ERIC Identifier: ED385424 Publication Date: 1995-09-00
Author: Bordeaux, Roger Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV.
Assessment for American Indian and Alaska Native Learners. ERIC
This Digest examines the use of standardized, nationally normed testing in
assessing the progress of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students. It
describes studies that have shown the inadequacies of these assessment methods
as well as theories that attempted to explain the poor test results of the AI/AN
population. The Digest then describes alternatives to standardized
testing--particularly performance-based assessment--recommended by Native and
non-Native educators and researchers.
CRITICISM OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT MEASURES
For years, various
researchers have criticized the overuse of standardized nationally normed tests
to assess learner and school success (Guerin & Maier, 1983; Shepard, 1989;
Sperling, 1994). The problems with using such testing are compounded for AI/AN
learners by the common disregard for the diversity of languages and cultures
among Native learners from more than 500 tribes, clans, and villages.
Chrisjohn and Lanigan (n.d.) recently objected to five major characteristics
of the research using intelligence test scores of North American Indians:
Pan-Indianism (the tendency to assign common traits to all Native groups), small
sample sizes, use of inappropriate instruments, lack of fundamental psychometric
research, and lack of theory. Williams and Gross (1990) evaluated the strengths
and weaknesses of six commercially developed tests designed to measure various
levels of oral and listening proficiency. Their final analysis recommended
limiting the use of commercial instruments in assessing Yupik Eskimo students in
western Alaska. Cantrall, Pete, and Fields (1990), in a program evaluation
study, concluded that the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) was
inappropriate for Navajo learners. Nichols (1991) reviewed the education
literature and summarized findings from the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force
hearings held across the country in the early 1990s. He concluded that public
school reliance on standardized testing may hurt Native Americans, and reported
on indicators that some educators have found more useful, such as skill mastery,
student portfolios, and attitudinal measures.
Ever since IQ and other standardized testing gained popularity, mainstream
observers have theorized reasons for the poor test results of some groups. These
theories tended to look only for deficiencies in the people being tested and not
for deficiencies in the tests themselves. For example, the IQ deficit theory
held that students from minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds do poorly
because they lack intelligence due to genetic deficiencies. However, Villegas
(1991) cites research that shows the failure of IQ tests to measure important
features of intelligence; the unreliability of intelligence testing due to test
administration factors; and the inconclusiveness of basic assumptions about IQ
and its inheritability.
Another theory suggests that minority students' difficulties are
sociocultural rather than genetic in origin. Critics of this cultural deficit
theory point out that differences do not necessarily represent deficiencies in
the upbringing of minority children. Villegas recommends that teachers respect
the learning capability of all students and thus maintain high expectations for
all children, regardless of background.
ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING
White-Man-Runs-Him, as for all youth, games were real-life
situations in the miniature that taught important cultural values.
His youth was filled with play designed to educate and prepare him
to fulfill his future role as an adult Crow warrior. In the Crow
way it seemed everyone was a teacher, including his father,
grandfathers, uncles, and a variety of interested educators.
(Harcey & Croone, 1993, p. 35)
Before the European conquest of the Americas, nearly all Native peoples used
performance-based assessment--as suggested above--to determine how each
individual could best contribute to the survival of the tribe, clan, or village.
As children grew up, adults observed them to determine their knowledge and skill
development. Children exhibited different levels of knowledge and skill in tasks
such as hunting, running, consensus building, healing, and spiritual leadership.
Children who demonstrated superior performance were the ones who later led
hunting parties, provided spiritual guidance, served as orators for the people,
and performed other necessary tasks for the group.
Today, such performance-based assessment is regaining wide acceptance as a
way to evaluate learner success. Educators have begun to question the uses of
standardized, norm-referenced tests (including achievement, aptitude, ability,
and intelligence tests). No longer are such tests so widely viewed as the best
(or only) way to measure learner success. The increased use of performance-based
assessment may help give AI/AN communities more legitimate evaluations of Native
learners' knowledge and skills.
Performance-based assessment directly examines student performance on
specific tasks that are important for life (Worthen, 1993). The federal
government defined performance standards as "concrete examples and explicit
definitions of what students have to know and be able to do to demonstrate that
such students are proficient in...skills and knowledge" (PL 103-227-Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, 1994, p. 129). Some forms of performance-based assessment
include student portfolios, student performances, teacher observations,
interviews self-assessments, work sampling, group assessments, and extended
Herman, Aschbacher, and Winters (1992) describe a variety of methods for
determining the success of learners. Other examples of successful programs are
available from the College Board; the National Center for Educational Outcomes;
the National Center for Research in Education, Standards, and Student Testing;
and the New Standards Project (Work in Progress, 1994).
