Effective Instructional Conversation in Native American Classrooms

Roland G. Tharp, University of California, Santa Cruz Lois A. Yamauchi, University of

Hawaii, Manoa.

National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning

1994

-------------------------------------

Overview

Instructional conversation (IC) is a dialog between teacher and learner in which prior

knowledge and experiences are woven together with new material to build higher

understanding. IC contrasts with the "recitation script" of traditional western schooling,

which is highly routinized and dominated by the teacher. IC varies in form in different

cultures, as do other discourse forms. Analysis of the research on the formal and informal

learning of American Indians lends insight into possible ways in which instructional

conversations in classrooms with these children can be modified to promote learning.

Effective instructional conversations for Native Americans are influenced by four basic

psychocultural factors identified by Tharp (1989): a) sociolinguistics; b) motivation; c)

cognition; and d) social organization. These factors are implicated in activity settings that

are more likely to produce effective ICs in Native American classrooms. "Ideal" activity

settings--those most likely to produce and maintain ICs for Native American students--are

proposed and illustrated.

-------------------------------------

American Indians and Contemporary Education

Native American Indians make up about 1% of the United States total school population

(Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, 1992). They represent 280 different tribal groups

(Butterfield, 1963; Stuck in the horizon, 1989). Tribes vary on a number of linguistic,

cultural, social, political, and economic dimensions. Considering such diversity, Brassard

and Szaraniec (1983) caution against overgeneralizing across groups. However, these

authors also point out that there are notable consistencies among Native peoples. Most live

on or near reservations (50-60%), and approximately 30% live in large urban communities

(Antell, 1980).1 Eighty-five to ninety percent are educated in public schools, with the

balance in schools operated privately by tribes under contract or by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, 1992).

As a group, American Indians are not succeeding in these schools. Indian students have

the highest dropout rates by 10th grade of any U.S. ethnic group. Further, 50% of

American Indians living on reservations have an elementary education or less. Only 3.5%

of male American Indians and 2.5% of the females attend college for four or more years

(Antell, 1980).

American Indians who do stay in school have a greater likelihood than students of other

ethnic groups to be labeled learning disabled or learning handicapped: 11% of Indian high

school students are in special education programs and only 53% of all Indian students were

considered not handicapped. This can be compared to the 9% of African Americans and

7% of Hispanics who are enrolled in special education programs, and the 66% of them

classified as not handicapped (Stuck in the horizon, 1989).

Achievement test scores also reflect scholastic problems. Test scores from the Arizona

Public Schools in 1987-1989 indicate that American Indians consistently score in the 20th

and 30th percentile ranges in reading and math and in the 30th and 40th percentiles in

language (Bishop, 1988). Although there is evidence that in nonverbal domains of

intelligence tests, American Indians perform at least as well as European Americans, this

equivalent intelligence is not employed in standard pedagogy and, consequently, not in

school achievement (Brassard & Szaraniec, 1983; Tharp, 1989).

Very recently, Indian educational leaders themselves have called for wide-ranging reforms

in educational policy and practices, including an incorporation into schooling of Indian

community language, knowledge, values, and teaching styles (e.g., Cahape & Howley,

1992; Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, 1992). How can these goals be reached?

Although many changes are needed, the central prescription for bringing the world of

children into the educational process is to place teaching squarely in dialogic processes

(Rogoff, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, 1991). It is in the spirit of these

intended reforms that we examine the conditions under which effective instructional

conversations are most likely to occur in American Indian classrooms.

-------------------------------------

The Instructional Conversation

The instructional conversation (IC) is a concept that encompasses certain macro- and

micro-processes in effective education. It is defined in part by contrast to the "recitation

script," an instructional process that has characterized North American schools for the last

century (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The recitation script consists mainly of teachers

asking questions in hope of eliciting certain predictable and "correct" answers from their

students (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). This kind of

instruction allows for little assistance in elaboration of ideas or in reaching higher levels of

understanding (Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969). The interactions are highly routinized and thus

restricted largely to decontextualized discrete skills, rote learning, reciting of facts, and

low-level cognition (Durkin, 1978-1979; Goodlad, 1984; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

Although recitation and recitation-like teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction) are

necessary minor components of teaching, conventional education overrelies on these

methods and neglects the kind of teaching that provides assistance to the learner (Tharp &

Gallimore, 1988).

By contrast, instructional conversation has been proposed as a generic term encompassing

central features of a more recent, and still evolving, conception of teaching methods that

attempt to go beyond recitation to challenge students and to propel them toward higher

planes of knowing. Among these methods of teaching are mediated learning, interpretative

discussion, guided practice, quality teaching, reciprocal teaching, and others. The

commonality among these methods is the instructional conversation, that is, discourse in

which teacher and students weave together spoken and written text with previous

understanding and experience.

Saunders, Goldenberg, and Hamann (1991) developed a working list of important elements

of the instructional conversation:

Briefly, a good instructional conversation appears, on the surface, as an excellent

discussion conducted by a teacher (or someone relatively more knowledgeable or skilled)

and a group of students (or individuals relatively less knowledgeable or skilled). The

discussion is interesting and engaging. It is about some idea or some concept that appears

to matter to the participants. It has coherent focus which, while it might shift as the

discussion evolves, remains discernible throughout. There is a high level of participation

without undue domination by any one individual, particularly the teacher. Students engage

in extended discussion with the teacher and among themselves, exploring ideas and thoughts

in depth. At the end of an IC, students (and, ideally, the teacher) have reached a new level

of understanding about whatever topics were under discussion. (p. 4)

While IC is a rare enough phenomenon in any classroom, it appears that teachers of

low-income, minority children (including Native Americans) do not often engage their

students in instructional conversations, perhaps because they believe these students need

drill, review, and redundancy of direct instruction even more than other students

(Goldenberg, & Gallimore 1991).

The success of IC in enabling students to participate in rational discourse parallels its

effectiveness in enhancing comprehension of the topics, themes, and contents under study,

and this is no less true for at risk students. IC is as scarce in Native American classrooms

as in any others, though the need for it may well be greater.

