<.01 for all values except where * indicates p<.05

* Positive correlations indicate negative relationships and negative correlations indicate positive relationships because of reverse scaling on the two instruments.

Teaching best by letting children learn from each other (TS) was positively related with independence (CIS), with a belief in the strong influence of teaching on learning (CIS), and an overall belief (p<.05) in the influence of teaching on learning (CIS). The latter two factors were positively related with using routines to maintain control (TS). Using routines (TS) was negatively related (p<.05) with detail (CIS) as was teaching best (p<.05) by letting children learn from each other (TS). A preference for routines may mean that detail, what, when, and how, becomes redundant. Preference for routines may also explain why organization, emphasis on clearly organized course work, is less likely to be preferred by aboriginal teachers.

Teaching best by letting children learn from each other was also positively related (p<.05) with direct experience (CIS). Direct experience was negatively related with maintaining control by showing who is "the boss" (TS), by learning best (p<.05) by listening to the teacher (TS), and by quality of a teacher (p<.05) being in control of class and having authority over the student (TS). Here we see a positive relationship between teaching and experiential learning which was not evident in the independent analysis of the CIS inventory but which is consistent with what the literature reports on the learning styles of aboriginal students. Since the CIS instrument was designed for a mainstream population it may not be able to consistently represent the preferences of aboriginal teachers.

Encouraging children to work alone (TS) was positively related (p<.05) with independence (CIS) and goal setting (CIS) and negatively related (p<.05) with instructor (CIS). Independence (CIS) was negatively related with three items on the TS instrument: punishing; teaching best by showing how (p<.05); and learning best by being called upon (p<.05) Learning best by being called upon (TS) was negatively related to overall belief in the influence of teaching on learning (CIS).

When comparing the teaching preferences among this sample of aboriginal teachers, what is particularly striking about the statistically significant relationships is the way in which the factors are webbed into two separate but interrelated structures. (See Figure 9).

One web centers around teaching best by children learning from others, the other around independence, and these two factors are positively related. At first glance, these findings appear conflicting: independence being positively related with teaching best by encouraging students to work alone, teaching best by letting students learn from each other. However, these relationships become meaningful when independence is perceived not as working alone, that is, without interaction from any other person, but as working independently of the teacher. The teaching factors which these teachers feel influence learning are the support and structure (the routines) provided by the teacher in order for the students to work independently of the adult in the classroom. The environment thus created is a relatively risk-free context in which the learner is free to work with others of his/her own age to make sense of the world. In other words, preference for independence should not be interpreted as a preference for students to work without interaction with anyone, but rather as a preference for students to work with their peers with limited direct supervision from the teacher. Students are encouraged to talk to and learn from each other; the teacher's role is to provide routines for the students to complete the learning tasks amongst themselves.

How does this explanation fit what we know of aboriginal classrooms and aboriginal cultures? Three studies (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Eriks-Brophy, 1992; Lipka, 1991) describe aboriginal teachers who tended not to be overtly directive, either using non-verbal communication or suggestions. Teachers tended not to call on students, nor the students to call on the teacher: negative preference for calling on students (TS). Overt social control was not evident: preference for use of routines (TS). Social control was shared by students and teacher, and students had the option not to comply with procedural directives: goal setting (CIS). There was much peer interaction; for instance, students interrupted each other and chose who they attended to and when: teaching best by learning from each other (TS). Teachers made no attempt to dominate or control peer interactions: independence (CIS).

In other words, data from this study of teacher preferences match what is known from three ethnographic studies of aboriginal classrooms. The analysis also fits with what we know about a number of North American aboriginal cultures: children are expected to have more interactions with individuals their own age than with those who are older; economy of speech is valued; and individuals are not called upon publicly in order to respect face (More, 1987).

To sum up, the factors highlighted by the CIS were triangulated to information gathered through other means, i.e., ethnographic data and the Teaching Styles questionnaire. These data corroborate the usefulness of the basic factors in the inventory. That is, the CIS instrument proved reliable across time and location in representing some basic contrasts between mainstream and aboriginal teachers. Nevertheless, it appears that the instrument was not sensitive to some features of aboriginal teacher preference and would not have had explanatory power if used alone with this sample of teachers. In other words, it was not able to highlight distinctions across groups and some of the findings were not substantiated in the comparisons between instruments nor in the literature.