The Indian education community has identified performance-based assessment as
necessary for school improvement. The final report of the White House Conference
on Indian Education (1992) contained several resolutions stating that culturally
appropriate alternative assessment instruments should be used by those educating
AI/AN students. The final report of the U.S. Department of Education's Indian
Nations At Risk Task Force (1991) recommended that school officials and
educators use appropriate evaluation and assessment information. In doing so,
they will improve instruction and help students explore the connection between
knowledge gained in school and success in life. In a report for the Bureau
Effective Schools Team (BEST), Bancroft (1989) supported the idea of using
varied measures to determine pupil progress and program performance in schools
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT FOR AI/AN LEARNERS
The development of performance-based assessment tools forces
schools to relate school curriculum to present and future real-life situations.
For AI/AN students, these real-life situations include use of Native languages
in various settings, understanding of value systems specifically related to
their culture, and mastery of traditional ceremonies.
The annual report (1993) on the BIA Office of Indian Education Programs
documents the progress of the school reform movement. Many individual schools
reported evidence of growing use of a variety of measures of student progress.
For example, Quileute Tribal School in Washington and Chuska Boarding School in
New Mexico now use portfolio assessment. Another example of the influence of
culture on performance-based assessment is the adoption by the Sisseton Wahpeton
School Board (1994) of the five Dakota values of OHODA (respect), OKCIYA
(generosity), TEHINDA (extreme tenderness), WICAKE (honesty) and WAUNSIDA
(compassion) as guiding values for Tiospa Zina Tribal School. They are now
proceeding to develop ways of demonstrating performance.
Standardized norm-referenced testing is no
longer universally accepted as the one best method for determining learner
success. Although some AI/AN students have shown academic success in this type
of testing, the continued exclusive use of norm-referenced assessments could
shortchange many AI/AN learners. One caution, however, for those involved in
developing alternative assessment measures: The effort to improve cultural
relevance of curriculum and assessment must be guided by all stakeholders,
including parents and other tribal community members.
The teaching and learning process for AI/AN learners will improve as
curriculum and assessment become more culturally relevant. Culturally relevant
performance-based assessment can help schools see language and culture as
integral parts of the total curriculum.
Bancroft, B. A. (1989). Beyond the single
standardized test score as an indicator of pupil and school progress: A review
of literature in support of the development of a monitoring and evaluation
system that utilizes varied measures to determine pupil progress and program
performance in BIA school. A paper presented to the National Bureau Effective
Schools Team, Okemos, MI.
Cantrall, B., Pete, L., & Fields, M. (1990). Navajo culture: A bridge to
the rest of the world. (A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 19, 1990). (ED 324 163)
Chrisjohn, R. D., & Lanigan, C. B. (date unknown). Research on Indian
intelligence testing: Review and prospects. Part of grant supported by
S.S.H.R.C.C. 851-20 to the first author.
Guerin, G. R., & Maier, A. S. (1983). Informal assessment in education.
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Harcey, D. W., & Croone, B. R. (1993). White-Man-Runs-Him. Evanston, IL:
Evanston Publishing, Inc.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide
to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications. (ED 352 389)
Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. (1991). Indian nations at risk: An
educational strategy for action (Final Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Nichols, R. (1991). Continuous evaluation of Native education programs of
American Indian and Alaska Native students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. (ED 343 760)
Office of Indian Education Programs. (1993). Annual report: FY 1992.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Indian Affairs. (ED 371 929)
PL 103-227-GOALS 2000: Educate America Act (1994). Washington DC: Government
Shepard, L. A. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational
Leadership, 46(7), 4-9.
Sisseton Wahpeton School Board. (1994). Tiospa Zina Tribal School-student
handbook. Agency Village, SD: Author.
Sperling, D. H. (1994). Assessment and reporting: A natural pair. Educational
Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and
beyond (Trends and Issues Paper No. 6). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teacher Education. (ED 339 698)
White House Conference on Indian Education (1992). White House conference on
Indian education, final report, executive summary. Washington, DC: Author. (ED
Williams, B., & Gross, K. (1990, February). English proficiency test and
classroom application. Paper presented at 16th Annual Alaska Bilingual
Multicultural Education Conference, Anchorage, AK. (ED 324 156)
Work in Progress. (1994, May). Content standards and assessment. A paper
offered to Goals 2000 participants. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Worthen, B. R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of
alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444-48.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.