-------------------------------------

Cultural Patterns in the Instructional Conversation

One determinant of the patterns of discourse in the instructional conversation is the

culture(s) of the participants. The IC varies in pattern in different cultures, as do other

discourse forms. A pioneering effort to match IC morphology to cultural discourse patterns

was made by the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP), a language arts IC-based

program designed for native Hawaiian children. Although Hawaiian children in ordinary

schools were among the lowest scoring minorities in the nation on standardized

achievement tests, children in KEEP classrooms scored close to the national norms

(Gallimore, Tharp, Sloat, Klein, & Troy, 1982; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). A project was

also conducted by the KEEP team on the Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. Research at

this site indicated that although some Hawaiian IC features were of benefit to the Navajos,

it was necessary to tailor many classroom practices specifically to the Navajo culture

(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vogt , Jordan, & Tharp, 1992). That study made some

progress in the investigation of Indian discourse within the IC, and today there is a growing

body of literature which, if scattered, does accumulate to a coherent set of ideas about

Indian discourse, schooling, and the instructional conversation.

In this paper, our concern is with American Indian education, specifically 1) to suggest

discourse elements that are characteristic in non-educational settings for American Indians

and which are potentially adaptable to schools, and 2) to suggest school configurations and

processes that would make more likely the occurrence of appropriate, quality IC in Indian

classrooms.

-------------------------------------

Formal versus Informal Learning

What are the roots of the problems American Indians experience in the context of the

school and school learning? Many researchers believe that these problems stem from a

cultural misfit between the informal teaching and learning processes of nonwestern

minorities, such as the American Indians, and the formal teaching and learning of the

typical classroom (Jordan, 1984; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Scribner and Cole, 1973; Stearns,

1986; Tharp, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1987). Informal

education occurs in the course of everyday life, where the younger members of a culture

take part in adult activities according to their abilities. In informal learning settings, there

are no set activities for specifically training skills; however, social processes and

institutions are structured to permit acquisition of the basic skills, attitudes, values, and

customs that are deemed necessary for participation in the culture (Scribner & Cole, 1973).

Informal learning is often affectively tied to the person who is the "teacher," one who is

likely a family member or chosen mentor and is held in high regard. Informal education thus

fuses emotional and intellectual domains.

By contrast, school (formal) learning emphasizes universalistic values, criteria, and

standards of performance. Content is more important than who is teaching. Language in

school learning is the predominant mode by which information is conveyed and acquired,

whereas in informal education, observational learning (modeling) is emphasized (Scribner

& Cole, 1973). Classroom learning involves learning a skill or concept out of context--a

rule or concept is verbalized which may or may not be later tied to actual events and

objects in the students' real world. This contrasts with informal learning, in which the

referents to the teachings are familiar and thus easier to assimilate, as for example with the

telling of a tribal story or recounting an ancestral genealogy (Scribner & Cole, 1973). A

second example involves mathematics. Counting in everyday life refers to actual objects,

whereas mathematics in school is much more abstract, and manipulation of numbers and

symbols typically involves manipulation of abstract concepts, rather than concrete referents.

-------------------------------------

Culturally Compatible Education

Recent research has focused on the processes of teaching and learning in cultures whose

students have difficulty in school, with the goal of designing "culturally compatible"

education (e.g., Jordan & Tharp, 1979; Tharp, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). This

body of research indicates that changing the structure of the classroom interactions and

activities, so that they are more compatible with the home cultures of these children,

promotes classroom learning (Deyhle, 1983; Jordan, 1985; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Stearns,

1986; Tharp, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vogt et al., 1987). In essence, these

researchers attempt to bridge the gap between experience with informal learning in natal

cultures and the formal school learning that dominates western classrooms. This is

accomplished through innovations in the structure and content of classroom conversations

(both teacher-student and student-student), so that they become two-way interactions: less

teacher dominated, but including more teacher assistance, with much more relevance to the

children's background experiences, both cultural and individual.

The instructional conversation varies in form across the informal learning settings of

different cultures. Analysis of the research on the formal and informal learning of American

Indians lends insight into possible ways in which the instructional conversations in

classrooms with these children could be modified to promote learning. For our present

purposes, we may examine the literature that describes features of discourse that appear to

be implicated in effective ICs for Native Indians and then the literature that offers ideas for

how IC likelihood may be maximized. Research indicates that successful instructional

conversations are influenced by at least four basic psychocultural factors : (a)

sociolinguistics; (b) cognition; (c) motivation; and (d) social organization.

Sociolinguistics

There are many differences in the courtesies and conventions of conversation across

cultures. Such rules of verbal interaction can affect cultural compatibility of the instructional

conversations in the classroom. For example, cultures vary in the amount of "wait time"

which is allowed and expected. Wait time refers to both the amount of time teachers give

students to respond to a question and to the amount of time following a student's response

that a teacher waits before beginning to speak again (Rowe, 1974). Research on wait time

indicates that when teacher and student come to classroom interactions with different

expectations about wait time, student participation may be reduced, and teacher frustration

may ensue (White & Tharp, 1988).

For American Indians, the IC appears to be enhanced by extended wait time. Winterton

(1976) studied the effect of extended wait time on Pueblo Indian children's conversations

with a teacher. Results indicated that extended wait time, especially that which followed

students' responses, was significantly related to the length of students' responses and the

amount of student-to-student interaction. Verbal participation of low-verbal students also

increased, as did overall unsolicited but appropriate verbal responses (Winterton, 1976).