Increasing numbers of aboriginal peoples are teaching in aboriginal classrooms. The assumption is that aboriginal teachers teach in a way that is more congruent with the sociocultural teaching and learning patterns of the children in their classes. However, little has been reported on the ways in which these teachers' preferences are different from those of mainstream teachers and may, in fact, be different across aboriginal groups. This study investigated the teaching style preferences of Cree, Inuit, and Mohawk teachers. The results substantiate previous research that while mainstream and aboriginal teachers do share a number of teaching preferences, nevertheless, distinctions can be made between groups. This provides further evidence of the ways in which aboriginal teachers transform their classrooms away from mainstream patterns towards instructional preferences which may better meet the needs of their students (McAlpine & Crago, 1992).

The other finding and the major contribution of this study is to show that teaching style preferences may vary across groups. In order to control for the impact of culturally discontinuous classrooms on the teachers' preferences, individuals in the study were drawn from those trained through a community-based program and demographic data were gathered about previous schooling experiences. Attention to this factor proved important. First, the training and learning environment of the Inuit teachers has impacted on their instructional preferences for strong language-based activities and makes them distinct from the other two groups on this variable. Further, the ethnicity of the co-operating teacher and the nature of childhood schooling appear to be important variables in understanding the differences between the Cree and the other two groups. These findings highlight the importance of attending to local social and educational factors if one wishes to understand the preferences that guide teachers in their classroom practices.

This study was supported in part by a grant from the Foundation pour chercheurs et I'aide a la recherche (FCAR), Quebec.

The authors are indebted to Martha Crago and Alice Eriks-Brophy for their help in developing the Teaching Styles questionnaire used in this study. Special thanks to the teachers who participated in the study.

Canfield, A., & Canfield, J. (1976). Canfield Instructional Styles Inventory: Manual. Rochester, MI: Humanic Media.

Canfield, A., & Canfield, J. (1988). Canfield Instructional Styles Inventory. Western Psychological Services.

Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 335-356.

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: Educational Anthropology in Action. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 132-175.

Eriks-Brophy, A. (1992).The transformation of classroom discourse: An Inuit example. Unpublished M.A. thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

Lipka, J. (1991). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case of one Yu'pik Eskimo teacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22(3), 203-223.

Matthew, N. (1990). Jurisdiction and control in First Nations' school evaluation. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 17(2), 96-113.

McAlpine, L., Cross, E., Whiteduck, G., & Wolforth, G. (1990). Defining aboriginal teacher education programs through two pairs of eyes. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 17(20), 82-87.

McAlpine, L. & Crago, M. (1992). Traditional processes in contemporary contexts: Algonquin, Cree, Inuit, Mohawk and Naskapi Education in Quebec. Paper presented at the Mokakit conference, Sep. 30, Oct. 1-2, Vancouver, B.C.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

More, A. (1986). Quality of education of Native students in Canada. Selected papers from the Mokakit conference. Vancouver, BC: Mokakit Indian Education Research Association, UBC.

More, A. (1987). Native Indian learning styles: A review for researchers and teachers. Journal of American Indian Education, 27(l), 17-29.

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

Roberts, L., & Clifton, R. (1988). Inuit attitudes and cooperative learning. McGill Journal of Education, 23(3), 213-230.

Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 205-225.

Tarnaoka, K. (1986). Congruence between learning styles of Cree, Dene and Metis students and instructional styles of Native and Non-Native teachers. Paper presented at the Mokakit Conference, Oct. 17-19, Winnipeg, MA.

Wauters, J., Brugs, J., Black, D., & Hocker, P. (1989). Learning styles: A study of Alaska Native and Non-native students. Journal of American Indian Education, 28(Aug. special issue), 53-62.

Wyatt, J. (1978). Native involvement in curriculum development: The cultural broker. Interchange, 9(11), 1-17.