Rhodes (1989) speculated on why extended wait time is effective with American Indians:

The Native American student has to hear and understand the question in English,

sometimes translate that into his own language, determine what the question really means

and how it relates to his reality, develop an answer, sometimes translate that answer into

English, and finally determine if it is appropriate to volunteer that answer out loud to the

teacher [or] if the volunteering of the answer will make him less than a team member. That

is, will he, by volunteering the answer, either risk embarrassing himself with a wrong

answer or risk embarrassing others in the class by giving the correct answer when they did

not know it. (p.37)

Rhodes' explanation might also help us to understand differences between American Indian

and European-American children when faced with the traditional participation structure of

western school. A participation structure is the setting and structure in which students are

expected to participate, especially with reference to an adult (Watson-Gegeo & Boggs,

1977). Philips (1976, 1983) compared the participation structure of traditional western

classrooms to a switchboard, where the teacher acts like a switchboard operator, in the

sense that s/he regulates speaker change and designates who speaks to whom. Philips'

studies of the Warm Springs Indians indicated that the Indian participation structure for

conversations was different from this switchboard system. The Indian system did not rely

so heavily on nonverbal cues (e.g., gazes, body movement, and gestures) for turn-taking or

back-and-forth flow of conversations. Turn-taking by their system was self-directed:

Anyone who wanted to speak did so and for as long as they wanted. Thus, when students

came to school and encountered this foreign and complicated participation structure, they

reacted by withdrawing from classroom activities.

A study of Choctaw Indian and non-Indian fifth and sixth graders and their interactions

with non-Indian teachers further corroborated these findings (Greenbaum,1983). This study

indicated that during switchboard-type conversations, Indian children, when compared to

their non-Indian peers, a) spoke shorter utterances when they spoke individually; b) spoke

individually less frequently, as opposed to chorally (in unison); c) interrupted their teacher

more; and d) gazed at their peers more when the teacher was speaking (Greenbaum, 1983).

It is a consistent finding that American Indian students, with experience in school, become

progressively more quiet, withdrawn, and nonresponsive (Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1983).

Wax and his associates (Dumont, 1972; Dumont & Wax, 1969; Wax, Wax, & Dumont,

1964) describe the development of this phenomenon. Until the third grade, American Indian

children are reported to come to school interested, engaged, and oriented toward the

teacher. From fourth to sixth grade, this enthusiasm changes, and children pay more

attention to peers than to their teachers. Teachers describe these Indian children as quiet,

sullen, and withdrawn. In the seventh and eighth grades, silence pervades the classrooms of

American Indian children. There are reports that this pattern of silence and nonresponding

continues through high school and college (Lujan & Dobkins, 1978; Osborn, 1967). Wax

and his colleagues believe that silence and withdrawal of American Indian students reflects

the importance of peer groups and a combined effort that these children make against the

other culture--that is, the culture of the teacher, school, and white majority.

A study by Guilmet (1979) provides some insight into other possible reasons why

American Indian children become withdrawn and do not respond in class. Navajo and

European-American mothers were shown videotaped episodes of Navajo and

European-American children participating in a classroom. The mothers were told to rate the

children on a number of dimensions. Differences concerning one particular episode were

especially striking: the Navajo mothers, compared to the European-American mothers,

judged a European-American boy who was engaged in high levels of verbal and physical

activity as less desirable, competent, successful, intelligent, and competitive. The Navajo

mothers believed the high verbal and physical activity were negative attributes, whereas the

European-American mothers believed them to be positive. It is easy to imagine how

differences in parents' attitudes toward these kinds of behaviors would lead to the

differences in the behavior of children.

Classroom discourse is also patterned by the rhythm of the verbal interaction--the tempo

of presentation of materials, vocal inflections, and the body movements that accompany

these vocal patterns (Barnhardt, 1981; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Young, 1970). Erickson

(1980) observed that there is a certain rhythm that is established in oral tests given in

elementary school. Most often this rhythm was established by the teacher, so that the child

was expected to answer on a certain beat. When the children gave the correct answer on

the wrong beat, the teacher often misheard them and concluded that they did not know the

answer (Erickson, 1980).

Esmailka and Barnhardt (1981) videotaped instructional conversations between three

Athabaskan teachers and their elementary school students. They were particularly interested

in these teachers because they made up the only multi-teacher school in Alaska where the

teachers were Native Americans themselves. Additionally, all traditional measures of school

success indicated that this school was succeeding. Students were performing at or above

national standards on test scores; attendance was good; there were no major discipline

problems; students actively participated in class; and time-on-task standards were being met

(Esmailka & Barnhardt, 1981). From their analyses, the researchers concluded that the

Athabaskan teachers were adjusting the tempo of their interactions to their students.

Further, teachers allowed students to provide answers to questions in their own time slots.

That is, children were given opportunities to set their own pace and were not penalized for

calling out answers to questions that were out of synch with the teacher's own rhythm.

Analysis of nonverbal rhythm indicated that students were also the pace-setters for the

tempo of nonverbal movements between the students and the teacher. Often, this was

established by the teacher entering into the group sometime later, after students had already

begun the activity on their own:

The students are in essence doing reading activities without the teacher and they have a

tempo well established before she comes on the scene. When the teacher gets up from her

desk (about six feet away from the reading table) and begins to walk over to the students,

she does so in exactly the same tempo that the students are using. Her footsteps and arm

movements coincide with their beat. She sits down at the table, opens her book, puts her

hand toward the board and begins talking using the same rhythm that was established by the

children. There is no attempt on the teacher's part to change the pattern already established

by the students. It is a very smooth entrance into the group and there is no time or energy

lost in the transition. (Esmailka & Barnhardt, 1981, p. 11)

The researchers also observed that the Athabaskan teachers spent relatively less time

talking and more time listening. In fact, Esmailka and Barnhardt likened these teachers to

jazz band conductors, who provide direction and information to students only when

necessary, and who serve a more supportive or resource role. These teachers did not

appear to feel obliged to be constantly performing. "Like the jazz conductors, they often

melted right into their group" (Esmailka & Barnhardt, 1981, p. 15).

Although Esmailka and Barnhardt reported that the Athabaskan teachers spent less time

talking than has been reported of European-American teachers in the research literature,

their study does not tell us whether it was because they were Natives themselves that the

teachers were better at tuning in to the rhythm of their students. Erickson and Mohatt

(1982) compared the differences between the way an Odawa Indian teacher and a

European-American teacher interacted with Indian children at a reservation elementary

school. They reported that compared to her non-Indian colleague, the Odawa teacher

interacted with her students at a slower tempo. In addition, events in her classroom

generally took more time to unfold and to be completed. For example, the class assembled

slower in the morning, and the children were given more time to finish their work. The

Indian teacher also scheduled periods of free time for her students, which may have

allowed for the children to establish their own paces.

Another sociolinguistic variable that may influence the IC between teachers and American

Indian children is the volume at which teachers and and students speak to each other.

European-American teachers sometimes reprimand Indian students for speaking in tones they

consider to be too soft (Darnell, 1979). On the other hand, Indian children often consider

their non-Indian teachers to be mean because they speak loudly (Key, 1975). In fact, the

Cree word for white man is moniyaw, which can be translated as "loud-mouthed" and

implies aggressiveness (Darnell, 1979).

Cultures also differ in their expectations regarding speaker- and listener-directed gaze.

American Indian students may look down when a teacher speaks to them, a sign of

politeness in their culture, but which might be misinterpreted by the teacher as sullen or

evasive (Greenbaum, 1983; Hymes, 1971). In conversations, Indian speakers and listeners

use less gaze than European Americans (Darnell, 1979; Peterson, 1975; Philips, 1983). In

many Indian cultures, staring is considered impolite or aggressive (King, 1967).

-------------------------------------

Cognition

In schools everywhere, there is a strong tendency to emphasize verbal rather than visual

symbolic thinking and to approach situations analytically rather than holistically. It follows

that students whose cognitive tendencies do not match those school expectations will be less

academically successful (Tharp, 1989).

There is considerable evidence that American Indian children suffer such a mismatch,

since by-and-large they tend to think in holistic rather than analytic terms (John-Steiner &

Oesterreich, 1975; Jordan, Tharp, & Vogt, 1985; Rhodes, 1989; Tharp, 1991b; White,

Tharp, Jordan, & Vogt, 1989).2 Informal learning in the American Indian culture is

acquired in a holistic context.

Joseph Suina, a Pueblo Indian, recounts a personal example:

There was going to be a ceremony performed in our village that had not occurred in forty

years, and I wanted to participate . . . . I arose early the following morning to visit my

father, wanting to know what I needed to do in the ceremony . . . . My father greeted me,

but sensing my hurry, my distraction, told me to relax, to sit down . . . . He spoke of the

time when the ceremony had been performed last--the tribal members who had been

present, who was alive, who was in office, how the hunt was that year, how the harvest

had been that year . . . . "Do you remember your grandfather?' he asked me . . . . "He

used to carry you on his shoulders when you were young and he sang songs for you. It's

no wonder you have a good feel for songs." The time when the ceremony was last

performed had been just the beginning of the Second World War, when so many young

men were leaving the village, and perhaps that was what had precipitated its need. The

effect my father's speech had on me was the same sense that I get when I look at mountains

and boulders, a sense of eternity, a sense of connection between generations, events . . . .

What was absolutely crucial was the whole picture. After about two hours of recollections,

my father finally wended his way to the purpose of the dance, to some of the symbols that

were involved. And after a while longer, he spoke of what I would need for that evening in

terms of clothing and other paraphernalia. Finally, my father told me how I was to act and

what words I was to use. When it was over and done with, I no longer felt anxious . . . . I

could see myself again as just one little piece in a much larger picture. (Suina & Smolkin,

1991, p. 4)

This tendency toward holistic thought is undoubtedly influenced by the prominence of

observational learning in the informal activity settings of American Indians, when children

learn a task by observation or participation with adults or more capable peers (Vallo,

1988). This pattern of holism is associated with an unusual strength in visual-field aspects

of cognitive functioning--a strength repeatedly found in psychometric assessments of Native

Indian people (Berry, 1976; Collier, 1967; Kaulback, 1984; Lombardi, 1970).

Effective instructional conversation can accommodate differences in cognitive tendencies

by providing support when cognitive strategies are not as familiar to students and by

capitalizing on students' preferred ways of thinking. The instructional conversation with

American Indian students is most effective when this visual/holistic tendency is taken into

account. That is, even when teachers want to emphasize verbal/analytic skills, instruction

can be more successful when using a visual/holistic approach. Apparently simple

instructional changes can access cognitive skills, both as a part of and as an adjunct of the

IC itself.

For example, during ICs, concepts can be embedded holistically in students' previous

knowledge and experiences, particularly by tying concepts to the children's world outside

of school. The authors' own experiences with Navajo and Zuni Pueblo children suggest that

the incorporation of holistic and/or visual elements into ICs make these lessons more

interesting and engaging, and ultimately produce more expanded discourse. Navajo

third-grade children clearly preferred--and often demanded--to hear or read a story through

to the end before starting discussion, rather than discussing it in piecemeal successive

sections.

In our current research, visual aspects of the instructional conversation have been observed

that effectively engage students at the Zuni Middle School on the Zuni Pueblo reservation

in New Mexico. Yamauchi's field notes contain many instances. These students, children of

a village filled with artists and craftspeople, enjoy drawing pictures to accompany their

writing. Students drew maps of their village, which included the middle school and their

homes. Teacher-led ICs assisted them when necessary to master the concepts of scale and

direction. Students then used the maps to write verbal sequential directions for getting from

school to home. Teachers used the maps and directions to make home visits--tying the task

back to a larger context.

In school, the instructional conversation with American Indians is maximized by using

visual aids, by conducting demonstrations, and by writing many words on the board. All

children benefit from these strategies, but Native American students may require these forms

of visual assistance to help bridge their performance in the verbal domain, by enriching the

environment of the IC with static visual models of the processes being taught.

Even learning how to do conduct ICs can be accomplished better by Native American

teachers using holistic/visual enrichment of verbal instruction. In a previous project (see

Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), our Navajo research teacher began her training in conducting

instructional conversations in our usual segmented, verbal-instructed format, which had

been successful with scores of Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Caucasian teachers in Hawaii.

She firmly declined this method, preferring to sit close by the experienced teacher-trainer,

observing her for many weeks so that she could "see the whole thing working." When she

felt ready, she assumed the instruction of the entire system virtually all at once.

Motivation

Cultures differ in motivation toward school achievement in day to day tasks (state

motivation) and toward education in general (trait motivation). Ogbu (1982, 1991) has for

some time argued for a lack of trait motivation on the part of some cultural groups, among

them American Indians, who are "involuntary minorities" in that they did not join the

North American nation-states by choice. Although involuntary minorities might sometimes

express the importance of education, they do not really believe that education alone can

change their status in a society that discriminates against them (Ogbu, 1991). This leads to

a general distrust of the dominant group and of the schools they control (Ogbu, 1991).

Thus, Indian students may not come to school with the same expectations about school

success and failure as their non-Indian peers. We have argued elsewhere (Tharp, 1989;

Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) that however accurate this may be as a description of the

attitudes of children who have repeatedly failed in schools, grade after grade, it is not

characteristic of Native American children when they first arrive at school, nor is it

characteristic of those who do succeed through a modified, compatible schooling in which

success is available to them.

On the level of state motivation, however, American Indian students may not be motivated

to participate in instructional conversations at school, because they are not interested in the

materials they are supposed to be talking about. Often these materials are based on the

experiences of the majority culture and may not seem relevant to the children's lives. Some

Indian schools have attempted to introduce more culturally relevant materials in their

curriculum. For example, the Pacific Northwest Indian Reading and Language Development

Program was an attempt to develop a culturally relevant reading curriculum for Grades 1-3.

Teachers transcribed stories told by their Indian students and used them as reading texts. A

one-year posttest revealed gains in participants' oral language production and language

complexity as compared to a control group. Gains were especially dramatic in students who

had been identified on pretests as non-verbal. There was also evidence for an impact in the

home environment: Indian parents judged the culturally relevant books to be worthwhile

and useful and reported more language-related activities at home, which were developed

around the culturally relevant materials (Butterfield, 1983). We will discuss this point

further below, in the section on the desirability of contextualizing school instruction in

meaningful activity.

Students' state motivation depends, in part, on the amount of contingent reinforcement and

punishment that are used in the classroom. Hawaiian KEEP teachers needed to establish

strong affective ties with their students in addition to being able to keep order in the

classroom. This involved active use of contingent reinforcement and punishment (D'Amato,

1981).

When KEEP was implemented with Navajo children, it was not appropriate for teachers to

use punishment, contingent reward, or any other method to control student behavior (Jordan

et al., 1985). At home, American Indian children are allowed much autonomy over their

own behavior, especially with respect to learning. The deep sense of respect for childhood

autonomy is pervasive in Native Indian cultures (see, e.g., Macias, 1987, on the Papago).

Children expect non-interference from adults, and they expect to organize and decide about

their play activities and the execution of their duties; they are not accustomed to being

controlled, reprimanded, or punished.

A native Yupik teacher was asked if she minded that many of her first-grade students were

not (at least initially) paying attention to her demonstrations:

There are some kids watching, so these are the ones that know. These will be the ones who

will be [tutors, when the children are given the task]. I don't force the kids who aren't

ready to do things because the other kids know how to do it. They can work with them. I

can work with them one to one. Some kids have different learning styles and they can do it

by themselves or with a teacher . . . . That is why I didn't force the kids to watch me. It

['s] just part of learning. It turns them off, if we force kids to learn something . . . even in

real life. My mom would not force me . . . if I didn't want to. That is our culture. (Lipka,

1990, p. 23)

Vallo's (1988) examination of informal activity settings in the Pueblo Indian culture

indicated that most of the reinforcement children received from adults who were teaching

them was indirect. This was often in the form of adult members discussing the child's

progress in front of the child, without directly addressing the child. In other cases, the

child's work was shown to other adults and praised, again in front of the child, but the

praise was not directed to the child (Vallo, 1988). Papago teachers try to avoid direct

scolding as well. When a reprimand is necessary, "after giving many generalized warnings

to the group as a whole, a child is usually called aside and, without an audience of other

children to observe, given instruction on how to behave more properly" (Macias, 1987, p.

376). Such indicates that teachers might promote participation in the instructional

conversation with Indian students by reinforcing desired behaviors indirectly, rather than by

using direct praise. Phillips (1983) reported that for Warm Spring Indian children, teachers'

use of excited verbal praise merely overstimulated students, increasing their restlessness.

Social organization

The ways that classrooms and schools organize internally has profound effects on how

instructional conversations are conducted and, indeed, on whether they are conducted at all.

The social organization of a traditional American classroom is primarily whole-class

oriented, with a teacher who leads, instructs, and demonstrates to the whole group. Some

form of individual practice follows, and learning is assessed by individual achievement.

This system is ineffective for children of many cultures, who respond to this structure with

a low level of attention to teacher and coursework and a high level of attention-seeking

from peers (Gallimore, Boggs, & Jordan, 1974; MacDonald & Gallimore, 1971). Teachers

usually attribute this behavior to low academic motivation rather than to inappropriate

social structures (Tharp & Gallimore, 1976).

A study of the informal learning activity settings of Navajo and Hopi Indian children

indicated that adults assign children their chores, but leave the children to perform without

adult supervision, even in difficult and complex tasks: 7- or 8-year-olds are often assigned

to herd sheep alone or to care for an infant sibling. When children require assistance in

fulfilling these responsibilities, they often turn to peers or siblings. Most out-of-school

learning for these children takes place in small peer-oriented groups (Rhodes, 1989).

Warm Springs Indian students, unlike their European-American classmates, paid more

attention to their peers than to their teacher:

It is in [small peer groups] that Indian students become most fully involved in what they are

doing, concentrating completely on their work until it is completed, talking a great deal to

one another within the group, and competing, with explicit remarks to that effect, with the

other groups. Non-Indian students take more time "getting organized," disagree and argue

more regarding how to go about a task, rely more heavily on appointed chairs for

arbitration and decision-making, and show less interest, at least explicitly, in competing

with other groups from their class. (Philips, 1972, p. 379)

When small groups of these children worked with a teacher who asked them to provide an

individual verbal response, Indian children used shorter utterances, spoke softly--in a tone

that was often inaudible to someone just a few feet away, or often refused to speak at all

(Philips, 1972). King (1967) also reported that Indian students attending a Canadian

boarding school felt uncomfortable when they had to speak individually in class and were

the center of attention. Children preferred to engage in small group discussions,

characterized by choral speaking and discontinuous spurts. Conversations of this nature

were successful until attempts to encourage individual speaking were made; these efforts

produced silence and embarrassment. Leith & Slentz (1984) also report that Indian children

prosper more in small-group problem-solving structures, even when there were individual

assignments.

Although successful peer conversations can be developed by small peer work groups, it is

also important to understand how the teacher can engage children in successful instructional

conversations. The conduct of successful ICs depends heavily on appropriate social

organization. Barnhardt (1982) reported on several effective Indian classrooms. She

emphasized that the majority of each school day was spent in individual or small group

activities. The teachers characteristically moved among the students, kneeling or squatting

down on the floor for individual discussions that could be lengthy and quiet because the

other students were occupied with their own individual or small group tasks. To signal that

another part of the day was arriving, the teacher raised her voice, which indicated to the

larger group that it was once again part of the audience (Barnhardt, 1982).

Another social organization was developed by Lipka's (1990) native Yupik teacher, Mrs.

Yanez, who structured her first grade class lesson for demonstration and conversation, but

in a way that maximized peer assistance among students. First Mrs. Yanez demonstrated

how to tie smelts for drying. Many of the students did not appear to be paying attention to

her, and their attention, instead, was drawn to the tapeworms they were finding in the fish.

Many of them were so fascinated with the worms that they engaged Mrs. Yanez in a

conversation about the worms. Mrs. Yanez answered their questions and continued with her

original discussion about the tying of the smelts. When the demonstration was complete,

Mrs. Yanez chose a student who had been paying attention to her demonstration to tie a

smelt herself. While this student was performing the task, Mrs. Yanez commented on the

process. Other children attempted the tying, and Mrs. Yanez encouraged those who

succeeded to help the others.

Mrs. Yanez engaged the children in instructional conversations about the fish they were

learning to tie, but this discourse did not pertain to how one does the task, but rather to the

larger context of the task: the fish they have studied and the different methods of preparing

fish. As the children practiced tying their own fish, she talked to them individually or in

small groups about the importance of this task, "Good, now you can help your

grandmother" (Lipka,1990, p. 25). Once all students were able to do the task, the students

and Mrs. Yanez together wrote a story about this experience.

Other aspects of social organization may also come into play for certain tribes. For

example, Navajo children's cooperative work and conversation in small groups is higher

when boys and girls are in separate groups. This is parallel to the gender-divided activity

structure of Navajo adult life, an arrangement that is typical of hunting-gathering and

pastoral societies, in which assortative mating is ritualized into more ceremonial contact

periods (Jordan et al., 1985).

-------------------------------------

Activity Settings for Instructional Conversation in Native American Classrooms

The evidence reviewed above indicates that the nature of classroom activity settings

influences American Indian children's participation and engagement in these activities.

Native American Eskimo and Indian children seem most comfortable and more inclined to

participate--both in action and discourse--in activities that feature small student-directed

units. It appears likely, then, that the instructional conversation with American Indian

children will be most successful when embedded within such a social context.

Based on the literature discussed above, we can propose that the classroom in which the IC

is most likely to occur would include activity settings between the teacher and an individual

student or between teacher and small groups of students. The social organization should

allow for ad hoc ICs. The teacher might float among individual and small group activity

settings or might be stationary but approachable. The teacher would offer responsive

instructional conversation as needed, while allowing students opportunities to initiate and

terminate those conversations.

The pattern is similar to that described for the Odawa classroom reported by Erickson &

Mohatt (1982). It is also exemplified in the activity settings reported by Macias (1987) in

classrooms for Papagos, whose teachers typically worked with groups of three to six

children at planned projects or in less structured activities. "However, they consciously

help each child learn to accept a focus of adult attention and to become adept at

conversation by working with them in one-to-one relationships while other children are

involved in their own pursuits" (Macias, 1987, p. 376).

It is critical to consider the timing of verbal exchanges in the entire conversational

exchange, given Indian children's styles of wholism, observational learning, and the tendency

to "look, listen and think" until mastery of the whole is felt. Of course, an effective IC may

well include demonstration, use of non-verbal symbolism, and other aspects of productive

performance. In such an activity setting, verbal conversation might come later in the

sequence of instruction, after demonstration and perhaps some initial performance has

already occurred. On the other hand, when instructional goals are verbal/analytic skills,

such as explanations, narration, composition, and the like, the verbal conversation might

best come forward in the sequence.

Is there a best pattern of integration of conversation with observation and activity? This

remains among the most crucial questions for educational reform for Native Americans.

Rather than detracting from conversational opportunity, the inclusion of performance

activity is likely to facilitate conversation and verbal facility (Macias, 1987). The inclusion

of practical activity in lessons increases the understanding of verbal explanations, especially

for students of limited English proficiency (Ovando & Collier, 1985).

-------------------------------------

Contextualization , Productive Activity, and Instructional Conversation

Thus another feature of effective activity settings for instructional conversations is joint

productive activity: instructional activity that is given focus by actually producing

something--a dwelling, a work of art, planted corn, a performance, a science experiment, a

problem solved, or a plan made. During the process of production, groups will work most

efficiently, provide other members with the most intense and apt assistance, and engage in

the kind of symbolic and verbal exchanges that help learners to understand not only the task

but the culture of which the task is one expression. In addition, productive activity

contextualizes formal knowledge in the immediate experience and concerns of the learners.

Not only should there be adequate opportunity for cooperative work among groups of peers

in the classroom, but the jointness should also include the teacher working as a participant

in the activity, and the teacher here may and should be understood to include elders and

experts. In classrooms of Papago teachers and children, "the actual amount of talk may be

reduced during periods of activity, [but] there is great impetus from involvement of both

teacher and child in these activities to communicate clearly and perform with verbal skill"

(Macias, 1987,p. 373).

This description of the ideal school activity setting is congruent with the activity settings of

informal learning for Native Indians, which ordinarily occur within the context of family,

community, and productive activity. While decontextualization has been universally listed as

a primary characteristic of the transnational culture of the school (Jordan & Tharp, 1979),

this need not be so. Indeed, the re-contextualization of schooling may be discerned as a

major theme of contemporary school reform movements.

As an example of contextualization of curriculum, Grubis (1991) reported on an Eskimo

village school of the Point Hope region, which, though plagued with typical American

school problems, has managed to contextualize much of its curriculum in the community

life of its whaling and sealing village. A whaling boat was constructed in the school by

students and community members and became the context for instruction in basic skills. In

biology, a seal was dissected and the whale was the object of scientific study; and with

knowledge provided by elders, the social and cultural dynamics of whaling informed social

science in a unified K-12 curriculum strand.

Embedding abstract concepts in everyday, culturally meaningful contexts fosters pride,

confidence, and a stronger cultural identity. It unifies school and community in common

purpose. It simultaneously fosters the school goals of verbal and abstract knowledge and

cognition.

Contextualized instruction is a crucial aspect for education of all students (Tharp, 1989).

This position is anchored in theory as well as in common sense and in ethnographies of

informal learning. In sociocultural theory, internalization and learning and indeed

enculturation are most intensified when assisted performance occurs during productive

activity, particularly when accompanied by speech and other symbols that establish both the

utilities and the meanings of the new capacities. Furthermore, the nature of schooled or

scientific knowledge itself consists in the interweaving of schooled concepts with the

"everydayness" of experience--the interweaving of the conceptual with the practical, of the

problem-relevant with the problem to be solved (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

How is this interweaving to be accomplished at the micro level of interaction between

teacher and child? By adopting activity settings in the classroom that foster the IC, because

instructional conversations are the primary vehicles by which contextuality can be assured.

As teachers listen, respond, assist, and exchange ideas, contextuality is guaranteed by

bringing the mind, experience, and emotions of the child into the instructional transaction.

-------------------------------------

Notes

1 Urban or rural, poverty and unemployment rates of American Indians are among the

highest in the nation: 58% of men living on reservations are unemployed; 50% of the

reservation residents live at the national poverty level; 14% of Indians living on

reservations earn less than $2,500 a year (Stuck in the horizon, 1989).

2 This recent trend has replaced the cultural deficit perspective, in which minority children

are expected to be "brought up" to school expectations, with the cultural difference

perspective, which emphasizes the strengths of the cultures involved (Rogoff & Morelli,

1989; Tharp, 1989).

3 In holistic thought , the larger unit creates meaning for the individual pieces, whereas

analytic thought involves an unfolding of the larger meaning by the analysis of the

individual pieces (Tharp, 1994).

-------------------------------------

References

Antell, L. (1980). Indian education, problems in need of resolution. Denver: Education

Commission of the States.

Barnhardt, C. (1981). Tuning-in: Athabaskan teachers and Athabaskan students. In 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. (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style. New York: Sage-Halsted.

Bishop, C. (1988). Statewide report for Arizona pupil achievement testing. Phoenix: Arizona

Department of Education.

Brassard, M. R., & Szaraniec, L. (1983). Promoting early school achievement in American

Indian children. School Psychology International, 4, 91-100.

Butterfield, R. A. (1983). The development and use of culturally appropriate curriculum for

American Indian students. Peabody Journal of Education, 61, 50-66.

Cahape, P., & Howley, C. B. (Eds.) (1992). Indian nations at risk: Listening to the people.

Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural

Education and Small Schools.

Collier, J. (1967). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. New York:

Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

D'Amato, J. (1981). Power in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles.

Darnell, R. (1979). Reflections on Cree interactional etiquette: Educational implications

(Working Papers in Sociolinguistics No. 57). Austin, TX: Southwestern Educational

Development Laboratory.

Deyhle, D. (1983). Measuring success and failure in the classroom: Teacher communication

about tests and the understanding of young Navajo students. Peabody Journal of Education,

61, 67-85.

Dumont, R. V., Jr. (1972). Learning English and how to be silent: Studies of Sioux and

Cherokee classrooms. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of

language in the classroom (pp. 344-369). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dumont, R. V., Jr., & Wax, M. L. (1969). Cherokee school society and the intercultural

classroom. Human Organization, 28, 217-226.

Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension

instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

Erickson, F. (1980). Timing and context in everyday discourse: Implications for the study of

referential and social meaning (Working Papers in Sociolinguistics No. 67). Austin, TX:

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

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. (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Esmailka, W., & Barnhardt, C. (1981). The social organization of participation in three

Athabaskan cross-cultural classrooms. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Center for Cross

Cultural Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 571)

Gallimore, R., Boggs, J. W., & Jordan, C. (1974). Culture, behavior and education: A study

of Hawaiian-Americans. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gallimore, R., Tharp, R. G., Sloat, K., Klein, T., & Troy, M. E. (1982). Analysis of

reading achievement test results for the Kamehameha Early Education Project: 1972-1979

(Tech. Rep. No. 102). Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991, April). Teaching and learning in a new key: The

instructional conversation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Greenbaum, P. (1983). Nonverbal communications between American Indian children and

their teachers. Lawrence, KS: Native American Research Associates. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 239 804)

Greenbaum, P., & Greenbaum, S. (1983). Cultural differences, nonverbal regulation, and

classroom interaction: Sociolinguistic interference in American Indian education. Peabody

Journal of Education, 61, 16-33.

Grubis (1991, November). Education in indigenous communities. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago.

Guilmet, G. M. (1979). Maternal perceptions of urban Navajo and Caucasian children's

classroom behavior. Human Organization, 38, 87-91.

Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational

Research Journal, 6, 145-167.

Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, communicative competence, and the education of

disadvantaged children. In M. L. Wax, S. Diamond, & F. O. Hearing (Eds.),

Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 51-66). New York: Basic Books.

Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. (1992). Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy

for action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

John-Steiner, V. P., & Oesterreich, H. (1975). Learning styles among Pueblo children: Final

report to National Institute of Education. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, College

of Education.

Jordan, C. (1984). Cultural compatibility and the education of ethnic minority children.

Education Research Quarterly, 8, 59-71.

Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational

program.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.

Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1979). Culture and education. In A. J. Marsella, R. G. Tharp,

& T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives in cross-cultural psychology. New York: Academic.

Jordan, C., Tharp, R., & Vogt, L. (1985). Compatibility of classroom and culture: General

principles with Navajo and Hawaiian instances (Working Paper). Honolulu: Kamehameha

Schools/Bishop Estate, Center for the Development of Early Education.

Kaulback, B. (1984). Styles of learning among Native children: A review of the research.

Canadian Journal of Native Education, 11, 27-37.

Key, M. R. (1975). Paralanguage and kinesics: Nonverbal communication. Metuchen, NJ:

Scarecrow.

King, R. A. (1967). The school at Mopass: A problem of identity. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, & Winston.

Leith, S., & Slentz, K. (1984). Successful teaching strategies in selected Northern Manitoba

schools. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 12, 24-30.

Lipka, J. (1990). Integrating cultural form and content in one Yup'ik Eskimo classroom: A

case study. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 17, 18-32.

Lombardi, T. P. (1970). Psycholinguistic abilities of Papago Indian school children.

Exceptional Children, 36, 485-493.

Lujan, P. D., & Dobkins, D. (1978). Communicative reticence: Native Americans in the

college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communications

Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 601)

MacDonald, S., & Gallimore, R. (1971). Battle in the classroom. Scranton, PA: Intext.

Macias, J. (1987). The hidden curriculum of Papago teachers: American Indian strategies

for mitigating cultural discontinuity in early schooling. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler

(Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 363-380).

Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moll, L. C., & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology

and Education Quarterly, 18, 300-311.

Ogbu, J. U. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 13, 290-307.

Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Immigrant and involuntary minorities in comparative perspective. In M.

Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of

immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 3-33). New York: Garland.

Osborn, L. R. (1967). The Indian pupil in the high school speech class. The Speech Teacher,

16, 187-189.

Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1985). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in

multicultural contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Peterson, J. P. (1975). The teacher as learner: A year with the Choctaws. Journal of Applied

Communications Research, 1, 1-7.

Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs

children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.),

Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.

Philips, S. U. (1976). Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language

in Society, 5, 81-95.

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

Rhodes, R. W. (1989). Native American learning styles. Journal of Navajo Education, 7,

33-41.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeships of the mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Morelli, G. (1989). Perspectives on children's development from cultural

psychology. American Psychologist, 44, 343-348.

Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on

language, logic, and gate control. Part 1: Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 11, 81-97.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Hamann, J. (1991, April).Instructional conversations beget

instructional conversation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education.

Science, 182, 553-559.

Stearns, R. D. (1986). Using ethnography to link school and community in rural Yucatan.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17, 6-24.

Stuck in the horizon: A special report on the education of Native Americans (1989, April

2). Education Week, pp. 1-16.

Suina, J. H., & Smolkin, L. B. (1991, July). From natal culture to school culture to

dominant society culture: Supporting transitions for Pueblo Indian students. Paper

presented at the workshop on Continuities and discontinuities in the cognitive socialization

of minority children, Washington, DC.

Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and

learning in schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349-359.

Tharp, R. G. (1991, July). Intergroup differences among Native Americans in socialization

and child cognition: Native Hawaiians and Native Navajos. Paper presented at the

workshop on

Continuities and discontinuities in the cognitive socialization of minority children,

Washington,

DC.

Tharp, R. G. (1994). Intergroup differences among Native Americans in socialization and

child cognition: An ethnogenetic analysis. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking, (Eds.),

Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 87-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). The uses and limits of social reinforcement and

industriousness for learning to read (Tech. Rep. No. 60). Honolulu: Kamehameha

Schools/Bishop Estate, Kamehameha Early Education Program.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning, and

schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vallo, N. H. (1988). Traditional instructional strategies of Pueblo Indian parents: An

exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque.

Vogt, L. A., Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1992). Explaining school failure, producing

school success: Two cases. In:. Jacob, E. & Jordan, C., (Eds.). (1992) (pp. 53-66).

Minority education: Anthropological perspectives, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (Reprinted from

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 276-286.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Boggs, S. T. (1977). From verbal play to talk story: The role of

routines in speech events among Hawaiian children. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C.

Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 67-90). New York: Academic.

Wax, M. L., Wax, R. H., & Dumont, R. V., Jr. (1964). Formal education in an American

Indian community [Monograph] Social Problems, 11, 1-26.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

White, S., & Tharp, R. G. (1988, April). Questioning and wait-time: A cross-cultural

analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, New Orleans.

White, S., Tharp, R. G., Jordan, C., Vogt, L. (1989). Cultural patterns of cognition

reflected in the questioning styles of Anglo and Navajo teachers. In D. M. Topping, D. C.

Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international

conference on thinking (pp. 79-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winterton, W. A. (1976). The effect of extended wait-time on selected verbal response

characteristics of some Pueblo Indian children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Young, V. H. (1970). Family and childhood in a Southern Georgia community. American

Anthropologist, 72, 269-288.